Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.
In love, the problem is not who to love, but how to love. Love is an ability, a capacity in our minds that has to be systematically cultivated. Once the faculty of love has developed, we have the total freedom to love, and then any situation is a fertile ground for our love to grow. Man, irrespective of his belief or nationality, seeks love all around him. Yet only a rare few seem to discover an apparent satisfaction in personal relationships. Man helplessly waits for love to be given to him, to receive love. Alas! None ‘give’ love; all are anxiously waiting to ‘get’ love. All are always disappointed.
Love is of two distinct types. The ‘higher love’ is called prema bhakti, devotion; and the ‘lower love’ is known as sneha, affection. When the love is directed to a ‘higher’ object of love, it is called prema; when it is directed towards a ‘lower’ object of love, it is called sneha. Thus, we have prema bhakti towards parents, teachers, country, and knowledge, while we have sneha for our friends, brothers, sisters, dogs, cows, flowers, toys, and books. The emotion is the same in both the higher and lower kinds of love. But when we direct our love towards a higher, more inspiring ideal, our mind expands, our vision deepens and our efficiency multiplies. Then it is prema. When this prema is directed towards the Lord, the divine essence in man, it is called bhakti. When the same emotion of love goes towards the external objects of pleasure – things or beings, it slowly shells us into a prison of sorrows and excitements, pangs and sobs. Then love degrades itself to be of the lower type – sneha.
Rishis always repeat that higher love alone can help us overcome our sense of incompleteness and alienation. To ‘give’ love is, therefore, to love everyone without expecting any results, gains, and profits, but demanding of life your privilege to love all. True love is not a passive ‘taking’ but a dynamic ‘giving’. Love is its own reward when it is true and full, unconditional and joyful – love is afulfilment in itself. Very few realise this; none dares to live it in life. Only the special few, who have grown up a little in their inward vision, and evolved slightly in their spiritual growth, can feel this way and readily discover the heroism to love, to give love to all creatures. All are but Narayan in manifestation. What else then can we give to the world but love.
Some of us love only if we are loved in return. This is a commercial attitude, and an expression of our mental weakness. The Sun gives and demands nothing. Everywhere in nature, among animals and plants, the universal rhythm is to ‘give’ lovingly and not to ‘demand’ love from others.
To give love is true freedom; to demand love is pure slavery. Do not feel cheated if others do not give you love. The Lord Himself serves us all every moment, even when we do not love Him in return. Let us be godlike in our love for others – always and in all ways.
Q. What does the passage suggest about the concept of "higher love" (prema bhakti) as compared to "lower love" (sneha)?
Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.
In love, the problem is not who to love, but how to love. Love is an ability, a capacity in our minds that has to be systematically cultivated. Once the faculty of love has developed, we have the total freedom to love, and then any situation is a fertile ground for our love to grow. Man, irrespective of his belief or nationality, seeks love all around him. Yet only a rare few seem to discover an apparent satisfaction in personal relationships. Man helplessly waits for love to be given to him, to receive love. Alas! None ‘give’ love; all are anxiously waiting to ‘get’ love. All are always disappointed.
Love is of two distinct types. The ‘higher love’ is called prema bhakti, devotion; and the ‘lower love’ is known as sneha, affection. When the love is directed to a ‘higher’ object of love, it is called prema; when it is directed towards a ‘lower’ object of love, it is called sneha. Thus, we have prema bhakti towards parents, teachers, country, and knowledge, while we have sneha for our friends, brothers, sisters, dogs, cows, flowers, toys, and books. The emotion is the same in both the higher and lower kinds of love. But when we direct our love towards a higher, more inspiring ideal, our mind expands, our vision deepens and our efficiency multiplies. Then it is prema. When this prema is directed towards the Lord, the divine essence in man, it is called bhakti. When the same emotion of love goes towards the external objects of pleasure – things or beings, it slowly shells us into a prison of sorrows and excitements, pangs and sobs. Then love degrades itself to be of the lower type – sneha.
Rishis always repeat that higher love alone can help us overcome our sense of incompleteness and alienation. To ‘give’ love is, therefore, to love everyone without expecting any results, gains, and profits, but demanding of life your privilege to love all. True love is not a passive ‘taking’ but a dynamic ‘giving’. Love is its own reward when it is true and full, unconditional and joyful – love is afulfilment in itself. Very few realise this; none dares to live it in life. Only the special few, who have grown up a little in their inward vision, and evolved slightly in their spiritual growth, can feel this way and readily discover the heroism to love, to give love to all creatures. All are but Narayan in manifestation. What else then can we give to the world but love.
Some of us love only if we are loved in return. This is a commercial attitude, and an expression of our mental weakness. The Sun gives and demands nothing. Everywhere in nature, among animals and plants, the universal rhythm is to ‘give’ lovingly and not to ‘demand’ love from others.
To give love is true freedom; to demand love is pure slavery. Do not feel cheated if others do not give you love. The Lord Himself serves us all every moment, even when we do not love Him in return. Let us be godlike in our love for others – always and in all ways.
Q. According to the passage, what is the significance of giving love as opposed to demanding it?
Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.
In love, the problem is not who to love, but how to love. Love is an ability, a capacity in our minds that has to be systematically cultivated. Once the faculty of love has developed, we have the total freedom to love, and then any situation is a fertile ground for our love to grow. Man, irrespective of his belief or nationality, seeks love all around him. Yet only a rare few seem to discover an apparent satisfaction in personal relationships. Man helplessly waits for love to be given to him, to receive love. Alas! None ‘give’ love; all are anxiously waiting to ‘get’ love. All are always disappointed.
Love is of two distinct types. The ‘higher love’ is called prema bhakti, devotion; and the ‘lower love’ is known as sneha, affection. When the love is directed to a ‘higher’ object of love, it is called prema; when it is directed towards a ‘lower’ object of love, it is called sneha. Thus, we have prema bhakti towards parents, teachers, country, and knowledge, while we have sneha for our friends, brothers, sisters, dogs, cows, flowers, toys, and books. The emotion is the same in both the higher and lower kinds of love. But when we direct our love towards a higher, more inspiring ideal, our mind expands, our vision deepens and our efficiency multiplies. Then it is prema. When this prema is directed towards the Lord, the divine essence in man, it is called bhakti. When the same emotion of love goes towards the external objects of pleasure – things or beings, it slowly shells us into a prison of sorrows and excitements, pangs and sobs. Then love degrades itself to be of the lower type – sneha.
Rishis always repeat that higher love alone can help us overcome our sense of incompleteness and alienation. To ‘give’ love is, therefore, to love everyone without expecting any results, gains, and profits, but demanding of life your privilege to love all. True love is not a passive ‘taking’ but a dynamic ‘giving’. Love is its own reward when it is true and full, unconditional and joyful – love is afulfilment in itself. Very few realise this; none dares to live it in life. Only the special few, who have grown up a little in their inward vision, and evolved slightly in their spiritual growth, can feel this way and readily discover the heroism to love, to give love to all creatures. All are but Narayan in manifestation. What else then can we give to the world but love.
Some of us love only if we are loved in return. This is a commercial attitude, and an expression of our mental weakness. The Sun gives and demands nothing. Everywhere in nature, among animals and plants, the universal rhythm is to ‘give’ lovingly and not to ‘demand’ love from others.
To give love is true freedom; to demand love is pure slavery. Do not feel cheated if others do not give you love. The Lord Himself serves us all every moment, even when we do not love Him in return. Let us be godlike in our love for others – always and in all ways.
Q. Pick the opposite of "unconditional" as it appears in the passage:
Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.
In love, the problem is not who to love, but how to love. Love is an ability, a capacity in our minds that has to be systematically cultivated. Once the faculty of love has developed, we have the total freedom to love, and then any situation is a fertile ground for our love to grow. Man, irrespective of his belief or nationality, seeks love all around him. Yet only a rare few seem to discover an apparent satisfaction in personal relationships. Man helplessly waits for love to be given to him, to receive love. Alas! None ‘give’ love; all are anxiously waiting to ‘get’ love. All are always disappointed.
Love is of two distinct types. The ‘higher love’ is called prema bhakti, devotion; and the ‘lower love’ is known as sneha, affection. When the love is directed to a ‘higher’ object of love, it is called prema; when it is directed towards a ‘lower’ object of love, it is called sneha. Thus, we have prema bhakti towards parents, teachers, country, and knowledge, while we have sneha for our friends, brothers, sisters, dogs, cows, flowers, toys, and books. The emotion is the same in both the higher and lower kinds of love. But when we direct our love towards a higher, more inspiring ideal, our mind expands, our vision deepens and our efficiency multiplies. Then it is prema. When this prema is directed towards the Lord, the divine essence in man, it is called bhakti. When the same emotion of love goes towards the external objects of pleasure – things or beings, it slowly shells us into a prison of sorrows and excitements, pangs and sobs. Then love degrades itself to be of the lower type – sneha.
Rishis always repeat that higher love alone can help us overcome our sense of incompleteness and alienation. To ‘give’ love is, therefore, to love everyone without expecting any results, gains, and profits, but demanding of life your privilege to love all. True love is not a passive ‘taking’ but a dynamic ‘giving’. Love is its own reward when it is true and full, unconditional and joyful – love is afulfilment in itself. Very few realise this; none dares to live it in life. Only the special few, who have grown up a little in their inward vision, and evolved slightly in their spiritual growth, can feel this way and readily discover the heroism to love, to give love to all creatures. All are but Narayan in manifestation. What else then can we give to the world but love.
Some of us love only if we are loved in return. This is a commercial attitude, and an expression of our mental weakness. The Sun gives and demands nothing. Everywhere in nature, among animals and plants, the universal rhythm is to ‘give’ lovingly and not to ‘demand’ love from others.
To give love is true freedom; to demand love is pure slavery. Do not feel cheated if others do not give you love. The Lord Himself serves us all every moment, even when we do not love Him in return. Let us be godlike in our love for others – always and in all ways.
Q. What is the passage's main point addressing the idea of love and its importance in life?
Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.
In love, the problem is not who to love, but how to love. Love is an ability, a capacity in our minds that has to be systematically cultivated. Once the faculty of love has developed, we have the total freedom to love, and then any situation is a fertile ground for our love to grow. Man, irrespective of his belief or nationality, seeks love all around him. Yet only a rare few seem to discover an apparent satisfaction in personal relationships. Man helplessly waits for love to be given to him, to receive love. Alas! None ‘give’ love; all are anxiously waiting to ‘get’ love. All are always disappointed.
Love is of two distinct types. The ‘higher love’ is called prema bhakti, devotion; and the ‘lower love’ is known as sneha, affection. When the love is directed to a ‘higher’ object of love, it is called prema; when it is directed towards a ‘lower’ object of love, it is called sneha. Thus, we have prema bhakti towards parents, teachers, country, and knowledge, while we have sneha for our friends, brothers, sisters, dogs, cows, flowers, toys, and books. The emotion is the same in both the higher and lower kinds of love. But when we direct our love towards a higher, more inspiring ideal, our mind expands, our vision deepens and our efficiency multiplies. Then it is prema. When this prema is directed towards the Lord, the divine essence in man, it is called bhakti. When the same emotion of love goes towards the external objects of pleasure – things or beings, it slowly shells us into a prison of sorrows and excitements, pangs and sobs. Then love degrades itself to be of the lower type – sneha.
Rishis always repeat that higher love alone can help us overcome our sense of incompleteness and alienation. To ‘give’ love is, therefore, to love everyone without expecting any results, gains, and profits, but demanding of life your privilege to love all. True love is not a passive ‘taking’ but a dynamic ‘giving’. Love is its own reward when it is true and full, unconditional and joyful – love is afulfilment in itself. Very few realise this; none dares to live it in life. Only the special few, who have grown up a little in their inward vision, and evolved slightly in their spiritual growth, can feel this way and readily discover the heroism to love, to give love to all creatures. All are but Narayan in manifestation. What else then can we give to the world but love.
Some of us love only if we are loved in return. This is a commercial attitude, and an expression of our mental weakness. The Sun gives and demands nothing. Everywhere in nature, among animals and plants, the universal rhythm is to ‘give’ lovingly and not to ‘demand’ love from others.
To give love is true freedom; to demand love is pure slavery. Do not feel cheated if others do not give you love. The Lord Himself serves us all every moment, even when we do not love Him in return. Let us be godlike in our love for others – always and in all ways.
Q. What distinction can be drawn between prema bhakti and sneha in terms of the targets of their affection, according to the passage?
Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.
The Great Indian Startup Boom of the last decade, led by young entrepreneurs and catalysed by the government’s Startup India movement, created an environment of entrepreneurship in India. The Startup movement is not limited to metro cities, but has successfully captured the imagination of suburban and rural entrepreneurs. Today, there are more than one lakh startups recognised by the government, with about half of them coming from Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities. It has created a sense of agency among India’s youth, and a sense of freedom of being able to determine their own destiny.
The Startup movement is moving beyond the consumer Internet and e-commerce to genuine deep technology areas, such as space and remote sensing, artificial intelligence and robotics, biotech and pharma, electric vehicles, drones, defence, telecommunications, semiconductors, and many more. These real sectors go beyond digital marketplaces, seller discovery, and exchange of information, and impact many more sectors of the economy, which will bring deeper industrialisation in newer areas and more jobs. Deep tech entrepreneurship is also creating new avenues for science and technology (S&T) discoveries in the public sector labs to reach the market.
The successes at IIT Madras’s Research Park, which has incubated over 200 deep tech companies cumulatively valued at over ₹50,000 crore including those in space and aviation; the C-CAMP, which has in its portfolio seven deep biotech startups that have raised more than ₹550 crores; and the National Chemical Laboratory’s Venture Centre support to file and commercialise high-quality patents, are some of the evidence of how science in public-funded institutions can reach citizens and consumers, through startups.
The authors’ conversations with technology leaders in academia and industry have shown that faculty members find it easier to spin out their discoveries through startups founded by themselves or their alumni, instead of licensing or patent re-assignments. This evolution provides a unique opportunity for leveraging our deep historical investments in S&T in its public labs and institutions.
In a way, it can be said that deep tech startups are the main route through which India is taking technology risks, a crucial element of any country’s process to build new capabilities. Traditional risk-taking sectors such as government departments and legacy corporates seem frozen in comparison, perhaps due to the intense scrutiny of risky initiatives by their respective stakeholders, voters and public markets investors. Many mission-driven programs of the government have not yielded the expected innovation results, other than a few bright spots in sectors such as space and defence. India’s industrial investment in research and development (R&D) is also lamentably low in most sectors other than pharma.
The industry has mostly preferred investing in deep-tech startups and buying successful scaled technologies. This observation is corroborated by the number of deep tech startups being acquired by Indian legacy corporates, such as the Tatas buying Saankhya and Tejas Networks, Reliance acquiring Faradion and Hero Motors buying equity in Ather Motors etc.
Q. Which of the following, if true, undermines the claim that India is primarily taking technological risks through deep tech startups?
Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.
The Great Indian Startup Boom of the last decade, led by young entrepreneurs and catalysed by the government’s Startup India movement, created an environment of entrepreneurship in India. The Startup movement is not limited to metro cities, but has successfully captured the imagination of suburban and rural entrepreneurs. Today, there are more than one lakh startups recognised by the government, with about half of them coming from Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities. It has created a sense of agency among India’s youth, and a sense of freedom of being able to determine their own destiny.
The Startup movement is moving beyond the consumer Internet and e-commerce to genuine deep technology areas, such as space and remote sensing, artificial intelligence and robotics, biotech and pharma, electric vehicles, drones, defence, telecommunications, semiconductors, and many more. These real sectors go beyond digital marketplaces, seller discovery, and exchange of information, and impact many more sectors of the economy, which will bring deeper industrialisation in newer areas and more jobs. Deep tech entrepreneurship is also creating new avenues for science and technology (S&T) discoveries in the public sector labs to reach the market.
The successes at IIT Madras’s Research Park, which has incubated over 200 deep tech companies cumulatively valued at over ₹50,000 crore including those in space and aviation; the C-CAMP, which has in its portfolio seven deep biotech startups that have raised more than ₹550 crores; and the National Chemical Laboratory’s Venture Centre support to file and commercialise high-quality patents, are some of the evidence of how science in public-funded institutions can reach citizens and consumers, through startups.
The authors’ conversations with technology leaders in academia and industry have shown that faculty members find it easier to spin out their discoveries through startups founded by themselves or their alumni, instead of licensing or patent re-assignments. This evolution provides a unique opportunity for leveraging our deep historical investments in S&T in its public labs and institutions.
In a way, it can be said that deep tech startups are the main route through which India is taking technology risks, a crucial element of any country’s process to build new capabilities. Traditional risk-taking sectors such as government departments and legacy corporates seem frozen in comparison, perhaps due to the intense scrutiny of risky initiatives by their respective stakeholders, voters and public markets investors. Many mission-driven programs of the government have not yielded the expected innovation results, other than a few bright spots in sectors such as space and defence. India’s industrial investment in research and development (R&D) is also lamentably low in most sectors other than pharma.
The industry has mostly preferred investing in deep-tech startups and buying successful scaled technologies. This observation is corroborated by the number of deep tech startups being acquired by Indian legacy corporates, such as the Tatas buying Saankhya and Tejas Networks, Reliance acquiring Faradion and Hero Motors buying equity in Ather Motors etc.
Q. How does the author feel about deep tech startups' role in assuming technological risks?
Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.
The Great Indian Startup Boom of the last decade, led by young entrepreneurs and catalysed by the government’s Startup India movement, created an environment of entrepreneurship in India. The Startup movement is not limited to metro cities, but has successfully captured the imagination of suburban and rural entrepreneurs. Today, there are more than one lakh startups recognised by the government, with about half of them coming from Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities. It has created a sense of agency among India’s youth, and a sense of freedom of being able to determine their own destiny.
The Startup movement is moving beyond the consumer Internet and e-commerce to genuine deep technology areas, such as space and remote sensing, artificial intelligence and robotics, biotech and pharma, electric vehicles, drones, defence, telecommunications, semiconductors, and many more. These real sectors go beyond digital marketplaces, seller discovery, and exchange of information, and impact many more sectors of the economy, which will bring deeper industrialisation in newer areas and more jobs. Deep tech entrepreneurship is also creating new avenues for science and technology (S&T) discoveries in the public sector labs to reach the market.
The successes at IIT Madras’s Research Park, which has incubated over 200 deep tech companies cumulatively valued at over ₹50,000 crore including those in space and aviation; the C-CAMP, which has in its portfolio seven deep biotech startups that have raised more than ₹550 crores; and the National Chemical Laboratory’s Venture Centre support to file and commercialise high-quality patents, are some of the evidence of how science in public-funded institutions can reach citizens and consumers, through startups.
The authors’ conversations with technology leaders in academia and industry have shown that faculty members find it easier to spin out their discoveries through startups founded by themselves or their alumni, instead of licensing or patent re-assignments. This evolution provides a unique opportunity for leveraging our deep historical investments in S&T in its public labs and institutions.
In a way, it can be said that deep tech startups are the main route through which India is taking technology risks, a crucial element of any country’s process to build new capabilities. Traditional risk-taking sectors such as government departments and legacy corporates seem frozen in comparison, perhaps due to the intense scrutiny of risky initiatives by their respective stakeholders, voters and public markets investors. Many mission-driven programs of the government have not yielded the expected innovation results, other than a few bright spots in sectors such as space and defence. India’s industrial investment in research and development (R&D) is also lamentably low in most sectors other than pharma.
The industry has mostly preferred investing in deep-tech startups and buying successful scaled technologies. This observation is corroborated by the number of deep tech startups being acquired by Indian legacy corporates, such as the Tatas buying Saankhya and Tejas Networks, Reliance acquiring Faradion and Hero Motors buying equity in Ather Motors etc.
Q. What sparked the Great Indian Startup Boom of the past ten years, and what impact has it had on Indian entrepreneurship?
Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.
The Great Indian Startup Boom of the last decade, led by young entrepreneurs and catalysed by the government’s Startup India movement, created an environment of entrepreneurship in India. The Startup movement is not limited to metro cities, but has successfully captured the imagination of suburban and rural entrepreneurs. Today, there are more than one lakh startups recognised by the government, with about half of them coming from Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities. It has created a sense of agency among India’s youth, and a sense of freedom of being able to determine their own destiny.
The Startup movement is moving beyond the consumer Internet and e-commerce to genuine deep technology areas, such as space and remote sensing, artificial intelligence and robotics, biotech and pharma, electric vehicles, drones, defence, telecommunications, semiconductors, and many more. These real sectors go beyond digital marketplaces, seller discovery, and exchange of information, and impact many more sectors of the economy, which will bring deeper industrialisation in newer areas and more jobs. Deep tech entrepreneurship is also creating new avenues for science and technology (S&T) discoveries in the public sector labs to reach the market.
The successes at IIT Madras’s Research Park, which has incubated over 200 deep tech companies cumulatively valued at over ₹50,000 crore including those in space and aviation; the C-CAMP, which has in its portfolio seven deep biotech startups that have raised more than ₹550 crores; and the National Chemical Laboratory’s Venture Centre support to file and commercialise high-quality patents, are some of the evidence of how science in public-funded institutions can reach citizens and consumers, through startups.
The authors’ conversations with technology leaders in academia and industry have shown that faculty members find it easier to spin out their discoveries through startups founded by themselves or their alumni, instead of licensing or patent re-assignments. This evolution provides a unique opportunity for leveraging our deep historical investments in S&T in its public labs and institutions.
In a way, it can be said that deep tech startups are the main route through which India is taking technology risks, a crucial element of any country’s process to build new capabilities. Traditional risk-taking sectors such as government departments and legacy corporates seem frozen in comparison, perhaps due to the intense scrutiny of risky initiatives by their respective stakeholders, voters and public markets investors. Many mission-driven programs of the government have not yielded the expected innovation results, other than a few bright spots in sectors such as space and defence. India’s industrial investment in research and development (R&D) is also lamentably low in most sectors other than pharma.
The industry has mostly preferred investing in deep-tech startups and buying successful scaled technologies. This observation is corroborated by the number of deep tech startups being acquired by Indian legacy corporates, such as the Tatas buying Saankhya and Tejas Networks, Reliance acquiring Faradion and Hero Motors buying equity in Ather Motors etc.
Q. According to the passage, what has been a significant impact of the Indian Startup Boom in recent years?
Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.
The Great Indian Startup Boom of the last decade, led by young entrepreneurs and catalysed by the government’s Startup India movement, created an environment of entrepreneurship in India. The Startup movement is not limited to metro cities, but has successfully captured the imagination of suburban and rural entrepreneurs. Today, there are more than one lakh startups recognised by the government, with about half of them coming from Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities. It has created a sense of agency among India’s youth, and a sense of freedom of being able to determine their own destiny.
The Startup movement is moving beyond the consumer Internet and e-commerce to genuine deep technology areas, such as space and remote sensing, artificial intelligence and robotics, biotech and pharma, electric vehicles, drones, defence, telecommunications, semiconductors, and many more. These real sectors go beyond digital marketplaces, seller discovery, and exchange of information, and impact many more sectors of the economy, which will bring deeper industrialisation in newer areas and more jobs. Deep tech entrepreneurship is also creating new avenues for science and technology (S&T) discoveries in the public sector labs to reach the market.
The successes at IIT Madras’s Research Park, which has incubated over 200 deep tech companies cumulatively valued at over ₹50,000 crore including those in space and aviation; the C-CAMP, which has in its portfolio seven deep biotech startups that have raised more than ₹550 crores; and the National Chemical Laboratory’s Venture Centre support to file and commercialise high-quality patents, are some of the evidence of how science in public-funded institutions can reach citizens and consumers, through startups.
The authors’ conversations with technology leaders in academia and industry have shown that faculty members find it easier to spin out their discoveries through startups founded by themselves or their alumni, instead of licensing or patent re-assignments. This evolution provides a unique opportunity for leveraging our deep historical investments in S&T in its public labs and institutions.
In a way, it can be said that deep tech startups are the main route through which India is taking technology risks, a crucial element of any country’s process to build new capabilities. Traditional risk-taking sectors such as government departments and legacy corporates seem frozen in comparison, perhaps due to the intense scrutiny of risky initiatives by their respective stakeholders, voters and public markets investors. Many mission-driven programs of the government have not yielded the expected innovation results, other than a few bright spots in sectors such as space and defence. India’s industrial investment in research and development (R&D) is also lamentably low in most sectors other than pharma.
The industry has mostly preferred investing in deep-tech startups and buying successful scaled technologies. This observation is corroborated by the number of deep tech startups being acquired by Indian legacy corporates, such as the Tatas buying Saankhya and Tejas Networks, Reliance acquiring Faradion and Hero Motors buying equity in Ather Motors etc.
Q. What areas of technology are deep tech startups in India venturing into, as mentioned in the passage?
Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.
Today, Mechanicus’s diary is one of more than 2,100 in an Amsterdam collection held at the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, housed in the underground archives of a grand, doublewide mansion on the Golden Bend of the Herengracht Canal. The NIOD collection didn’t come together by accident. It was part of a concerted effort to collect, preserve and potentially publish the personal correspondence of ordinary citizens living through the occupation.
The idea to do so was hatched simultaneously by Loe de Jong, a Dutch Jewish journalist in exile in London, who worked for Radio Oranje, the broadcast station for the government in exile, and a group of local Dutch scholars led by the economics and social history professor, Nicolaas Wilhelmus Posthumus, who had already established a few archives of social movements.
More than a year before the war ended, De Jong had convinced the exiled Dutch Cabinet to establish a study centre of the occupation; it would open its doors as soon as the war ended. On 28 March 1944, Gerrit Bolkestein, the Dutch minister of education, arts and sciences, addressed the nation on Radio Oranje, in a speech that De Jong had written for him.
‘History cannot be written on the basis of official decisions and documents alone,’ said Bolkestein to his countrymen back home. ‘If our descendants are to understand fully what we as a nation have had to endure and overcome during these years, then what we really need are ordinary documents – a diary, letters.’
It was a relatively new notion that personal documents could illuminate history. Scholars of the early 20th century, above all, valued ‘objectivism’, a concept developed by the 19th-century German historian Leopold von Ranke, who sought to turn ‘historiography’ into a scientific discipline; this required ridding it of its moral dimension. Ranke argued that facts were central to objective history-writing and, to maintain a scholarly distance from facts, historians should eliminate personal bias and take a neutral attitude. But, between the two world wars, this notion of ‘objectivism’ was already losing its grip. Official documents kept by the Germans as part of their notoriously meticulous record-keeping project, for instance, were naturally subjective in their advancement of Nazi aims.
A more accurate way to differentiate between subjective and objective documentation would be through the prism of power. Sources considered ‘objective’ were typically associated with the dominant power elite; documents like diaries and letters, oral histories and first-hand witness accounts, by contrast, were often deemed suspect because they were tainted by experience.
Q. Which of the following statements tangentially supports the idea that private records like letters and diaries can shed light on historical events?
Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.
Today, Mechanicus’s diary is one of more than 2,100 in an Amsterdam collection held at the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, housed in the underground archives of a grand, doublewide mansion on the Golden Bend of the Herengracht Canal. The NIOD collection didn’t come together by accident. It was part of a concerted effort to collect, preserve and potentially publish the personal correspondence of ordinary citizens living through the occupation.
The idea to do so was hatched simultaneously by Loe de Jong, a Dutch Jewish journalist in exile in London, who worked for Radio Oranje, the broadcast station for the government in exile, and a group of local Dutch scholars led by the economics and social history professor, Nicolaas Wilhelmus Posthumus, who had already established a few archives of social movements.
More than a year before the war ended, De Jong had convinced the exiled Dutch Cabinet to establish a study centre of the occupation; it would open its doors as soon as the war ended. On 28 March 1944, Gerrit Bolkestein, the Dutch minister of education, arts and sciences, addressed the nation on Radio Oranje, in a speech that De Jong had written for him.
‘History cannot be written on the basis of official decisions and documents alone,’ said Bolkestein to his countrymen back home. ‘If our descendants are to understand fully what we as a nation have had to endure and overcome during these years, then what we really need are ordinary documents – a diary, letters.’
It was a relatively new notion that personal documents could illuminate history. Scholars of the early 20th century, above all, valued ‘objectivism’, a concept developed by the 19th-century German historian Leopold von Ranke, who sought to turn ‘historiography’ into a scientific discipline; this required ridding it of its moral dimension. Ranke argued that facts were central to objective history-writing and, to maintain a scholarly distance from facts, historians should eliminate personal bias and take a neutral attitude. But, between the two world wars, this notion of ‘objectivism’ was already losing its grip. Official documents kept by the Germans as part of their notoriously meticulous record-keeping project, for instance, were naturally subjective in their advancement of Nazi aims.
A more accurate way to differentiate between subjective and objective documentation would be through the prism of power. Sources considered ‘objective’ were typically associated with the dominant power elite; documents like diaries and letters, oral histories and first-hand witness accounts, by contrast, were often deemed suspect because they were tainted by experience.
Q. What historical idea did German historian Leopold von Ranke create, and what was its main objective?
Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.
Today, Mechanicus’s diary is one of more than 2,100 in an Amsterdam collection held at the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, housed in the underground archives of a grand, doublewide mansion on the Golden Bend of the Herengracht Canal. The NIOD collection didn’t come together by accident. It was part of a concerted effort to collect, preserve and potentially publish the personal correspondence of ordinary citizens living through the occupation.
The idea to do so was hatched simultaneously by Loe de Jong, a Dutch Jewish journalist in exile in London, who worked for Radio Oranje, the broadcast station for the government in exile, and a group of local Dutch scholars led by the economics and social history professor, Nicolaas Wilhelmus Posthumus, who had already established a few archives of social movements.
More than a year before the war ended, De Jong had convinced the exiled Dutch Cabinet to establish a study centre of the occupation; it would open its doors as soon as the war ended. On 28 March 1944, Gerrit Bolkestein, the Dutch minister of education, arts and sciences, addressed the nation on Radio Oranje, in a speech that De Jong had written for him.
‘History cannot be written on the basis of official decisions and documents alone,’ said Bolkestein to his countrymen back home. ‘If our descendants are to understand fully what we as a nation have had to endure and overcome during these years, then what we really need are ordinary documents – a diary, letters.’
It was a relatively new notion that personal documents could illuminate history. Scholars of the early 20th century, above all, valued ‘objectivism’, a concept developed by the 19th-century German historian Leopold von Ranke, who sought to turn ‘historiography’ into a scientific discipline; this required ridding it of its moral dimension. Ranke argued that facts were central to objective history-writing and, to maintain a scholarly distance from facts, historians should eliminate personal bias and take a neutral attitude. But, between the two world wars, this notion of ‘objectivism’ was already losing its grip. Official documents kept by the Germans as part of their notoriously meticulous record-keeping project, for instance, were naturally subjective in their advancement of Nazi aims.
A more accurate way to differentiate between subjective and objective documentation would be through the prism of power. Sources considered ‘objective’ were typically associated with the dominant power elite; documents like diaries and letters, oral histories and first-hand witness accounts, by contrast, were often deemed suspect because they were tainted by experience.
Q. What is the primary purpose of the NIOD Institute's collection of personal correspondence mentioned in the passage?
Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.
Today, Mechanicus’s diary is one of more than 2,100 in an Amsterdam collection held at the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, housed in the underground archives of a grand, doublewide mansion on the Golden Bend of the Herengracht Canal. The NIOD collection didn’t come together by accident. It was part of a concerted effort to collect, preserve and potentially publish the personal correspondence of ordinary citizens living through the occupation.
The idea to do so was hatched simultaneously by Loe de Jong, a Dutch Jewish journalist in exile in London, who worked for Radio Oranje, the broadcast station for the government in exile, and a group of local Dutch scholars led by the economics and social history professor, Nicolaas Wilhelmus Posthumus, who had already established a few archives of social movements.
More than a year before the war ended, De Jong had convinced the exiled Dutch Cabinet to establish a study centre of the occupation; it would open its doors as soon as the war ended. On 28 March 1944, Gerrit Bolkestein, the Dutch minister of education, arts and sciences, addressed the nation on Radio Oranje, in a speech that De Jong had written for him.
‘History cannot be written on the basis of official decisions and documents alone,’ said Bolkestein to his countrymen back home. ‘If our descendants are to understand fully what we as a nation have had to endure and overcome during these years, then what we really need are ordinary documents – a diary, letters.’
It was a relatively new notion that personal documents could illuminate history. Scholars of the early 20th century, above all, valued ‘objectivism’, a concept developed by the 19th-century German historian Leopold von Ranke, who sought to turn ‘historiography’ into a scientific discipline; this required ridding it of its moral dimension. Ranke argued that facts were central to objective history-writing and, to maintain a scholarly distance from facts, historians should eliminate personal bias and take a neutral attitude. But, between the two world wars, this notion of ‘objectivism’ was already losing its grip. Official documents kept by the Germans as part of their notoriously meticulous record-keeping project, for instance, were naturally subjective in their advancement of Nazi aims.
A more accurate way to differentiate between subjective and objective documentation would be through the prism of power. Sources considered ‘objective’ were typically associated with the dominant power elite; documents like diaries and letters, oral histories and first-hand witness accounts, by contrast, were often deemed suspect because they were tainted by experience.
Q. Who was responsible for the idea of collecting and preserving personal documents like diaries and letters during the wartime occupation?
Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.
Today, Mechanicus’s diary is one of more than 2,100 in an Amsterdam collection held at the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, housed in the underground archives of a grand, doublewide mansion on the Golden Bend of the Herengracht Canal. The NIOD collection didn’t come together by accident. It was part of a concerted effort to collect, preserve and potentially publish the personal correspondence of ordinary citizens living through the occupation.
The idea to do so was hatched simultaneously by Loe de Jong, a Dutch Jewish journalist in exile in London, who worked for Radio Oranje, the broadcast station for the government in exile, and a group of local Dutch scholars led by the economics and social history professor, Nicolaas Wilhelmus Posthumus, who had already established a few archives of social movements.
More than a year before the war ended, De Jong had convinced the exiled Dutch Cabinet to establish a study centre of the occupation; it would open its doors as soon as the war ended. On 28 March 1944, Gerrit Bolkestein, the Dutch minister of education, arts and sciences, addressed the nation on Radio Oranje, in a speech that De Jong had written for him.
‘History cannot be written on the basis of official decisions and documents alone,’ said Bolkestein to his countrymen back home. ‘If our descendants are to understand fully what we as a nation have had to endure and overcome during these years, then what we really need are ordinary documents – a diary, letters.’
It was a relatively new notion that personal documents could illuminate history. Scholars of the early 20th century, above all, valued ‘objectivism’, a concept developed by the 19th-century German historian Leopold von Ranke, who sought to turn ‘historiography’ into a scientific discipline; this required ridding it of its moral dimension. Ranke argued that facts were central to objective history-writing and, to maintain a scholarly distance from facts, historians should eliminate personal bias and take a neutral attitude. But, between the two world wars, this notion of ‘objectivism’ was already losing its grip. Official documents kept by the Germans as part of their notoriously meticulous record-keeping project, for instance, were naturally subjective in their advancement of Nazi aims.
A more accurate way to differentiate between subjective and objective documentation would be through the prism of power. Sources considered ‘objective’ were typically associated with the dominant power elite; documents like diaries and letters, oral histories and first-hand witness accounts, by contrast, were often deemed suspect because they were tainted by experience.
Q. Who were the important players in the founding of the NIOD collection in Amsterdam and what was the main driving force behind its establishment?
How much funding has been sanctioned under the AIF as of November 25, 2024?
What percentage of loans have been sanctioned by scheduled commercial banks under the AIF?
What additional resources are included in the Teaching Kits section of the app?
Which organization does Norway belong to as part of the discussed free trade agreement with India?
What is the name of the agreement signed between India and EFTA?
What was Commerce Secretary Sunil Barthwal’s primary goal during his visit to Norway?
What was the proposed investment plan discussed during the visit?
How much seafood does India export annually in terms of value?
What was the theme of the 7th ASSOCHAM AI Leadership Meet 2024?
1 videos|10 docs|63 tests
|