Whose reign in Indian History was called the Golden Age of India?

Whose reign in Indian History was called the Golden Age of India? Correct Answer Gupta Empire

Gupta Dynasty reign in Indian History is called the Golden Age of India. Gupta reign is Golden age because of their various advancement in the field of medical science, astronomy , architecture and civil engineering. The prosperity of the Gupta Empire produced a golden age of cultural and scientific advancements.
Bissoy MCQ

Related Questions

Whose reign in Indian History is called the Golden Age of India?
S1: Mr. Ford, it is commonly reported, once declared that history was "bunk".
P: Yet the American, generally speaking, is by no means ignorant of history or uninfluenced by his knowledge of it.
Q: This remarkable utterance of his, if indeed he made it, was in itself an outcome of history.
R: The Americans know more about our history than we know about theirs, though I hope that will soon be remedied.
S: Such contempt for all things past, and such engaging frankness in expressing it were themselves the outcome of the social history of the United States in the 19th century.
S6: And the American's conception of his own country as the representative of freedom and of democracy is the product of history as popularly taught and conceived over there.

The Proper sequence should be:
Two boys are playing on a ground. Both the boys are less than 10 years old. Age of the younger boy is equal to the cube root of the product of the age of the two boys. If we place the digit representing the age of the younger boy to the left of the digit representing the age of the elder boy, we get the age of the father of the younger boy. Similarly, we place the digit representing the age of the elder boy to the left of the digit representing the age of the younger boy and divide the figure by 2, we get the age of the mother of the younger boy. The mother of the younger boy is younger than his father by 3 years. Then, what are the ages of elder and younger boys ?
If 6 years are subtracted from the present age of Ayush and takes 25% of that then we get the present age of his only son. 4 years ago, his daughters age is 7 years more than his son. Sum of daughters present age and his wifes present age is 10 years more than Ayushs present age then find the present age of Ayush if average of present age of entire family is 30.25 yr?
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? Why do some French people think that Hindi is the only Indian language?
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? What wrong with respect to India are the Europeans responsible for?
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? According to the writer the responsibility of explaining the facts about India to Europeans rests with?
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? The writer was working at a university in which country?
Ram's son's age is $$\frac{1}{3}$$ of Ram's wife's age. Ram's wife's age is $$\frac{4}{5}$$ of Ram's age and Ram's age is $$\frac{3}{5}$$ of Ram's father's age. Find the age of Ram's son, if Ram's father is 50 years old ?
One or two statements are given followed by two conclusions/assumptions, I and II. You have to consider the statement to be true, even if it seems to beat variance from commonly known facts. You are to decide which of the given conclusions/assumptions can definitely be drawn from the given statement. Indicateyour answer.
Statements: 1. All mangoes are golden in colour. 2. No golden coloured things are cheap.
Conclusions: I. All mangoes are cheap. II. Golden-coloured mangoes are not cheap.