Division Of Assets Dependent Student: Fill & Download for Free

Thanks for the A2A, Uzma Jabbar. Writing this took me back in time and made me recall me much that I believed that I had long forgotten.While growing up, I had the privilege of studying in one of the best educational institutions in Pakistan. So, it is likely that my experience differs from some Pakistani students, including the vast majority who later opted for the local board exams over CIEs (Cambridge International Examinations).To start off, there is very little that is taught about modern-day India, and for good reason — Pakistan has an extensive history of dealing with internal affairs which should be prioritised over India’s for Pakistani students. Therefore, this answer will mostly concern historical India (the subcontinent) over its modern-day counterpart.For the first few years, starting from Grade II leading up to Grade VIII, we were mostly taught about Mughal history, as well as local Indian kingdoms, other invaders of India and a few religious figures. Local Indian rulers consisted of individuals like Asoka, Ranjit Singh and Sivaji to name a few, while invaders taught about included Alexander the Great, Muhammad bin Qasim, the Ghauris, Khiljis, Ghaznavids, Tughluqs, Mughals and many more. A few of the religious figures that were mentioned or taught about consisted of Gautama Buddha, Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh (emphasis on his leadership and presence during Aurangzeb’s rule). Needless to say, some individuals were spoken of more elaborately than others.As a part of the O Levels Pakistan Studies curriculum, whose course contents are regulated by the University of Cambridge itself, history, all the way from the Mughals till present, is taught about. Naturally, it was leaning towards the Pakistani and a pro-Muslim narrative but was completely neutral when it came to assessing each situation. The official book had been written by an English author named Nigel Kelly.This mainly included how the Mughals arrived, how the British gained influence and maintained control, the Indian War of Independence of 1857, the Khilafat movement, the growing Indian Hindu-Muslim divide with the rise of the Muslim League, followed by the eventual partition. While I was doing my O Levels, post-partition history was being taught till the beginning of Musharraf’s era.There are detailed accounts on the works and contributions of certain Indian Muslims from the pre-partition era. Spiritual revival of Islam in India due to individuals like Shah Wali Ullah, Syed Ahmed Shaheed Barelvi and Haji Shariatullah has a separate chapter dedicated to it, speaking solely on their works and contributions. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan also had a chapter entirely dedicated to his life and works. A lot of emphasis was laid on the fact that he was the father of the Two-Nation theory. Aside from the aforementioned individuals, leading independence figures in India like Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Allama Iqbal, Liaquat Ali Khan and Chaudry Rehmat Ali are also given immense importance, with their respective roles explained in detail.Light was shed on Muslim League’s failure in the first elections as well as their continuous struggle against the two major entities, the British and the Congress at the same time. Gandhi was not antagonised, as his marches for non-cooperation were shown as being carried out in positive light and even an iconic photo of Gandhi and Jinnah smiling together was included in the book. What isn’t shown positively aside from the British rule is the role and rule of the Indian National Congress. It was suggested that the Congress claimed to be representing all Indians, but was mostly concerned with issues involving Hindus of India. Jinnah, once suggested to be the biggest advocate of Hindu-Muslim unity, parted ways after noticing this phenomenon. With narratives aside, events, reforms and wars from the time of the British rule are highly objective in nature, and are most likely present here in a similar form to that of the Indian textbooks. Interestingly, the book also avoided the complexities of the Kashmir conflict in order to stay true to its highly objective nature.During the post-partition era, India appears to become less relevant as one treads down the timeline. Relations between India and Pakistan are rarely seen to be at a high, as is generally seen to be the case over history.It started with the division of assets, where it was also explicitly stated that Gandhi himself pressurised the Indian government to pay its dues to the newly formed Pakistani government. Soon after, it was stated that as India joined hands with the Soviet Union, as Pakistan, under Liaquat Ali Khan, adopted a reactionary approach and turned to the United States instead, in spite of the Soviets having put their hand forward for Pakistan as well. Early border disputes with India were spoken about, with discontentment expressed over Radcliffe awarding areas like Gurdaspur to India. Cases of Junagadh and Hyderabad were also spoken about with a fair amount of detail. Major treaties and ceasefires signed between Pakistan and India are also covered. With ceasefires come the wars, most of which were not discussed in great detail except for the one in 1971, due to its significance. Speaking of the parting away of East Pakistan, it was mentioned that India offered aid as a gesture of goodwill after the deadly cyclone in Bengal, which Pakistan declined, angering East Pakistanis. More importantly however, India’s involvement in the separation, Pakistan’s military miscalculations and Indian dominance during the 1971 war are all mentioned in great detail. After the war, India’s mentions take a nosedive, as the country begins to rebuild and look ahead of the events of 1971, radical social changes are brought about and internal political strife intensifies.On the flipside, in the Geography-related portion of O Levels Pakistan Studies, there was little to no mention of India. I cannot recall any mentions outside the Indus Water Treaty and the fact that some rivers flow into Pakistan through India.During our Pakistan Studies course at university, our focus was strictly on the post-partition era and current affairs. However, the course contents may vary depending on the teacher or what each university’s department head has outlined for them. Regardless of what it contains, India is not exactly viewed positively for historical and sentimental reasons. The difference in studying the course at university was that far more liberty was granted to students with regards to expressing themselves. As someone whose views do not completely align with the local narrative, I was granted absolute freedom to express my perception of historical events involving India and Pakistan without having the fear of being penalised for being ‘on the wrong side’.Lastly, at all stages it was stressed upon that healthy relations between India and Pakistan might not only eventually become necessary but are also mutually beneficial.

Hey there,Masters in Finance caters to highly-motivated top achieving graduates looking to become future financial leaders. It has a strong analytical focus which prepares you for a successful career in banking, consulting, asset management, insurance, industry, or academia.If you are interested in laying down a foundation in finance or willing to launch a new approach in the market, this degree is going to be extremely helpful regardless from where to do the Master’s Program (Queens or Schulich).So it totally depends upon your career goals and what you want to bring out of your Master's program, If you already have a background in Finance with some work experience you can go for the university that best matches the curriculum and resources offered.Again, both the universities are quite similar in terms of education and employment opportunities.The Queen’s Masters in Finance program is a 1 year full time course which can be pursued without leaving your current job. The Queens MFin degree is partnered with Chartered Financial Analyst Institute and this enables students to gain a well-rounded understanding of a broad spectrum of finance disciplines with scholarships.The curriculum includes internships and projects which makes easier for the students to get into the job market. One of the unique offerings for students of the Masters in Finance is Queen's University Alternative Asset Fund which helps students in experiential learning.Also, Queens has an impressive alumni network which numbers over 20,000 graduates around the world.If you want to pursue MS in finance and don’t have the relevant experience and background Schulich can be the college you can look up with full time course. Apart from great curriculum they also offer professional development programme which helps students to get into the job market.After graduating from Master of Finance graduates are suitable for employment as finance specialists in investment banks, private equity firms, corporate finance divisions of large companies, central banks, consulting companies and government agencies. Selected employers who have extended offers to students in the MF program include: CAI Capital Management, BMO Capital Markets, National Bank Financial, TD Securities, Deloitte, Scotia Capital, CIBC World Markets, PwC, IBM and KPMGOf Course, it depends upon the resources you are looking for MS in Finance, whether it’s ranking, coursework ,internships, alumni network, projects or research work. Though Queen’s and Schulich are equally good and there is no such strong reason why you should go with either of them.Hope this helped!

Bocconi is a well established institution with an outstanding faculty.. At Bocconi University Msc In Finance program offers challenging courses in all areas of finance, investment banking, corporate finance and advisory, quantitative finance, risk management, derivatives and asset pricing.Teaching is structured along a number of alternative strategies and methodologies.Graduates typically work as Analysts and Economists at banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions, as well as consultants in either corporate finance advisory or finance divisions of large consulting companies and financial authorities and regulators.Pros-1. Better reputation across Europe (excluding France) and in London2. An evenly split 2-year program, not a fixed one as ESSEC's.Cons-1. Only 6-12 month post-study work visa2. Relatively poor job opportunities in Milan.Consistently ranked as one of the best Masters in Finance in the world - #5 Financial Times-, it is designed for high potential students who want to pursue a career in Corporate Finance, Financial Markets, FinTech, Asset and Portfolio Management, Risk Management; and occupy positions in investment banks and most prestigious financial institutions.Whereas MSc in Finance from Essec is a highly selective and intensive program designed to offer high quality training to high potential students who wish to pursue a career in corporate finance, financial markets, asset and portfolio management as well as risk managementHere, Students study courses such as Corporate Financial Management, Financial markets, Macroeconomics, Econometrics, Mergers & Acquisitions, etc.Some top recruiters: Ardian, Bank of America-Merrill Lynch, Barclays, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Nomura, Rothschild, HSBC, Citi, Natixis, UBS, AXA, FX Options Trading, Standard Chartered, etc.Pros-1. Paris has greater opportunities than Milan for Finance2. 2-year post-study work visaCons-1. It is a fixed 2-year program since you have a 3-year bachelor's degree.Overall, it depends on your career choice where do you see yourselves post masters. If you are looking forward to work for a few years then ESSEC would be a better choice. But if you specifically looking to move in IB then Bocconi can be an ideal option