hope you enjoy reading this and hope it will help it's about the life of Abdul kalam and runcination of war about Russia and Ukraine also having Socrates quotes

1. English
Question #1
Think and writea short account of what lifein Rameswaram (Tamil Nadu) in
the1940s must havebeen like. Were people rich or poor? Hardworking or
lazy? Hopeful of change, or resistant to it? Collect and add pictures to
highlight your details.
Answer: Inthe year 1940s,
the life in Rameswaram
might have been very
simple. From the account
of Abdul Kalam,
we gather that the people
we’re not very wealthy.
Though religious based
segregation existed; people lived in harmony with one another. Yet there were people
who did not like different social groups to intermingle. The religions were demarcated

2. by the clothes they wore or the area where they lived. Orthodox Hindu Brahmin families
were more rigid. Still, those who displayed their
conservativeness and religious stringency were strongly opposed by the others.
The people of the town might have been hard
himself started earning at the tender ageof eight years. Besides, the Second World War
might have affected the lives of the people. The author says that India was forced to join
the war and subsequently a state of emergency was declared. Indians waited
optimistically for independence.
Question #2
Theworld is onebig family, no oneis a stranger: no oneis different; weall
need and want thesamethings. Hence, waging warsagainst our brothers does
not makesense. Keeping thetheme of globalization and universal
working, as the author mentions how his cousin
used to collect bundles of newspaper for distribution.
Kalam’s family arranged for boats for the visiting
pilgrims. Also, the author

3. brotherhood in mind, draft a speech on thetopic “RENUNCIATION OF
WAR”. Citeexamples from thecurrent Russia- Ukrainewar. Collect and add
pictures to highlight your details.
Answer: Although
international law makes
some distinction between
a just and anunjust war,
state practice until the
conclusion of World War
I had generally disregarded that distinction and maintained war as a legitimate means
of resolving disputes or increasing the power of the state. Recognized methods for
resolving disputes peacefully did exist, however; under the covenant of the league of
nations, for example, member states promised to utilize such methods before resorting
to war. Formal rejection of war asa means of national policy for settling
controversies came in 1928 with the
conclusion of the Kellogg Briand pact.
Titled the General

4. Treaty for the Renunciation of War, the Kellogg-Briand Pact obligated signatories to
abandon force in favor of negotiation, arbitration, mediation, or other methods of
settling disputes peacefully. Although the signatories renounced war with each other,
the Kellogg-Briand Pact still permitted war for self-defense, for collective enforcement of
international obligations, between signatories andnonparty states, andagainst a
signatory thathad derogated its obligations under the treaty by going to war. The
United Nations Charter, which has hadbroader acceptance thanthe Kellogg-Briand
Pact, carries the aims of the pact further by prohibiting the
use of force or even the threat of force. The charter also attempts to impose these
obligations on nonmembers in Article 2.
========================================================
============================