Question Description
Passage 2A report out today warns that even in a fast growing economy like India, failure to invest in agriculture and support small farms has left nearly half the country's children malnourished, with one fifth of the one-billion plus population being hungry.Action Aid, which published the report ahead of next week's summit in New York to discuss progress on the millennium development goals, says hunger is costing the world's poorest nations $290 billion a year- more than 10 times the estimated amount needed to meet the goal of halving global hungry by 2015.India now has worse rates of malnutrition than sub-Saharan Africa; 43.5 % of children under five are underweight and India ranks below Sudan and Zimbabwe in the Global Hunger Index. Even without last year's disastrous monsoon and the ensuring drought and crop failures, hunger was on the increase.The government has promised a new food security bill to provide cheap food for the poor, but progress has been slow. The reality is that a country desperate to take its place at the world's top table is unwilling to commit to feeding its own population.Last month the country's Supreme Court castigated the government for allowing 67000 tonnes of badly stored grain to rot- enough to feed 190000 people for a month- and ordered it to distribute 17.8 m tonnes in imminent danger of rotting.India's Prime Minister protested, saying that the court has crossed the line into policy making and warning that distributing free food to the 37% of the population living BPL will destroy any incentives for the farmers to produce. The court stood firm. It was an order, not a suggestion, the judges said.According to Action Aid, global hunger in 2009 was at the same level as in 1990. The charity urged developed countries to make good on $14 billion pledge to fight hunger, announced at last year's G8 summit in Italy.Q. Which of the following statements would help explain the Prime Minister's argument against the Supreme Court order? a)farmers have to bear the partial cost of the grain that is distributed freeb)farmers depend on the market economy and free distribution of grain hinders itc)the state promises to protect the farmers and their rights and this act is a violation of the promised)farmers are themselves poor and distributing the grain to other poor sections instead of to the farmers will prove to be demotivating.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for UPSC 2024 is part of UPSC preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the UPSC exam syllabus. Information about Passage 2A report out today warns that even in a fast growing economy like India, failure to invest in agriculture and support small farms has left nearly half the country's children malnourished, with one fifth of the one-billion plus population being hungry.Action Aid, which published the report ahead of next week's summit in New York to discuss progress on the millennium development goals, says hunger is costing the world's poorest nations $290 billion a year- more than 10 times the estimated amount needed to meet the goal of halving global hungry by 2015.India now has worse rates of malnutrition than sub-Saharan Africa; 43.5 % of children under five are underweight and India ranks below Sudan and Zimbabwe in the Global Hunger Index. Even without last year's disastrous monsoon and the ensuring drought and crop failures, hunger was on the increase.The government has promised a new food security bill to provide cheap food for the poor, but progress has been slow. The reality is that a country desperate to take its place at the world's top table is unwilling to commit to feeding its own population.Last month the country's Supreme Court castigated the government for allowing 67000 tonnes of badly stored grain to rot- enough to feed 190000 people for a month- and ordered it to distribute 17.8 m tonnes in imminent danger of rotting.India's Prime Minister protested, saying that the court has crossed the line into policy making and warning that distributing free food to the 37% of the population living BPL will destroy any incentives for the farmers to produce. The court stood firm. It was an order, not a suggestion, the judges said.According to Action Aid, global hunger in 2009 was at the same level as in 1990. The charity urged developed countries to make good on $14 billion pledge to fight hunger, announced at last year's G8 summit in Italy.Q. Which of the following statements would help explain the Prime Minister's argument against the Supreme Court order? a)farmers have to bear the partial cost of the grain that is distributed freeb)farmers depend on the market economy and free distribution of grain hinders itc)the state promises to protect the farmers and their rights and this act is a violation of the promised)farmers are themselves poor and distributing the grain to other poor sections instead of to the farmers will prove to be demotivating.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for UPSC 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Passage 2A report out today warns that even in a fast growing economy like India, failure to invest in agriculture and support small farms has left nearly half the country's children malnourished, with one fifth of the one-billion plus population being hungry.Action Aid, which published the report ahead of next week's summit in New York to discuss progress on the millennium development goals, says hunger is costing the world's poorest nations $290 billion a year- more than 10 times the estimated amount needed to meet the goal of halving global hungry by 2015.India now has worse rates of malnutrition than sub-Saharan Africa; 43.5 % of children under five are underweight and India ranks below Sudan and Zimbabwe in the Global Hunger Index. Even without last year's disastrous monsoon and the ensuring drought and crop failures, hunger was on the increase.The government has promised a new food security bill to provide cheap food for the poor, but progress has been slow. The reality is that a country desperate to take its place at the world's top table is unwilling to commit to feeding its own population.Last month the country's Supreme Court castigated the government for allowing 67000 tonnes of badly stored grain to rot- enough to feed 190000 people for a month- and ordered it to distribute 17.8 m tonnes in imminent danger of rotting.India's Prime Minister protested, saying that the court has crossed the line into policy making and warning that distributing free food to the 37% of the population living BPL will destroy any incentives for the farmers to produce. The court stood firm. It was an order, not a suggestion, the judges said.According to Action Aid, global hunger in 2009 was at the same level as in 1990. The charity urged developed countries to make good on $14 billion pledge to fight hunger, announced at last year's G8 summit in Italy.Q. Which of the following statements would help explain the Prime Minister's argument against the Supreme Court order? a)farmers have to bear the partial cost of the grain that is distributed freeb)farmers depend on the market economy and free distribution of grain hinders itc)the state promises to protect the farmers and their rights and this act is a violation of the promised)farmers are themselves poor and distributing the grain to other poor sections instead of to the farmers will prove to be demotivating.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Passage 2A report out today warns that even in a fast growing economy like India, failure to invest in agriculture and support small farms has left nearly half the country's children malnourished, with one fifth of the one-billion plus population being hungry.Action Aid, which published the report ahead of next week's summit in New York to discuss progress on the millennium development goals, says hunger is costing the world's poorest nations $290 billion a year- more than 10 times the estimated amount needed to meet the goal of halving global hungry by 2015.India now has worse rates of malnutrition than sub-Saharan Africa; 43.5 % of children under five are underweight and India ranks below Sudan and Zimbabwe in the Global Hunger Index. Even without last year's disastrous monsoon and the ensuring drought and crop failures, hunger was on the increase.The government has promised a new food security bill to provide cheap food for the poor, but progress has been slow. The reality is that a country desperate to take its place at the world's top table is unwilling to commit to feeding its own population.Last month the country's Supreme Court castigated the government for allowing 67000 tonnes of badly stored grain to rot- enough to feed 190000 people for a month- and ordered it to distribute 17.8 m tonnes in imminent danger of rotting.India's Prime Minister protested, saying that the court has crossed the line into policy making and warning that distributing free food to the 37% of the population living BPL will destroy any incentives for the farmers to produce. The court stood firm. It was an order, not a suggestion, the judges said.According to Action Aid, global hunger in 2009 was at the same level as in 1990. The charity urged developed countries to make good on $14 billion pledge to fight hunger, announced at last year's G8 summit in Italy.Q. Which of the following statements would help explain the Prime Minister's argument against the Supreme Court order? a)farmers have to bear the partial cost of the grain that is distributed freeb)farmers depend on the market economy and free distribution of grain hinders itc)the state promises to protect the farmers and their rights and this act is a violation of the promised)farmers are themselves poor and distributing the grain to other poor sections instead of to the farmers will prove to be demotivating.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for UPSC. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for UPSC Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Passage 2A report out today warns that even in a fast growing economy like India, failure to invest in agriculture and support small farms has left nearly half the country's children malnourished, with one fifth of the one-billion plus population being hungry.Action Aid, which published the report ahead of next week's summit in New York to discuss progress on the millennium development goals, says hunger is costing the world's poorest nations $290 billion a year- more than 10 times the estimated amount needed to meet the goal of halving global hungry by 2015.India now has worse rates of malnutrition than sub-Saharan Africa; 43.5 % of children under five are underweight and India ranks below Sudan and Zimbabwe in the Global Hunger Index. Even without last year's disastrous monsoon and the ensuring drought and crop failures, hunger was on the increase.The government has promised a new food security bill to provide cheap food for the poor, but progress has been slow. The reality is that a country desperate to take its place at the world's top table is unwilling to commit to feeding its own population.Last month the country's Supreme Court castigated the government for allowing 67000 tonnes of badly stored grain to rot- enough to feed 190000 people for a month- and ordered it to distribute 17.8 m tonnes in imminent danger of rotting.India's Prime Minister protested, saying that the court has crossed the line into policy making and warning that distributing free food to the 37% of the population living BPL will destroy any incentives for the farmers to produce. The court stood firm. It was an order, not a suggestion, the judges said.According to Action Aid, global hunger in 2009 was at the same level as in 1990. The charity urged developed countries to make good on $14 billion pledge to fight hunger, announced at last year's G8 summit in Italy.Q. Which of the following statements would help explain the Prime Minister's argument against the Supreme Court order? a)farmers have to bear the partial cost of the grain that is distributed freeb)farmers depend on the market economy and free distribution of grain hinders itc)the state promises to protect the farmers and their rights and this act is a violation of the promised)farmers are themselves poor and distributing the grain to other poor sections instead of to the farmers will prove to be demotivating.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Passage 2A report out today warns that even in a fast growing economy like India, failure to invest in agriculture and support small farms has left nearly half the country's children malnourished, with one fifth of the one-billion plus population being hungry.Action Aid, which published the report ahead of next week's summit in New York to discuss progress on the millennium development goals, says hunger is costing the world's poorest nations $290 billion a year- more than 10 times the estimated amount needed to meet the goal of halving global hungry by 2015.India now has worse rates of malnutrition than sub-Saharan Africa; 43.5 % of children under five are underweight and India ranks below Sudan and Zimbabwe in the Global Hunger Index. Even without last year's disastrous monsoon and the ensuring drought and crop failures, hunger was on the increase.The government has promised a new food security bill to provide cheap food for the poor, but progress has been slow. The reality is that a country desperate to take its place at the world's top table is unwilling to commit to feeding its own population.Last month the country's Supreme Court castigated the government for allowing 67000 tonnes of badly stored grain to rot- enough to feed 190000 people for a month- and ordered it to distribute 17.8 m tonnes in imminent danger of rotting.India's Prime Minister protested, saying that the court has crossed the line into policy making and warning that distributing free food to the 37% of the population living BPL will destroy any incentives for the farmers to produce. The court stood firm. It was an order, not a suggestion, the judges said.According to Action Aid, global hunger in 2009 was at the same level as in 1990. The charity urged developed countries to make good on $14 billion pledge to fight hunger, announced at last year's G8 summit in Italy.Q. Which of the following statements would help explain the Prime Minister's argument against the Supreme Court order? a)farmers have to bear the partial cost of the grain that is distributed freeb)farmers depend on the market economy and free distribution of grain hinders itc)the state promises to protect the farmers and their rights and this act is a violation of the promised)farmers are themselves poor and distributing the grain to other poor sections instead of to the farmers will prove to be demotivating.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Passage 2A report out today warns that even in a fast growing economy like India, failure to invest in agriculture and support small farms has left nearly half the country's children malnourished, with one fifth of the one-billion plus population being hungry.Action Aid, which published the report ahead of next week's summit in New York to discuss progress on the millennium development goals, says hunger is costing the world's poorest nations $290 billion a year- more than 10 times the estimated amount needed to meet the goal of halving global hungry by 2015.India now has worse rates of malnutrition than sub-Saharan Africa; 43.5 % of children under five are underweight and India ranks below Sudan and Zimbabwe in the Global Hunger Index. Even without last year's disastrous monsoon and the ensuring drought and crop failures, hunger was on the increase.The government has promised a new food security bill to provide cheap food for the poor, but progress has been slow. The reality is that a country desperate to take its place at the world's top table is unwilling to commit to feeding its own population.Last month the country's Supreme Court castigated the government for allowing 67000 tonnes of badly stored grain to rot- enough to feed 190000 people for a month- and ordered it to distribute 17.8 m tonnes in imminent danger of rotting.India's Prime Minister protested, saying that the court has crossed the line into policy making and warning that distributing free food to the 37% of the population living BPL will destroy any incentives for the farmers to produce. The court stood firm. It was an order, not a suggestion, the judges said.According to Action Aid, global hunger in 2009 was at the same level as in 1990. The charity urged developed countries to make good on $14 billion pledge to fight hunger, announced at last year's G8 summit in Italy.Q. Which of the following statements would help explain the Prime Minister's argument against the Supreme Court order? a)farmers have to bear the partial cost of the grain that is distributed freeb)farmers depend on the market economy and free distribution of grain hinders itc)the state promises to protect the farmers and their rights and this act is a violation of the promised)farmers are themselves poor and distributing the grain to other poor sections instead of to the farmers will prove to be demotivating.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Passage 2A report out today warns that even in a fast growing economy like India, failure to invest in agriculture and support small farms has left nearly half the country's children malnourished, with one fifth of the one-billion plus population being hungry.Action Aid, which published the report ahead of next week's summit in New York to discuss progress on the millennium development goals, says hunger is costing the world's poorest nations $290 billion a year- more than 10 times the estimated amount needed to meet the goal of halving global hungry by 2015.India now has worse rates of malnutrition than sub-Saharan Africa; 43.5 % of children under five are underweight and India ranks below Sudan and Zimbabwe in the Global Hunger Index. Even without last year's disastrous monsoon and the ensuring drought and crop failures, hunger was on the increase.The government has promised a new food security bill to provide cheap food for the poor, but progress has been slow. The reality is that a country desperate to take its place at the world's top table is unwilling to commit to feeding its own population.Last month the country's Supreme Court castigated the government for allowing 67000 tonnes of badly stored grain to rot- enough to feed 190000 people for a month- and ordered it to distribute 17.8 m tonnes in imminent danger of rotting.India's Prime Minister protested, saying that the court has crossed the line into policy making and warning that distributing free food to the 37% of the population living BPL will destroy any incentives for the farmers to produce. The court stood firm. It was an order, not a suggestion, the judges said.According to Action Aid, global hunger in 2009 was at the same level as in 1990. The charity urged developed countries to make good on $14 billion pledge to fight hunger, announced at last year's G8 summit in Italy.Q. Which of the following statements would help explain the Prime Minister's argument against the Supreme Court order? a)farmers have to bear the partial cost of the grain that is distributed freeb)farmers depend on the market economy and free distribution of grain hinders itc)the state promises to protect the farmers and their rights and this act is a violation of the promised)farmers are themselves poor and distributing the grain to other poor sections instead of to the farmers will prove to be demotivating.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Passage 2A report out today warns that even in a fast growing economy like India, failure to invest in agriculture and support small farms has left nearly half the country's children malnourished, with one fifth of the one-billion plus population being hungry.Action Aid, which published the report ahead of next week's summit in New York to discuss progress on the millennium development goals, says hunger is costing the world's poorest nations $290 billion a year- more than 10 times the estimated amount needed to meet the goal of halving global hungry by 2015.India now has worse rates of malnutrition than sub-Saharan Africa; 43.5 % of children under five are underweight and India ranks below Sudan and Zimbabwe in the Global Hunger Index. Even without last year's disastrous monsoon and the ensuring drought and crop failures, hunger was on the increase.The government has promised a new food security bill to provide cheap food for the poor, but progress has been slow. The reality is that a country desperate to take its place at the world's top table is unwilling to commit to feeding its own population.Last month the country's Supreme Court castigated the government for allowing 67000 tonnes of badly stored grain to rot- enough to feed 190000 people for a month- and ordered it to distribute 17.8 m tonnes in imminent danger of rotting.India's Prime Minister protested, saying that the court has crossed the line into policy making and warning that distributing free food to the 37% of the population living BPL will destroy any incentives for the farmers to produce. The court stood firm. It was an order, not a suggestion, the judges said.According to Action Aid, global hunger in 2009 was at the same level as in 1990. The charity urged developed countries to make good on $14 billion pledge to fight hunger, announced at last year's G8 summit in Italy.Q. Which of the following statements would help explain the Prime Minister's argument against the Supreme Court order? a)farmers have to bear the partial cost of the grain that is distributed freeb)farmers depend on the market economy and free distribution of grain hinders itc)the state promises to protect the farmers and their rights and this act is a violation of the promised)farmers are themselves poor and distributing the grain to other poor sections instead of to the farmers will prove to be demotivating.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice UPSC tests.