UrbanPro
true
true

Laxmipriya M.

Siddhamahavir, Puri, India - 752002

Laxmipriya M. Class I-V Tuition trainer in Puri

Laxmipriya M.

All Subject Trainer With 4 Years of Experience in Teaching...

Siddhamahavir, Puri, India - 752002.

5 Students taught

Referral Discount: Get ₹ 500 off when you make a payment to start classes. Get started by Booking a Demo.

Details verified of Laxmipriya M.

Identity

Education

Know how UrbanPro verifies Tutor details

Identity is verified based on matching the details uploaded by the Tutor with government databases.

Overview

I can teach each and every topics very easily and make it stronger for the students.
This is my 3 years experience to study government medium school students,cbse school students.
now i am continuing my teaching job.

Languages Spoken

Hindi

English

Education

utkal university 2015

Bachelor of Computer Science (B.Sc. (Computer Science))

Address

Siddhamahavir, Puri, India - 752002

Verified Info

Phone Verified

Email Verified

Report this Profile

Is this listing inaccurate or duplicate? Any other problem?

Please tell us about the problem and we will fix it.

Please describe the problem that you see in this page.

Type the letters as shown below *

Please enter the letters as show below

Class I-V Tuition

Class Location

Online (video chat via skype, google hangout etc)

Student's Home

Tutor's Home

Years of Experience in Class I-V Tuition

3

Board

CBSE, State

CBSE Subjects taught

Computers, Oriya, English, Science, EVS, Sanskrit, Mathematics

Taught in School or College

No

State Syllabus Subjects taught

Science, Computer Science, English, EVS, Social Science, Sanskrit, Oriya, Mathematics

Reviews

this is test message this is test message this is test message this is test message this is test message this is test message this is test message

No Reviews yet! Be the first one to Review

FAQs

1. Which school boards of Class 1-5 do you teach for?

CBSE and State

2. Have you ever taught in any School or College?

No

3. Which classes do you teach?

I teach Class 10 Tuition, Class 11 Tuition, Class 12 Tuition, Class 6 Tuition, Class 7 Tuition, Class 8 Tuition, Class 9 Tuition and Class I-V Tuition Classes.

4. Do you provide a demo class?

No, I don't provide a demo class.

5. How many years of experience do you have?

I have been teaching for 3 years.

Answers by Laxmipriya M. (13)

Answered on 14/01/2018 CBSE/Class 12/Humanities/Political Science Part II Tuition/Class XI-XII Tuition (PUC)

It is the mixed form of socialistic and capitalistic economy. Certain economic activities are fully owned and controlled by the government but all the economic activities are not owned by the Government. Private and public sector both co-exist in the economy. We have adopted mixed economy in India.... ...more
It is the mixed form of socialistic and capitalistic economy. Certain economic activities are fully owned and controlled by the government but all the economic activities are not owned by the Government. Private and public sector both co-exist in the economy. We have adopted mixed economy in India. All the basic industries such as railways, post and telegraph, defence production, atomic energy etc. are in the public sector. Industries dealing with consumer goods are in the private sector. Ours is a welfare state, so the government can nationalise any industry or own any company in the public interest. Mixed economy reduces inequality of income. Due to increased expenditure on public utilities and services, economic benefits to their poor pe9ple are provided. Advantages Mixed economy has got the following advantages: Rapid economic development Inmixed economy both private and public sectors work side by side. The combined efforts lead to rapid economic development. The economic resources of the economy are used efficiently. Wastages of resources are minimised. Lesser inequality of income: Right to own property is granted. Law of inheritance is also applied, so certain members of society grow richer and richer. Public sector in the economy tries to provide economic facility to the general masses. It reduces inequality of income. Balanced regional growth: The planning commission of the country makes policies for the development!"of every region of the economy. The government tries to develop all regions and every section of population. Freedom to own private property: Individuals are free to acquire property and retain in their own names, so the initiative to work more and earn more is there. It helps in the rapid development of the economy in the field of agriculture, industry and other services. Planned development: The planing commission is empowered to make effective plans for the development of the economy. We, in India, have also adopted planned developmental economy and introduced five year plans. Public interest: The public sector looks into the interest of the general public. The government under this economy is said to be welfare state. It introduces social insurance schemes, incurs expenditure and manages economy in the interest of general masses of the country. Disadvantages Inspite of the above advantages, the mixed economy suffers from the fol lowing weaknesses: Fear of nationalisation: Private and public sector coexists. The government has the power to nationalise and own any industry, so private sector remains under a psychological fear that their industry may be nationalised or taken over in the public interest. Inequality of income: Inspite of all the efforts of the government to bring equality, rich people grow richer and the inequality prevails. Economic resources economic developments are concentrated with certain big industries. Corruption: Corruption is the common feature of mixed economy. Black-marketing, profiteering, dishonest dealings and corruption is seen both at higher and lower levels.
Answers 4 Comments
Dislike Bookmark

Answered on 14/01/2018 CBSE/Class 12/Humanities/Political Science Part II Tuition/Class XI-XII Tuition (PUC)

When did the Cold War start? The answer is classic irony in the somber shadow of today's headlines. For it started when the President of the United States decided to protect Iran from our wartime ally, the Soviet Union. The wartime allies had used Iran with the Soviets occupying northern Iran and the... ...more
When did the Cold War start? The answer is classic irony in the somber shadow of today's headlines. For it started when the President of the United States decided to protect Iran from our wartime ally, the Soviet Union. The wartime allies had used Iran with the Soviets occupying northern Iran and the British and American forces occupying the south as a back-door Allied supply line to the Red Army. At their Teheran Conference in 1943 all the allies had agreed to clear out of Iran within six months of an armistice in Europe. The Western allies withdrew before that deadline, which was March 6, 1946. The Soviets did not. Indeed, in early March one Red Army column started south from Azerbaijan toward the Persian capital, Teheran, and another swung west toward Iraq and Turkey. Iran, Britain and the U.S. complained to Moscow; when that didn't work, the case was appealed to the UN Security Council. Since the Soviets had a veto there, that couldn't work either. So it's still March 1946 -- Harry Truman decided (after consulting only with his Secretary of State, James F. Byrnes) to send Stalin secretly what he describes in his memoirs as an ultimatum. He threatened to deploy U.S. naval and ground forces in the Persian Gulf if the Soviets didn't pull the Red Army out of Iran. Before the end of March Andrei Gromyko announced that Soviet troops would leave Iran, and before long they actually left. During that same spring, it became clear that the Soviets wouldn't abide by the Potsdam agreement that Germany should be treated as an economic unit. The Western allies â?? Britain, France, and the U.S. started to consolidate the non-Soviet zones, thus ratifying the de facto division of Germany. That summer, another crisis brewed. The Soviets proposed to put an end to the international supervision of the Dardanelles and establish Soviet bases in Turkey. Twenty-five divisions of the Red Army were maneuvering near the Turkish border to show they meant it. This time President Truman did consult his Cabinet officers and the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and summed up their consensus with Trumanesque informality: We might as well find out now, rather than five or ten years from now, whether the Russians are determined to take over the world. Faced with resistance from Turkey and tough U.S. and British diplomacy backed by the aircraft carrier Franklin D. Roosevelt's "courtesy calls" in the Mediterranean, Stalin stayed his handâ in Turkey but tightened the screws on Greece. The climax came when the Greek government, controlling only a "shrunken area" around Athens, appealed for international help. Almost at the same moment, in February 1947, the British government delivered to Washington a formal note saying that it could no longer afford to help either Greece or Turkey beyond the end of March. Also in February, a rigged election put Communists in power in Poland and another piece of Allied postwar planning, the Yalta agreement, was snuffed out by Soviet noncompliance. In American politics, the stars were not aligned for a strong reaction to all this. Americans were delighted the war was over, welcomed the wholesale demobilization of troops, They were looking for some normalcy, maybe even some prosperity. They were certainly far from ready for another kind of war. In November 1946, U.S. voters had put Republicans in charge of both houses of Congress. Senator Robert Taft, "Mr. Republican" in those days, was focused, he said, on "straightening out our domestic affairs." Yet in March 1947, with the indispensable help of a senior Republican, Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, President Truman laid it on the line in a historic address to a joint session of Congress. He called for massive help to both Greece and Turkey -- which was authorized and funded by overwhelming majorities in both the Senate and the House in less than two months. The great confrontation we came to call the Cold War had quite suddenly become the next stage of world history. What began in Iran in 1946 lasted for 45 years, until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Four months after the Truman Doctrine speech, a Commencement address by Secretary of State George C. Marshall added another theme to the symphony of Western cooperation. Marshall was already famous as the general manager of America's largest and most successful war, and more recently renowned though unsuccessful -- as a mediator in China's civil conflict. He had just come back from weeks of fruitless haggling at a Moscow conference of foreign ministers. On the flight home, he had witnessed the hopelessness of a Europe soon to be described by Winston Churchill as "a rubble-heap, a charnel house, a breeding ground of pestilence and hate." The Marshall speech was not in itself a cold war maneuver. "Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos." In this humanitarian tone of voice, General-now-Secretary George Marshall launched the United States and its European allies on the most ambitious, riskiest, and arguably the most successful peacemaking adventure in American history. The Marshall Plan was a brilliant series of improvisations on a deceptively simple theme: Europe needed help, and only America could supply it. Precisely because it wasn't a cold war move, it turned out to be a key to the cold war's outcome. It was even open to the Eastern Europeans; but once the Soviet foreign minister Molotov attended a first planning session in Paris, the Kremlin pulled its satellites out of what looked, from Moscow, like a dangerous opportunity to cooperate. Measured by the cost of failure, let alone the standards of modern war, the Marshall Plan was not expensive. Its first-year cost, five billion 1948 dollars, did provide something like five percent of Western Europe's GNP. But the total amount of transatlantic aid, $13 billion in its four years, was a fraction of defense spending and a marginal blip on Europe's own recovery effort though hugely important because it lifted Europeâ??s spirits and helped fill Europe's dollar gap. The priceless ingredient was of course immeasurable: reassurance and hope from across the Atlantic Ocean, for Europeans who were losing hope fast as the Soviets mounted an impressive political effort on the quite rational assumption that Americans, weary of Europe's wars and anxious to get back to creating America, would stay out of Europe's next crisis. The Marshall Plan provided above all a source of dynamism-in-action to reverse a growing hopelessness in Europe. Without the Marshall Plan, Western Europe was endangered by poverty, desperation, and chaos; and Communist parties backed by the Soviet Union were poised to pick up the pieces. With the Marshall Plan, the Western Europeans were able to jump-start their economic recovery from World War II; to commence a bold if baffling effort to build a European Union; and to create an inclusive framework within which a new Germany could be both strong and safe. And then, the Europeans were able to face east with such comparative prosperity and panache that their Eastern European neighbors in time decided to join the Western future and the Soviet Union itself eventually dissolved. But meanwhile, the Marshall Plan provoked a wide range of Soviet efforts to sabotage it. Tom Wilson the historian watched this at close hand, and eloquently describes it: Every medium of propaganda which the Communists controlled was used to the hilt. Communist posters plastered the walls of the cities. Handbills were passed out to the workers leaving their factories. News sheets appeared on the walls of remote villages. Counter propaganda was torn down or painted red by Communist crews in the streets by night. The radio programs from Eastern Europe kept up a drumfire of anti-Marshall Plan messages. "Rocks were thrown through the screens of motion-picture theaters showing newsreels of Marshall Plan projects. Riots were staged at U.S. information exhibits. Bundles of U.S.-sponsored newspapers were thrown into rivers from trains crossing bridges by night. The Communists spent seven times as much for propaganda as the United States spent for the Marshall Plan information service. "Against these odds, the U.S. services worked overtime and well. The best film crews that could be assembled turned out news clips, film magazines, and documentaries at prodigious rates. . . ." Some of you have seen excellent examples of this good work in the "Selling Democracy" screenings shown by Sandra Schulberg at the National Archives this week. We Americans also derived from the Marshall Plan benefits that are as hard to quantify as they were obvious to see and to feel. We were associated with a dependable group of European allies in a troublesome postwar world. We helped build a large and congenial market in which to buy and sell. We helped create a political attractant that lured Eastern Europe away from totalitarian rule, and withered Soviet Communism on the vine. And we generated, besides, the good feeling among Americans that we could do something right something that we hadn't known how to do. A young historian David Reynolds, too young to have lived through it but very perceptive about its place in history summed up the Marshall Plan this way: "Between 1948 and 1951, the United States pumped about $13 billion into Western Europe. Between 1948 and Stalin's death in 1953, the Soviet Union extracted some $14 billion from Eastern Europe. These statistics are crude but telling. They deserve a place in any history of postwar Europe." Helmut Schmidt of Germany said it all in one sentence: "The high probability of failure was averted thanks to leaders who did not act according to plan, but instead relied on their moral and national visions as well as their common sense." Even before the Marshall Plan got underway, the transatlantic allies had put together a military alliance designed to persuade the Soviet Union that military militancy would not pay. The architects of historyâ??s greatest peacetime alliance were acting out one sentence of a speech by a Soviet Foreign Minister to the U.N. General Assembly two decades later, in 1968. "History takes revenge for forgetfulness," Andrei Gromyko declared with unintended irony, "if somebody deliberately forgets the significance of European affairs or neglects them." The North Atlantic Alliance was signed in 1947. Six decades later, despite pressures, threats, ultimatums, provocations, and crises, there has been no war among, or armed attack on, the members of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Anyone with a smattering of modern European history can appreciate how extraordinary and unprecedented a piece of good news this is. Something must have been done right. The early stress on a massive program of economic recovery; the psychological and economic lift of the Common Market; the curiously credible threat of strategic nuclear retaliation for tactical transgressions; the symbolic integration of NATO armies; the willingness of wartime allies to make an ally of West Germany without awaiting a final peace settlement; the long and ultimately successful search for an Atlantic nuclear sharing arrangement; the West's espousal of a policy broad enough (and ambiguous enough) to accommodate both defense and détente the willingness to bring in additional members each of these policies played its part. But shining through the military half-measures and the tepid ministerial communications was a moral solidarity that somehow made more out of what was objectively not enough. The real deterrent to Soviet ambitions was this: by and large, with occasional and temporary exceptions which fortunately turned out not to be critical, the Atlantic allies stuck together. The glue that has held the allies together is a large, complex, and dynamic bargain â?? partly an understanding among the Europeans, but most importantly a deal between them and the United States of America. The specifics of the bargain, and the comparative burdens to be shared keep changing. But the constant is that there has to be a bargain. The Treaty form of the deal is "We'll help defends you if you'll help defend us." But despite Secretary of State Dean Rusk's legally correct allusion to the Bering Straits as the "Western flank" of NATO, most Americans think of NATO the way most Europeans do, as essentially an arrangement to ensure the defense of Western Europe. The price of mutual help is self-help: "We Americans will help you Europeans if you will (a) help defend yourselves, and (b) get on with building a united Europe." The transatlantic bargain, kept alive by continuous consultation, kept 7,000 U.S. nuclear weapons and some 300,000 U.S. troops in Europe for the long generation we call the Cold War. Whether that was enough for the defense we fortunately never had to discover. It did turn out, in the end, to be enough for détente. The Cold War was called cold because of the featured heavyweights, the Soviet Union and the United States, were nominally "at peace." But they engaged in circling each other, jabbing at each other, testing each other supposed weaknesses in every part of the world, in the Byzantine politics of the United Nations, and in a couple of dozen other international organizations. We don't have all day for a complete inventory, but it may be useful to provide some examples of the variety of "preliminary bouts." One early bout was in divided Berlin, where the Soviets had a natural advantage: Berlin was completely surrounded by East Germany. In 1948 they suspended all road and rail traffic between Berlin and West Germany. In response, the Truman administration decided to supply Berlin entirely by airlift. This extraordinary operation, run by Air Force General Curtis LeMay, came to be known as the LeMay Coal and Feed Company. It "flew in corridors only twenty miles wide, at staggered altitudes, in all weather, twenty-four hours a day, sometimes harassed by Soviet fighter planes, and landing at airports only four minutes from each other. . . .At its peak, an incredible 1,398 trips brought 13,000 tons of supplies into Berlin within a twenty-four hour period. . . . More than ten months after it began, and more than 250,000 flights later, the Berlin airlift came to an end. . . .The Western Allies were still in Berlin [and] the cold war was still cold." But the world seemed to be heating up fast. In 1949 the Soviet Union tested an atomic explosion. In 1950 the North Koreans rolled south across the 38th parallel in their Russian-made tanks. Under a UN mandate, the U.S., South Korea, and more than a dozen other countries resisted; three years later the dividing line in the Korean peninsula was about where it had been before. But casualties on both sides had been enormous. And the resulting arms race engaged all the NATO allies the U.S. itself moved to a state of semi-mobilization, jumping its military budget from $18 to $35 billion. Before long, the United States was formally allied with forty-two nations in military pacts around the world. Josef Stalin had pushed as hard as he could. Harry Truman, with plenty of help from others, had pushed back just as hard. After seven years of not-quite-war, the result was a stalemate. But the Soviet Union was still in control of whatever the Red Army had controlled at the end of World War II. In 1953 General Eisenhower, whose last military job had been Supreme Commander at NATO, became President of the United States and two months later Stalin died. The Soviets achieved an H-bomb, which meant that deterrence had become mutual. And Nikita Khrushchev began to emerge as a new kind of Soviet leader â?? just as pushy, occasionally more reckless, but also more inclined to play the peace-and-coexistence card, and much more confident that the Soviet economy could compete with Western capitalism and attract support around the world with economic and technical aid "without strings." Later he more dramatically cut ties with the earlier regime by denouncing the cult of personality and the absolutely insufferable character of Stalin. But he continued to dramatize his own personality at every turn. The notion of "rolling back" Communists from Eastern Europe, floated in 1953 by President Eisenhower's Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, was itself roll
Answers 2 Comments
Dislike Bookmark

Answered on 14/01/2018 CBSE/Class 12/Humanities/Political Science Part II Tuition/Class XI-XII Tuition (PUC)

The United States seeks to build a positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship with China by expanding areas of cooperation and addressing areas of disagreement, such as human rights and cyber-security. The United States welcomes a strong, peaceful, and prosperous China playing a greater role... ...more
The United States seeks to build a positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship with China by expanding areas of cooperation and addressing areas of disagreement, such as human rights and cyber-security. The United States welcomes a strong, peaceful, and prosperous China playing a greater role in world affairs and seeks to advance practical cooperation with China. There are four annual dialogues held between the U.S. and China; the Diplomatic and Security Dialogue, the Comprehensive Economic Dialogue, the Law Enforcement and Cybersecurity Dialogue, and the Social and Cultural Issues Dialogue all serve as a unique platform to promote bilateral understanding, expand consensus, discuss differences, build mutual trust, and increase cooperation. The strategic track of the S&ED has produced benefits for both countries through a wide range of joint projects and initiatives and expanded avenues for addressing common regional and global challenges such as proliferation concerns in Iran and North Korea, tensions between Sudan and South Sudan, climate change, environmental protection, and energy security. The United States has emphasized the need to enhance bilateral trust through increased high-level exchanges, formal dialogues, and expanded people-to-people ties. U.S. Assistance to China: U.S. assistance programs in China focus on four principal areas: supporting efforts on environmental protection and climate-change mitigation; advancing the rule of law and human rights; assisting Tibetan communities, and addressing the threat of pandemic diseases. U.S. support for transparency and governance crosses these sectors, supporting the development of environmental law, as well as a free, fair, and accessible justice system. Programs in each of these areas are targeted and directly address U.S. interests such as limiting the transmission of avian influenza, HIV/AIDS, and other diseases that pose threats to global security. Furthermore, such programs have been expanded with the addition of local Chinese resources, Programs in Tibetan areas of China support activities that preserve the distinct Tibetan culture and promote sustainable development and environmental conservation. Bilateral Economic Relations: The U.S. approach to its economic relations with China has two main elements: integrating China into the global, rules-based economic and trading system and expanding U.S. exporters' and investors' access to the Chinese market. Two-way trade between China and the United States has grown from $33 billion in 1992 to over $648 billion in goods and services in 2016. China is currently the third largest export market for U.S. goods (after Canada and Mexico), and the United States is China's largest export market. The stock of U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in China was $75 billion in 2015, up from $54 billion in 2012, and remained primarily in the manufacturing sector. During the July 2017 meeting of the U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue, the two countries discussed measures to expand opportunities for U.S. firms in China and made progress on important issues including credit ratings, bond clearing, electronic payments, commercial banking, and liquefied natural gas. For the first time since 2003, China allowed for imports of American beef. China's Membership in International Organizations: The People's Republic of China assumed the China seat at the United Nations in 1971, replacing Taiwan, and is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Over the years, China has become increasingly active in multilateral organizations, particularly the United Nations. China and the United States work closely with the international community to address threats to global security, including North Korea and Iran's nuclear programs.
Answers 2 Comments
Dislike Bookmark

Answered on 14/01/2018 CBSE/Class 12/Humanities/Political Science Part II Tuition/Class XI-XII Tuition (PUC)

The economic situation which exists in the developing world today is the result of the relationship between the modern, and developing nations of the world. Modernized nations benefited from this relationship because it gave them access to natural resources. However, because of this relationship, many... ...more
The economic situation which exists in the developing world today is the result of the relationship between the modern, and developing nations of the world. Modernized nations benefited from this relationship because it gave them access to natural resources. However, because of this relationship, many developing nations now suffer from severe problems. These nations are attempting to change the situation in which they struggle. A political cartoon I have recently seen illustrated the economic relationship between the industrialized world and the developing world. It shows that the industrial nations, The United States and Europe, are located in the northern hemisphere. On the other hand, most of the developing world, Central and South America and Africa, are found in the southern hemisphere. The well-fed, well-dressed individual holding the industrialized world indicates that the modernized nations of the world are prosperous, and have a high standard of living. The skinny, poorly dressed individual holding the developing world indicates that the developing nations of the world are not prosperous, and have a lower standard of living than do industrialized nations. Both individuals are supporting each other in such a way that if one is removed, the other will fall. Without resources to use, the industry would not be able to maintain its existence. Likewise, without a market for their resources, or the products of industry, the developing world would not be able to maintain its existence. Two current problems which exist in the developing world today are political instability and rapid urbanization. Political instability causes economic problems in places such as Africa, and South America, where many governments are being overthrown. When a government is inconsistent, a tax system cannot be established and revenue canâ??t be collected. If a government doesnâ??t receive revenue, it cannot provide sanitation, or health care, and cannot build or repair roads or buildings. Also, political instability can result in the control of a nation. The second problem which exists in the developing world today is rapid urbanization. Rapid urbanization can be defined as the sudden growth in city population. It results in problems such as congested streets and poverty. For example, when people flock to the city to find jobs, not all of them are able to find work, these people remain unemployed. Those who manage to find work, face long hours and low pay. With so many people there is a shortage of food, housing, and healthcare. Also, sanitation is poor if there is any at all, and the water is contaminated because of the sewage running through it. This is why political instability and rapid urbanization cause problems in the developing world today. Nations within the developing sections of the world have attempted to improve their situation in many ways. For example, these developing nations want to promote economic diversity and education. Economic diversity can be defined as producing various kinds of crops and goods so that the nation is not dependent on a single export. By promoting education, governments set up schools to train students in the skills needed in a modern industrial economy, therefore creating more skilled workers for jobs in the management field as opposed to labor. The examples of economic diversity and education are ways in which nations within the developing world have attempted to change their situations. In conclusion, the economic situation which exists in the developing world today is dependence on the industrialized world. They are dependent because they need a market for their resources and the products of industry. This situation contributed to problems such as political instability, and rapid urbanization. Developing nations are attempting to change these situations through the promotion of economic diversity, and education.
Answers 2 Comments
Dislike Bookmark

Answered on 14/01/2018 CBSE/Class 12/Humanities/Political Science Part II Tuition/Class XI-XII Tuition (PUC)

Briefly, a refugee is the person who has fled his or her country to escape war or persecution and can prove it. The 1951 Refugee Convention, negotiated after World War II, defines a refugee as a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership... ...more
Briefly, a refugee is the person who has fled his or her country to escape war or persecution and can prove it. The 1951 Refugee Convention, negotiated after World War II, defines a refugee as a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country. Among those crossing the Mediterranean in the first half of 2015, the greatest numbers came from Syria, Afghanistan or Eritrea. Syrians are widely presumed to be refugees because of the civil war there, according to the United Nations refugee agency. Many Afghans have been able to make the case that they are fleeing conflict, the agency added, and Eritreans can generally argue that they would face political persecution at home in Eritrea, which is ruled by one of the world's most repressive regimes. Anyone moving from one country to another is considered a migrant unless he or she is specifically fleeing war or persecution. Migrants may be fleeing dire poverty, or maybe well-off and merely seeking better opportunities, or maybe migrating to join relatives who have gone before them. There is an emerging debate about whether migrants fleeing their homes because of the effects of climate change the desertification of the Sahel region, for example, or the sinking of coastal islands in Bangladesh ought to be reclassified as refugees. Q. Are migrants treated differently from refugees? A. Countries are free to deport migrants who arrive without legal papers, which they cannot do with refugees under the 1951 convention. So it is not surprising that many politicians in Europe prefer to refer to everyone fleeing to the continent as migrants.
Answers 2 Comments
Dislike Bookmark
Class I-V Tuition 4.8

Class Location

Online (video chat via skype, google hangout etc)

Student's Home

Tutor's Home

Years of Experience in Class I-V Tuition

3

Board

CBSE, State

CBSE Subjects taught

Computers, Oriya, English, Science, EVS, Sanskrit, Mathematics

Taught in School or College

No

State Syllabus Subjects taught

Science, Computer Science, English, EVS, Social Science, Sanskrit, Oriya, Mathematics

Class 6 Tuition 4.9

Class Location

Online (video chat via skype, google hangout etc)

Student's Home

Tutor's Home

Years of Experience in Class 6 Tuition

3

Board

State, CBSE

CBSE Subjects taught

Computers, EVS, Oriya, English, Science, Social Science, Mathematics, Sanskrit

Taught in School or College

No

State Syllabus Subjects taught

Mathematics, Oriya, EVS, Sanskrit, Science, Social science, English

Class 7 Tuition 4.9

Class Location

Online (video chat via skype, google hangout etc)

Student's Home

Tutor's Home

Years of Experience in Class 7 Tuition

3

Board

State, CBSE

CBSE Subjects taught

Computers, EVS, Oriya, English, Science, Social Science, Mathematics, Sanskrit

Taught in School or College

No

State Syllabus Subjects taught

Mathematics, Oriya, EVS, Sanskrit, Science, Social science, English

Class 8 Tuition 4.9

Class Location

Online (video chat via skype, google hangout etc)

Student's Home

Tutor's Home

Years of Experience in Class 8 Tuition

3

Board

State, CBSE

CBSE Subjects taught

Computers, EVS, Oriya, English, Science, Social Science, Mathematics, Sanskrit

Taught in School or College

No

State Syllabus Subjects taught

Mathematics, Oriya, EVS, Sanskrit, Science, Social science, English

Class 9 Tuition 4.8

Class Location

Online (video chat via skype, google hangout etc)

Student's Home

Tutor's Home

Years of Experience in Class 9 Tuition

1

Board

State, CBSE

CBSE Subjects taught

Information and Comunication Technology, Mathematics, Science, Oriya, Sanskrit, Social science, Computer Practices, English

Taught in School or College

No

State Syllabus Subjects taught

Science, Social Science, English, Sanskrit, Oriya, EVS, Mathematics

Class 10 Tuition 4.8

Class Location

Online (video chat via skype, google hangout etc)

Student's Home

Tutor's Home

Years of Experience in Class 10 Tuition

1

Board

State, CBSE

CBSE Subjects taught

Information and Comunication Technology, Mathematics, Science, Oriya, Sanskrit, Social science, Computer Practices, English

Taught in School or College

No

State Syllabus Subjects taught

Science, Social Science, English, Sanskrit, Oriya, EVS, Mathematics

Class 11 Tuition 4.8

Class Location

Online (video chat via skype, google hangout etc)

Student's Home

Tutor's Home

Board

CBSE, State

CBSE Subjects taught

Computer Science, Mathematics

Taught in School or College

No

State Syllabus Subjects taught

Mathematics

Class 12 Tuition 4.8

Class Location

Online (video chat via skype, google hangout etc)

Student's Home

Tutor's Home

Board

CBSE, State

CBSE Subjects taught

Computer Science, Mathematics

Taught in School or College

No

State Syllabus Subjects taught

Mathematics

this is test message this is test message this is test message this is test message this is test message this is test message this is test message

No Reviews yet! Be the first one to Review

Answers by Laxmipriya M. (13)

Answered on 14/01/2018 CBSE/Class 12/Humanities/Political Science Part II Tuition/Class XI-XII Tuition (PUC)

It is the mixed form of socialistic and capitalistic economy. Certain economic activities are fully owned and controlled by the government but all the economic activities are not owned by the Government. Private and public sector both co-exist in the economy. We have adopted mixed economy in India.... ...more
It is the mixed form of socialistic and capitalistic economy. Certain economic activities are fully owned and controlled by the government but all the economic activities are not owned by the Government. Private and public sector both co-exist in the economy. We have adopted mixed economy in India. All the basic industries such as railways, post and telegraph, defence production, atomic energy etc. are in the public sector. Industries dealing with consumer goods are in the private sector. Ours is a welfare state, so the government can nationalise any industry or own any company in the public interest. Mixed economy reduces inequality of income. Due to increased expenditure on public utilities and services, economic benefits to their poor pe9ple are provided. Advantages Mixed economy has got the following advantages: Rapid economic development Inmixed economy both private and public sectors work side by side. The combined efforts lead to rapid economic development. The economic resources of the economy are used efficiently. Wastages of resources are minimised. Lesser inequality of income: Right to own property is granted. Law of inheritance is also applied, so certain members of society grow richer and richer. Public sector in the economy tries to provide economic facility to the general masses. It reduces inequality of income. Balanced regional growth: The planning commission of the country makes policies for the development!"of every region of the economy. The government tries to develop all regions and every section of population. Freedom to own private property: Individuals are free to acquire property and retain in their own names, so the initiative to work more and earn more is there. It helps in the rapid development of the economy in the field of agriculture, industry and other services. Planned development: The planing commission is empowered to make effective plans for the development of the economy. We, in India, have also adopted planned developmental economy and introduced five year plans. Public interest: The public sector looks into the interest of the general public. The government under this economy is said to be welfare state. It introduces social insurance schemes, incurs expenditure and manages economy in the interest of general masses of the country. Disadvantages Inspite of the above advantages, the mixed economy suffers from the fol lowing weaknesses: Fear of nationalisation: Private and public sector coexists. The government has the power to nationalise and own any industry, so private sector remains under a psychological fear that their industry may be nationalised or taken over in the public interest. Inequality of income: Inspite of all the efforts of the government to bring equality, rich people grow richer and the inequality prevails. Economic resources economic developments are concentrated with certain big industries. Corruption: Corruption is the common feature of mixed economy. Black-marketing, profiteering, dishonest dealings and corruption is seen both at higher and lower levels.
Answers 4 Comments
Dislike Bookmark

Answered on 14/01/2018 CBSE/Class 12/Humanities/Political Science Part II Tuition/Class XI-XII Tuition (PUC)

When did the Cold War start? The answer is classic irony in the somber shadow of today's headlines. For it started when the President of the United States decided to protect Iran from our wartime ally, the Soviet Union. The wartime allies had used Iran with the Soviets occupying northern Iran and the... ...more
When did the Cold War start? The answer is classic irony in the somber shadow of today's headlines. For it started when the President of the United States decided to protect Iran from our wartime ally, the Soviet Union. The wartime allies had used Iran with the Soviets occupying northern Iran and the British and American forces occupying the south as a back-door Allied supply line to the Red Army. At their Teheran Conference in 1943 all the allies had agreed to clear out of Iran within six months of an armistice in Europe. The Western allies withdrew before that deadline, which was March 6, 1946. The Soviets did not. Indeed, in early March one Red Army column started south from Azerbaijan toward the Persian capital, Teheran, and another swung west toward Iraq and Turkey. Iran, Britain and the U.S. complained to Moscow; when that didn't work, the case was appealed to the UN Security Council. Since the Soviets had a veto there, that couldn't work either. So it's still March 1946 -- Harry Truman decided (after consulting only with his Secretary of State, James F. Byrnes) to send Stalin secretly what he describes in his memoirs as an ultimatum. He threatened to deploy U.S. naval and ground forces in the Persian Gulf if the Soviets didn't pull the Red Army out of Iran. Before the end of March Andrei Gromyko announced that Soviet troops would leave Iran, and before long they actually left. During that same spring, it became clear that the Soviets wouldn't abide by the Potsdam agreement that Germany should be treated as an economic unit. The Western allies â?? Britain, France, and the U.S. started to consolidate the non-Soviet zones, thus ratifying the de facto division of Germany. That summer, another crisis brewed. The Soviets proposed to put an end to the international supervision of the Dardanelles and establish Soviet bases in Turkey. Twenty-five divisions of the Red Army were maneuvering near the Turkish border to show they meant it. This time President Truman did consult his Cabinet officers and the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and summed up their consensus with Trumanesque informality: We might as well find out now, rather than five or ten years from now, whether the Russians are determined to take over the world. Faced with resistance from Turkey and tough U.S. and British diplomacy backed by the aircraft carrier Franklin D. Roosevelt's "courtesy calls" in the Mediterranean, Stalin stayed his handâ in Turkey but tightened the screws on Greece. The climax came when the Greek government, controlling only a "shrunken area" around Athens, appealed for international help. Almost at the same moment, in February 1947, the British government delivered to Washington a formal note saying that it could no longer afford to help either Greece or Turkey beyond the end of March. Also in February, a rigged election put Communists in power in Poland and another piece of Allied postwar planning, the Yalta agreement, was snuffed out by Soviet noncompliance. In American politics, the stars were not aligned for a strong reaction to all this. Americans were delighted the war was over, welcomed the wholesale demobilization of troops, They were looking for some normalcy, maybe even some prosperity. They were certainly far from ready for another kind of war. In November 1946, U.S. voters had put Republicans in charge of both houses of Congress. Senator Robert Taft, "Mr. Republican" in those days, was focused, he said, on "straightening out our domestic affairs." Yet in March 1947, with the indispensable help of a senior Republican, Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, President Truman laid it on the line in a historic address to a joint session of Congress. He called for massive help to both Greece and Turkey -- which was authorized and funded by overwhelming majorities in both the Senate and the House in less than two months. The great confrontation we came to call the Cold War had quite suddenly become the next stage of world history. What began in Iran in 1946 lasted for 45 years, until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Four months after the Truman Doctrine speech, a Commencement address by Secretary of State George C. Marshall added another theme to the symphony of Western cooperation. Marshall was already famous as the general manager of America's largest and most successful war, and more recently renowned though unsuccessful -- as a mediator in China's civil conflict. He had just come back from weeks of fruitless haggling at a Moscow conference of foreign ministers. On the flight home, he had witnessed the hopelessness of a Europe soon to be described by Winston Churchill as "a rubble-heap, a charnel house, a breeding ground of pestilence and hate." The Marshall speech was not in itself a cold war maneuver. "Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos." In this humanitarian tone of voice, General-now-Secretary George Marshall launched the United States and its European allies on the most ambitious, riskiest, and arguably the most successful peacemaking adventure in American history. The Marshall Plan was a brilliant series of improvisations on a deceptively simple theme: Europe needed help, and only America could supply it. Precisely because it wasn't a cold war move, it turned out to be a key to the cold war's outcome. It was even open to the Eastern Europeans; but once the Soviet foreign minister Molotov attended a first planning session in Paris, the Kremlin pulled its satellites out of what looked, from Moscow, like a dangerous opportunity to cooperate. Measured by the cost of failure, let alone the standards of modern war, the Marshall Plan was not expensive. Its first-year cost, five billion 1948 dollars, did provide something like five percent of Western Europe's GNP. But the total amount of transatlantic aid, $13 billion in its four years, was a fraction of defense spending and a marginal blip on Europe's own recovery effort though hugely important because it lifted Europeâ??s spirits and helped fill Europe's dollar gap. The priceless ingredient was of course immeasurable: reassurance and hope from across the Atlantic Ocean, for Europeans who were losing hope fast as the Soviets mounted an impressive political effort on the quite rational assumption that Americans, weary of Europe's wars and anxious to get back to creating America, would stay out of Europe's next crisis. The Marshall Plan provided above all a source of dynamism-in-action to reverse a growing hopelessness in Europe. Without the Marshall Plan, Western Europe was endangered by poverty, desperation, and chaos; and Communist parties backed by the Soviet Union were poised to pick up the pieces. With the Marshall Plan, the Western Europeans were able to jump-start their economic recovery from World War II; to commence a bold if baffling effort to build a European Union; and to create an inclusive framework within which a new Germany could be both strong and safe. And then, the Europeans were able to face east with such comparative prosperity and panache that their Eastern European neighbors in time decided to join the Western future and the Soviet Union itself eventually dissolved. But meanwhile, the Marshall Plan provoked a wide range of Soviet efforts to sabotage it. Tom Wilson the historian watched this at close hand, and eloquently describes it: Every medium of propaganda which the Communists controlled was used to the hilt. Communist posters plastered the walls of the cities. Handbills were passed out to the workers leaving their factories. News sheets appeared on the walls of remote villages. Counter propaganda was torn down or painted red by Communist crews in the streets by night. The radio programs from Eastern Europe kept up a drumfire of anti-Marshall Plan messages. "Rocks were thrown through the screens of motion-picture theaters showing newsreels of Marshall Plan projects. Riots were staged at U.S. information exhibits. Bundles of U.S.-sponsored newspapers were thrown into rivers from trains crossing bridges by night. The Communists spent seven times as much for propaganda as the United States spent for the Marshall Plan information service. "Against these odds, the U.S. services worked overtime and well. The best film crews that could be assembled turned out news clips, film magazines, and documentaries at prodigious rates. . . ." Some of you have seen excellent examples of this good work in the "Selling Democracy" screenings shown by Sandra Schulberg at the National Archives this week. We Americans also derived from the Marshall Plan benefits that are as hard to quantify as they were obvious to see and to feel. We were associated with a dependable group of European allies in a troublesome postwar world. We helped build a large and congenial market in which to buy and sell. We helped create a political attractant that lured Eastern Europe away from totalitarian rule, and withered Soviet Communism on the vine. And we generated, besides, the good feeling among Americans that we could do something right something that we hadn't known how to do. A young historian David Reynolds, too young to have lived through it but very perceptive about its place in history summed up the Marshall Plan this way: "Between 1948 and 1951, the United States pumped about $13 billion into Western Europe. Between 1948 and Stalin's death in 1953, the Soviet Union extracted some $14 billion from Eastern Europe. These statistics are crude but telling. They deserve a place in any history of postwar Europe." Helmut Schmidt of Germany said it all in one sentence: "The high probability of failure was averted thanks to leaders who did not act according to plan, but instead relied on their moral and national visions as well as their common sense." Even before the Marshall Plan got underway, the transatlantic allies had put together a military alliance designed to persuade the Soviet Union that military militancy would not pay. The architects of historyâ??s greatest peacetime alliance were acting out one sentence of a speech by a Soviet Foreign Minister to the U.N. General Assembly two decades later, in 1968. "History takes revenge for forgetfulness," Andrei Gromyko declared with unintended irony, "if somebody deliberately forgets the significance of European affairs or neglects them." The North Atlantic Alliance was signed in 1947. Six decades later, despite pressures, threats, ultimatums, provocations, and crises, there has been no war among, or armed attack on, the members of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Anyone with a smattering of modern European history can appreciate how extraordinary and unprecedented a piece of good news this is. Something must have been done right. The early stress on a massive program of economic recovery; the psychological and economic lift of the Common Market; the curiously credible threat of strategic nuclear retaliation for tactical transgressions; the symbolic integration of NATO armies; the willingness of wartime allies to make an ally of West Germany without awaiting a final peace settlement; the long and ultimately successful search for an Atlantic nuclear sharing arrangement; the West's espousal of a policy broad enough (and ambiguous enough) to accommodate both defense and détente the willingness to bring in additional members each of these policies played its part. But shining through the military half-measures and the tepid ministerial communications was a moral solidarity that somehow made more out of what was objectively not enough. The real deterrent to Soviet ambitions was this: by and large, with occasional and temporary exceptions which fortunately turned out not to be critical, the Atlantic allies stuck together. The glue that has held the allies together is a large, complex, and dynamic bargain â?? partly an understanding among the Europeans, but most importantly a deal between them and the United States of America. The specifics of the bargain, and the comparative burdens to be shared keep changing. But the constant is that there has to be a bargain. The Treaty form of the deal is "We'll help defends you if you'll help defend us." But despite Secretary of State Dean Rusk's legally correct allusion to the Bering Straits as the "Western flank" of NATO, most Americans think of NATO the way most Europeans do, as essentially an arrangement to ensure the defense of Western Europe. The price of mutual help is self-help: "We Americans will help you Europeans if you will (a) help defend yourselves, and (b) get on with building a united Europe." The transatlantic bargain, kept alive by continuous consultation, kept 7,000 U.S. nuclear weapons and some 300,000 U.S. troops in Europe for the long generation we call the Cold War. Whether that was enough for the defense we fortunately never had to discover. It did turn out, in the end, to be enough for détente. The Cold War was called cold because of the featured heavyweights, the Soviet Union and the United States, were nominally "at peace." But they engaged in circling each other, jabbing at each other, testing each other supposed weaknesses in every part of the world, in the Byzantine politics of the United Nations, and in a couple of dozen other international organizations. We don't have all day for a complete inventory, but it may be useful to provide some examples of the variety of "preliminary bouts." One early bout was in divided Berlin, where the Soviets had a natural advantage: Berlin was completely surrounded by East Germany. In 1948 they suspended all road and rail traffic between Berlin and West Germany. In response, the Truman administration decided to supply Berlin entirely by airlift. This extraordinary operation, run by Air Force General Curtis LeMay, came to be known as the LeMay Coal and Feed Company. It "flew in corridors only twenty miles wide, at staggered altitudes, in all weather, twenty-four hours a day, sometimes harassed by Soviet fighter planes, and landing at airports only four minutes from each other. . . .At its peak, an incredible 1,398 trips brought 13,000 tons of supplies into Berlin within a twenty-four hour period. . . . More than ten months after it began, and more than 250,000 flights later, the Berlin airlift came to an end. . . .The Western Allies were still in Berlin [and] the cold war was still cold." But the world seemed to be heating up fast. In 1949 the Soviet Union tested an atomic explosion. In 1950 the North Koreans rolled south across the 38th parallel in their Russian-made tanks. Under a UN mandate, the U.S., South Korea, and more than a dozen other countries resisted; three years later the dividing line in the Korean peninsula was about where it had been before. But casualties on both sides had been enormous. And the resulting arms race engaged all the NATO allies the U.S. itself moved to a state of semi-mobilization, jumping its military budget from $18 to $35 billion. Before long, the United States was formally allied with forty-two nations in military pacts around the world. Josef Stalin had pushed as hard as he could. Harry Truman, with plenty of help from others, had pushed back just as hard. After seven years of not-quite-war, the result was a stalemate. But the Soviet Union was still in control of whatever the Red Army had controlled at the end of World War II. In 1953 General Eisenhower, whose last military job had been Supreme Commander at NATO, became President of the United States and two months later Stalin died. The Soviets achieved an H-bomb, which meant that deterrence had become mutual. And Nikita Khrushchev began to emerge as a new kind of Soviet leader â?? just as pushy, occasionally more reckless, but also more inclined to play the peace-and-coexistence card, and much more confident that the Soviet economy could compete with Western capitalism and attract support around the world with economic and technical aid "without strings." Later he more dramatically cut ties with the earlier regime by denouncing the cult of personality and the absolutely insufferable character of Stalin. But he continued to dramatize his own personality at every turn. The notion of "rolling back" Communists from Eastern Europe, floated in 1953 by President Eisenhower's Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, was itself roll
Answers 2 Comments
Dislike Bookmark

Answered on 14/01/2018 CBSE/Class 12/Humanities/Political Science Part II Tuition/Class XI-XII Tuition (PUC)

The United States seeks to build a positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship with China by expanding areas of cooperation and addressing areas of disagreement, such as human rights and cyber-security. The United States welcomes a strong, peaceful, and prosperous China playing a greater role... ...more
The United States seeks to build a positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship with China by expanding areas of cooperation and addressing areas of disagreement, such as human rights and cyber-security. The United States welcomes a strong, peaceful, and prosperous China playing a greater role in world affairs and seeks to advance practical cooperation with China. There are four annual dialogues held between the U.S. and China; the Diplomatic and Security Dialogue, the Comprehensive Economic Dialogue, the Law Enforcement and Cybersecurity Dialogue, and the Social and Cultural Issues Dialogue all serve as a unique platform to promote bilateral understanding, expand consensus, discuss differences, build mutual trust, and increase cooperation. The strategic track of the S&ED has produced benefits for both countries through a wide range of joint projects and initiatives and expanded avenues for addressing common regional and global challenges such as proliferation concerns in Iran and North Korea, tensions between Sudan and South Sudan, climate change, environmental protection, and energy security. The United States has emphasized the need to enhance bilateral trust through increased high-level exchanges, formal dialogues, and expanded people-to-people ties. U.S. Assistance to China: U.S. assistance programs in China focus on four principal areas: supporting efforts on environmental protection and climate-change mitigation; advancing the rule of law and human rights; assisting Tibetan communities, and addressing the threat of pandemic diseases. U.S. support for transparency and governance crosses these sectors, supporting the development of environmental law, as well as a free, fair, and accessible justice system. Programs in each of these areas are targeted and directly address U.S. interests such as limiting the transmission of avian influenza, HIV/AIDS, and other diseases that pose threats to global security. Furthermore, such programs have been expanded with the addition of local Chinese resources, Programs in Tibetan areas of China support activities that preserve the distinct Tibetan culture and promote sustainable development and environmental conservation. Bilateral Economic Relations: The U.S. approach to its economic relations with China has two main elements: integrating China into the global, rules-based economic and trading system and expanding U.S. exporters' and investors' access to the Chinese market. Two-way trade between China and the United States has grown from $33 billion in 1992 to over $648 billion in goods and services in 2016. China is currently the third largest export market for U.S. goods (after Canada and Mexico), and the United States is China's largest export market. The stock of U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in China was $75 billion in 2015, up from $54 billion in 2012, and remained primarily in the manufacturing sector. During the July 2017 meeting of the U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue, the two countries discussed measures to expand opportunities for U.S. firms in China and made progress on important issues including credit ratings, bond clearing, electronic payments, commercial banking, and liquefied natural gas. For the first time since 2003, China allowed for imports of American beef. China's Membership in International Organizations: The People's Republic of China assumed the China seat at the United Nations in 1971, replacing Taiwan, and is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Over the years, China has become increasingly active in multilateral organizations, particularly the United Nations. China and the United States work closely with the international community to address threats to global security, including North Korea and Iran's nuclear programs.
Answers 2 Comments
Dislike Bookmark

Answered on 14/01/2018 CBSE/Class 12/Humanities/Political Science Part II Tuition/Class XI-XII Tuition (PUC)

The economic situation which exists in the developing world today is the result of the relationship between the modern, and developing nations of the world. Modernized nations benefited from this relationship because it gave them access to natural resources. However, because of this relationship, many... ...more
The economic situation which exists in the developing world today is the result of the relationship between the modern, and developing nations of the world. Modernized nations benefited from this relationship because it gave them access to natural resources. However, because of this relationship, many developing nations now suffer from severe problems. These nations are attempting to change the situation in which they struggle. A political cartoon I have recently seen illustrated the economic relationship between the industrialized world and the developing world. It shows that the industrial nations, The United States and Europe, are located in the northern hemisphere. On the other hand, most of the developing world, Central and South America and Africa, are found in the southern hemisphere. The well-fed, well-dressed individual holding the industrialized world indicates that the modernized nations of the world are prosperous, and have a high standard of living. The skinny, poorly dressed individual holding the developing world indicates that the developing nations of the world are not prosperous, and have a lower standard of living than do industrialized nations. Both individuals are supporting each other in such a way that if one is removed, the other will fall. Without resources to use, the industry would not be able to maintain its existence. Likewise, without a market for their resources, or the products of industry, the developing world would not be able to maintain its existence. Two current problems which exist in the developing world today are political instability and rapid urbanization. Political instability causes economic problems in places such as Africa, and South America, where many governments are being overthrown. When a government is inconsistent, a tax system cannot be established and revenue canâ??t be collected. If a government doesnâ??t receive revenue, it cannot provide sanitation, or health care, and cannot build or repair roads or buildings. Also, political instability can result in the control of a nation. The second problem which exists in the developing world today is rapid urbanization. Rapid urbanization can be defined as the sudden growth in city population. It results in problems such as congested streets and poverty. For example, when people flock to the city to find jobs, not all of them are able to find work, these people remain unemployed. Those who manage to find work, face long hours and low pay. With so many people there is a shortage of food, housing, and healthcare. Also, sanitation is poor if there is any at all, and the water is contaminated because of the sewage running through it. This is why political instability and rapid urbanization cause problems in the developing world today. Nations within the developing sections of the world have attempted to improve their situation in many ways. For example, these developing nations want to promote economic diversity and education. Economic diversity can be defined as producing various kinds of crops and goods so that the nation is not dependent on a single export. By promoting education, governments set up schools to train students in the skills needed in a modern industrial economy, therefore creating more skilled workers for jobs in the management field as opposed to labor. The examples of economic diversity and education are ways in which nations within the developing world have attempted to change their situations. In conclusion, the economic situation which exists in the developing world today is dependence on the industrialized world. They are dependent because they need a market for their resources and the products of industry. This situation contributed to problems such as political instability, and rapid urbanization. Developing nations are attempting to change these situations through the promotion of economic diversity, and education.
Answers 2 Comments
Dislike Bookmark

Answered on 14/01/2018 CBSE/Class 12/Humanities/Political Science Part II Tuition/Class XI-XII Tuition (PUC)

Briefly, a refugee is the person who has fled his or her country to escape war or persecution and can prove it. The 1951 Refugee Convention, negotiated after World War II, defines a refugee as a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership... ...more
Briefly, a refugee is the person who has fled his or her country to escape war or persecution and can prove it. The 1951 Refugee Convention, negotiated after World War II, defines a refugee as a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country. Among those crossing the Mediterranean in the first half of 2015, the greatest numbers came from Syria, Afghanistan or Eritrea. Syrians are widely presumed to be refugees because of the civil war there, according to the United Nations refugee agency. Many Afghans have been able to make the case that they are fleeing conflict, the agency added, and Eritreans can generally argue that they would face political persecution at home in Eritrea, which is ruled by one of the world's most repressive regimes. Anyone moving from one country to another is considered a migrant unless he or she is specifically fleeing war or persecution. Migrants may be fleeing dire poverty, or maybe well-off and merely seeking better opportunities, or maybe migrating to join relatives who have gone before them. There is an emerging debate about whether migrants fleeing their homes because of the effects of climate change the desertification of the Sahel region, for example, or the sinking of coastal islands in Bangladesh ought to be reclassified as refugees. Q. Are migrants treated differently from refugees? A. Countries are free to deport migrants who arrive without legal papers, which they cannot do with refugees under the 1951 convention. So it is not surprising that many politicians in Europe prefer to refer to everyone fleeing to the continent as migrants.
Answers 2 Comments
Dislike Bookmark

Contact

Load More

Laxmipriya M. describes herself as All Subject Trainer With 4 Years of Experience in Teaching Line. She conducts classes in Class 10 Tuition, Class 11 Tuition and Class 12 Tuition. Laxmipriya is located in Siddhamahavir, Puri. Laxmipriya takes at students Home and Regular Classes- at her Home. She has 3 years of teaching experience . Laxmipriya has completed Bachelor of Computer Science (B.Sc. (Computer Science)) from utkal university in 2015. She is well versed in Hindi and English.

X
X

Post your Learning Need

Let us shortlist and give the best tutors and institutes.

or

Send Enquiry to Laxmipriya M.

Let Laxmipriya M. know you are interested in their class

Reply to 's review

Enter your reply*

1500/1500

Please enter your reply

Your reply should contain a minimum of 10 characters

Your reply has been successfully submitted.

UrbanPro.com is India's largest network of most trusted tutors and institutes. Over 55 lakh students rely on UrbanPro.com, to fulfill their learning requirements across 1,000+ categories. Using UrbanPro.com, parents, and students can compare multiple Tutors and Institutes and choose the one that best suits their requirements. More than 7.5 lakh verified Tutors and Institutes are helping millions of students every day and growing their tutoring business on UrbanPro.com. Whether you are looking for a tutor to learn mathematics, a German language trainer to brush up your German language skills or an institute to upgrade your IT skills, we have got the best selection of Tutors and Training Institutes for you. Read more