An important source of electricity in Argentina
Answer:
- Lane-Poole, “For the first time in their history, the Mughals beheld a
rigid Muslim in their emperor—a Muslim as sternly repressible of himself as of his people around him, a king who was prepared to stake his throne for sake of his faith.
- He must have been fully conscious of the dangerous path he was pursuing, and well aware against every Hindu sentiment. Yet he chose this course, and adhered to this with unbending resolve through close on fifty years of unchallenged sovereignty.”
-
Dr. S.R. Sharma, writing about the acts of religious intolerance of Aurangzeb has observed, “These were not the acts of a righteous ruler of constructive statesman, but the outbursts of blind fanaticism, unworthy of the great genius that Aurangzeb undoubtedly possessed in all other aspects.”
Aims of Aurangzeb’s religious policy:
- It is generally accepted that Aurangzeb was a fanatic Sunni Mussalman. His chief aim was to
convert Dar-ul-harb (India: the country of Kafirs or infidels) to Dar-ul-Islam (country of Islam).
- He was intolerant towards other faiths, especially Hindus. He was also against Shia Muslims.
Aurangzeb’s religious policy had two aspects i.e:
(i) To promote the tenets of Islam and to ensure that the people led their lives accordingly.
(ii) To adopt anti-Hindu measures.
Anti-Hindu measures:
Following were the anti-Hindu measures adopted by Aurangzeb:
- Demolishing temples and breaking idols
- Imposition of Jaziya
- Discriminatory toll far
- Removal of the Hindus from Government jobs
- Restrictions on Hindu educational institutions
- Conversion through different means
- Social restrictions
Between Mexico City the stuff he said ^
For more than a decade after its passage, the Sherman Act was invoked only rarely against industrial monopolies, and then not successfully, chiefly because of narrow judicial interpretations of what constitutes trade or commerce among states. When it was first passed, the Sherman Antitrust Act was largely ineffective at stopping industrial monopolies. Courts at the time tended to hold a very narrow view of what constituted “trade or commerce among states,” and most companies were not held liable under the act. For more than a decade after its passage, the Sherman Antitrust Act was invoked only rarely against industrial monopolies, and then not successfully. Ironically, its only effective use for a number of years was against labor unions, which were held by the courts to be illegal combinations.
Answer:
I believe the answer is “left illegally”.
Explanation:
Since they are poor they obviously cannot move to the Soviet Union nor could they bribe the government. Leaving illegally seems like the best possible answer. I’m not sure how sending one child out would help them.
