Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

The dominion of Pakistan came to being on?

The dominion of Pakistan came to being on? Correct Answer 14<sup>th</sup> August 1947

The correct option is 14th August 1947.

  • On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor-General in Karachi.
  • The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Dominion of India, became an independent country, with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of Prime Minister, and with Viceroy Mountbatten staying on as the country's first Governor General. 
  • On 3rd June 1947, the formal proposal for partition of India was presented by Lord Mountbatten.

 

[ alt="1dbc5c2867adb1ea1414d2b6c974a318" of india in rarenewspapers.com facts freedom fighters history newspaper src="https://i.pinimg.com/736x/1d/bc/5c/1dbc5c2867adb1ea1414d2b6c974a318.jpg" style="width: 300px; height: 240px;">

A newspaper cutting of the New York Herald with the news of Indian Independence and partition.

 

Related Questions

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow. Unsurprisingly, the latest conviction comes a month after the FATF, a global dirty money watchdog, urged Pakistan to complete an internationally agreed action plan to fight terror financing. In February 2018, Pakistan endorsed a UN list of terrorist organizations operating in the country and enforced a nationwide ban on them, including the LeT and the JuD, just before a meeting of the FATF. But the FATF still placed Pakistan on its “grey list” in June 2018, and demanded more actions from Islamabad to avoid being blacklisted, which could invite economic sanctions. Ever since, Pakistan, which cannot afford to be blacklisted, especially when its economy is in shambles, has moved against Saeed. The Anti-Terrorism Department’s FIRs against Saeed and his aides accuse the JuD of financing terrorism from its fund collections in the name of charity through NGOs. While the authorities’ move against Saeed is welcome, the question is whether these are genuine attempts to fight terrorism or half-hearted measures to dodge international pressure. There are doubts because Pakistan had used anti-India and anti-Afghan terrorist networks for strategic advantages. It was this dual policy of fighting terror at home while nurturing terror groups that target its rivals abroad that has been responsible for Pakistan’s predicament. If it is serious about fighting terrorism, Pakistan should crackdown on terror financing and terror infrastructure. The international community and organizations, including the FATF, should keep up the pressure until Islamabad shows tangible outcomes. According to the passage, why FATF did not remove Pakistan from the "grey list"?
Read the passage and answer the questions that follow. Unsurprisingly, the latest conviction comes a month after the FATF, a global dirty money watchdog, urged Pakistan to complete an internationally agreed action plan to fight terror financing. In February 2018, Pakistan endorsed a UN list of terrorist organizations operating in the country and enforced a nationwide ban on them, including the LeT and the JuD, just before a meeting of the FATF. But the FATF still placed Pakistan on its “grey list” in June 2018, and demanded more actions from Islamabad to avoid being blacklisted, which could invite economic sanctions. Ever since, Pakistan, which cannot afford to be blacklisted, especially when its economy is in shambles, has moved against Saeed. The Anti-Terrorism Department’s FIRs against Saeed and his aides accuse the JuD of financing terrorism from its fund collections in the name of charity through NGOs. While the authorities’ move against Saeed is welcome, the question is whether these are genuine attempts to fight terrorism or half-hearted measures to dodge international pressure. There are doubts because Pakistan had used anti-India and anti-Afghan terrorist networks for strategic advantages. It was this dual policy of fighting terror at home while nurturing terror groups that target its rivals abroad that has been responsible for Pakistan’s predicament. If it is serious about fighting terrorism, Pakistan should crackdown on terror financing and terror infrastructure. The international community and organizations, including the FATF, should keep up the pressure until Islamabad shows tangible outcomes. From the passage, it can be inferred that the author is:
Read the passage and answer the questions that follow. Unsurprisingly, the latest conviction comes a month after the FATF, a global dirty money watchdog, urged Pakistan to complete an internationally agreed action plan to fight terror financing. In February 2018, Pakistan endorsed a UN list of terrorist organizations operating in the country and enforced a nationwide ban on them, including the LeT and the JuD, just before a meeting of the FATF. But the FATF still placed Pakistan on its “grey list” in June 2018, and demanded more actions from Islamabad to avoid being blacklisted, which could invite economic sanctions. Ever since, Pakistan, which cannot afford to be blacklisted, especially when its economy is in shambles, has moved against Saeed. The Anti-Terrorism Department’s FIRs against Saeed and his aides accuse the JuD of financing terrorism from its fund collections in the name of charity through NGOs. While the authorities’ move against Saeed is welcome, the question is whether these are genuine attempts to fight terrorism or half-hearted measures to dodge international pressure. There are doubts because Pakistan had used anti-India and anti-Afghan terrorist networks for strategic advantages. It was this dual policy of fighting terror at home while nurturing terror groups that target its rivals abroad that has been responsible for Pakistan’s predicament. If it is serious about fighting terrorism, Pakistan should crackdown on terror financing and terror infrastructure. The international community and organizations, including the FATF, should keep up the pressure until Islamabad shows tangible outcomes. What is the meaning of the word SHAMBLES in the passage?
Read the passage and answer the questions that follow. Unsurprisingly, the latest conviction comes a month after the FATF, a global dirty money watchdog, urged Pakistan to complete an internationally agreed action plan to fight terror financing. In February 2018, Pakistan endorsed a UN list of terrorist organizations operating in the country and enforced a nationwide ban on them, including the LeT and the JuD, just before a meeting of the FATF. But the FATF still placed Pakistan on its “grey list” in June 2018, and demanded more actions from Islamabad to avoid being blacklisted, which could invite economic sanctions. Ever since, Pakistan, which cannot afford to be blacklisted, especially when its economy is in shambles, has moved against Saeed. The Anti-Terrorism Department’s FIRs against Saeed and his aides accuse the JuD of financing terrorism from its fund collections in the name of charity through NGOs. While the authorities’ move against Saeed is welcome, the question is whether these are genuine attempts to fight terrorism or half-hearted measures to dodge international pressure. There are doubts because Pakistan had used anti-India and anti-Afghan terrorist networks for strategic advantages. It was this dual policy of fighting terror at home while nurturing terror groups that target its rivals abroad that has been responsible for Pakistan’s predicament. If it is serious about fighting terrorism, Pakistan should crackdown on terror financing and terror infrastructure. The international community and organizations, including the FATF, should keep up the pressure until Islamabad shows tangible outcomes. The purpose of the author in writing this passage seems to be
Read the passage and answer the questions that follow. Unsurprisingly, the latest conviction comes a month after the FATF, a global dirty money watchdog, urged Pakistan to complete an internationally agreed action plan to fight terror financing. In February 2018, Pakistan endorsed a UN list of terrorist organizations operating in the country and enforced a nationwide ban on them, including the LeT and the JuD, just before a meeting of the FATF. But the FATF still placed Pakistan on its “grey list” in June 2018, and demanded more actions from Islamabad to avoid being blacklisted, which could invite economic sanctions. Ever since, Pakistan, which cannot afford to be blacklisted, especially when its economy is in shambles, has moved against Saeed. The Anti-Terrorism Department’s FIRs against Saeed and his aides accuse the JuD of financing terrorism from its fund collections in the name of charity through NGOs. While the authorities’ move against Saeed is welcome, the question is whether these are genuine attempts to fight terrorism or half-hearted measures to dodge international pressure. There are doubts because Pakistan had used anti-India and anti-Afghan terrorist networks for strategic advantages. It was this dual policy of fighting terror at home while nurturing terror groups that target its rivals abroad that has been responsible for Pakistan’s predicament. If it is serious about fighting terrorism, Pakistan should crackdown on terror financing and terror infrastructure. The international community and organizations, including the FATF, should keep up the pressure until Islamabad shows tangible outcomes. As per the passage, which word can replace CONVICTION grammatically and contextually?
In the following question, sentences of a paragraph have been jumbled and labelled as A, B, C and D. You are required to rearrange the jumbled sentences of the paragraph and mark your response accordingly by selecting the correct option. A: The Act received the royal assent on 18 July 1947 and thus India and Pakistan, comprising West (modern-day Pakistan) and East (modern-day Bangladesh) regions, came into being on 15 August. B: The 1947 Indian Independence Act is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that partitioned British India into the two new independent dominions of India and Pakistan. C: This plan was the last plan for independence. D: The legislature representatives of the Indian National Congress, the Muslim League, and the Sikh community came to an agreement with Lord Mountbatten on what has come to be known as the 3 June Plan or Mountbatten Plan.
Among the five international participants, Pakistan, Australia, England, India, and Bangladesh in a Cricket tournament, the score obtained by India is more than Australia and Pakistan. England‘s score is less than that of Australia but more than Pakistan. Bangladesh‘s score is more than Pakistan and England but less than that of Australia. Who scored the highest and the second-lowest among all the five participants?
Which of the following statement is/are correct? Pandit Nehru and Maulana Azad were official negotiators with the Cripps Mission. Nehru said that Cripps's offer of Dominion status after the war was a 'Post dated cheque drawn on a crashing bank'. Major features of Cripps Mission was Dominion Status, War Executive Council,Province may have separate  Constitution. Select the correct code from below.
Each of the following questions comprise of a statement and two Conclusions I and II. Choose the correct alternative from the given options. Statement: Whenever there is a match between India and Pakistan, Mr. Acharyulu takes leave from his office. Mr. Acharyulu is in office today. Conclusions:  I. There is no match between India and Pakistan today. II. Mr. Acharyulu always goes to his office except on India-Pakistan match days.
Consider the following statements with reference to the Mountbatten Plan. 1. It sought to give dominion status to India and Pakistan. 2. It provided for the setting up of the Boundary Commission. 3. The plan lacked any provision for conducting a referendum to determine which sides a region would go to. Which of the following statements given above is/are correct?