Question 1

In the history of Magadha, which ruler is credited with choosing Pataliputra as the capital city for the first time?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Pataliputra (near modern Patna) became one of the most important political centres in ancient India, serving as the capital for major empires such as the Mauryas and the Guptas. However, it first rose to prominence during the earlier Magadhan kingdom. Knowing which ruler shifted the capital from Rajagriha (Rajgir) to Pataliputra helps you understand the early urban and strategic development of the Ganga valley. Given Data / Assumptions: The region in focus is Magadha, an ancient kingdom in eastern India. The city in question is Pataliputra, which later became a famous imperial capital. The options list Ajatasatru, Kalasoka, Udayin and Kanishka. We assume basic knowledge that Rajagriha was the earlier capital of Magadha before Pataliputra rose to prominence. Concept / Approach: Historical tradition holds that King Udayin (Udayabhadra), the son and successor of Ajatasatru, was responsible for founding Pataliputra and shifting the capital there from Rajagriha. Ajatasatru did strengthen Magadha and may have begun fortifications at the confluence where Pataliputra later stood, but he is not typically credited with making it the official capital. Kalasoka (Kakavarna) came later, during the Shishunaga dynasty, and ruled when Pataliputra was already well established. Kanishka was a Kushan ruler from much farther northwest and is not associated with Magadha's capital at all. Therefore, Udayin is the correct answer. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the earliest known capital of Magadha was Rajagriha (Rajgir). Step 2: Identify Ajatasatru as an important early king who expanded Magadha and fought neighbouring states. Step 3: Recognise that Udayin, Ajatasatru's successor, is credited with actually founding or fully developing Pataliputra and shifting the capital there. Step 4: Note that Kalasoka belonged to a later dynasty and ruled when Pataliputra was already functioning as a capital city. Step 5: Understand that Kanishka, a Kushan emperor, had no direct role in Magadha's capital shift. Step 6: Conclude that Udayin was the first to choose Pataliputra as the capital of Magadha. Verification / Alternative check: Standard Indian history textbooks and exam preparatory guides consistently attribute the foundation of Pataliputra as a capital to Udayin. They often describe a sequence in which Bimbisara and Ajatasatru ruled from Rajagriha, followed by Udayin's relocation of the capital to Pataliputra. Later dynasties such as the Nandas and Mauryas continued to use Pataliputra, cementing its importance. No mainstream source attributes the initial capital shift to Kalasoka or Kanishka, confirming Udayin as the correct answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Ajatasatru: Important for military expansion, but the official shift of the capital to Pataliputra is attributed to his successor Udayin. Kalasoka: A later Shishunaga ruler who reigned when Pataliputra was already an established capital. Kanishka: A Kushan king who ruled in the northwest and had no connection with Magadha's capital shift. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes choose Ajatasatru because his name is more familiar or because he is often credited with initiating defensive works near the Ganga. Another pitfall is general confusion among early Magadhan kings. To avoid errors, memorise the simple sequence: Rajagriha under Bimbisara and Ajatasatru, then Pataliputra as capital under Udayin, later used by Nandas and Mauryas. Final Answer: Pataliputra was first chosen as the capital of Magadha by Udayin.

Question 2

Which one of the following historical figures was NOT a contemporary of the other three in ancient India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Chronology is crucial in history. Many exam questions test whether you can correctly place key figures in their proper time periods and identify who lived together or interacted directly. In this question, three of the names are associated with the 6th–5th centuries BCE, the time of the Buddha and the 16 mahajanapadas, while one name belongs to a much later Indo-Greek period. Recognising this difference allows you to identify who was not a contemporary of the others. Given Data / Assumptions: The list includes Bimbisara, Gautama Buddha, Milinda (Menander) and Prasenjit. Bimbisara and Prasenjit are kings of the mahajanapada age; Gautama Buddha is the founder of Buddhism. Milinda (Menander) was an Indo-Greek king known from the text Milinda Panha. We assume the learner knows that the Buddha's lifetime is approximately in the 6th–5th centuries BCE and that Indo-Greek rulers came much later. Concept / Approach: Bimbisara (of Magadha) and Prasenjit (of Kosala) were both kings of important mahajanapadas during the Buddha's lifetime. Gautama Buddha, who lived around the 6th–5th centuries BCE, interacted with rulers like Bimbisara and Prasenjit according to Buddhist texts. Milinda, however, is identified with Menander, an Indo-Greek king who ruled in the 2nd century BCE, several centuries after the Buddha's time. Therefore, Milinda is not a contemporary of Bimbisara, Buddha and Prasenjit, who all belong to an earlier era. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Place Gautama Buddha in time, around the 6th–5th centuries BCE. Step 2: Recall that Bimbisara (Magadha) and Prasenjit (Kosala) are kings described in Buddhist texts as contemporaries of the Buddha. Step 3: Understand that their interactions, such as patronage and dialogues, are part of early Buddhist literature. Step 4: Identify Milinda as Menander, an Indo-Greek king who ruled parts of northwest India and Afghanistan in the 2nd century BCE. Step 5: Recognise that this date is several centuries after the time of Bimbisara, Buddha and Prasenjit. Step 6: Conclude that Milinda (Menander) is not a contemporary of the other three. Verification / Alternative check: Chronological lists in history textbooks place the mahajanapada period and the Buddha around 6th–5th centuries BCE, followed by the Mauryan Empire in the 4th–3rd centuries BCE. Indo-Greek rulers such as Menander appear even later, in the 2nd century BCE. The Buddhist work Milinda Panha records dialogues between the monk Nagasena and King Milinda, showing his later historical context. These timelines confirm that Milinda belongs to a different era than Bimbisara, Prasenjit and the Buddha. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Bimbisara: A king of Magadha who is consistently described as a contemporary and supporter of the Buddha. Gautama Buddha: Central figure of Buddhism, whose life overlapped with kings like Bimbisara and Prasenjit. Prasenjit: King of Kosala, another contemporary of the Buddha mentioned in Buddhist texts. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to treat all ancient names as belonging to a vaguely “old” period, without paying attention to specific centuries. Learners may also confuse Milinda with other names from early Buddhism. To answer correctly, it helps to memorise that Bimbisara, Prasenjit and the Buddha belong to the mahajanapada era, while Milinda (Menander) is an Indo-Greek ruler of a later period, making him the odd one out. Final Answer: The figure who was NOT a contemporary of the other three is Milinda (Menander).

Question 3

Which of the following ideas is NOT a feature shared in common by both early Buddhism and early Jainism?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Buddhism and Jainism emerged in ancient India as part of a broader movement that questioned Vedic ritualism and social hierarchies. Because they share several similarities, exam questions often ask you to identify where they differ. This question focuses on distinguishing the common features of both religions from a key point where their teachings diverge, especially regarding the practice of self-mortification and asceticism. Given Data / Assumptions: The traditions being compared are early Buddhism and early Jainism. The options include non-violence, indifference to Vedic authority, self-mortification and rejection of rituals. We assume the learner knows that both Buddhism and Jainism arose in the same broad region and time, responding to similar social and religious conditions. The question asks which idea is NOT common to both, that is, which is a point of difference rather than a shared feature. Concept / Approach: Both Buddhism and Jainism strongly criticised the excessive ritualism and caste-bound structure of Vedic religion. They emphasised ethical conduct, non-violence (ahimsa) and personal spiritual effort. Both were indifferent or opposed to the absolute authority of the Vedas and rejected the idea that elaborate sacrifices and rituals alone could lead to liberation. However, when it comes to self-mortification, there is a significant difference: Jainism advocates very rigorous ascetic practices, including severe fasting and physical austerities, whereas the Buddha explicitly rejected extreme self-mortification and taught a Middle Path between indulgence and extreme asceticism. Therefore, the advocacy of extreme self-mortification is not a feature common to both; it is more characteristic of Jainism than of Buddhism. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify non-violence (ahimsa) as a central value in both Buddhism and Jainism, although Jainism takes it to an even more stringent level. Step 2: Recognise that both religions rejected the supreme authority of the Vedas, preferring direct experience and ethical conduct over scriptural ritualism. Step 3: Understand that both criticised complex Vedic sacrifices and ritual practices, encouraging simpler forms of worship and meditation instead. Step 4: Examine the idea of extreme self-mortification: Jain monks and nuns often practise very severe austerities, while the Buddha taught that both indulgence and extreme self-torture are harmful. Step 5: Recall that the Buddha's own life story includes a period of extreme asceticism which he later rejected, leading him to formulate the Middle Path. Step 6: Conclude that advocacy of extreme self-mortification is not common to both religions; it is mainly associated with Jainism and explicitly rejected in Buddhism. Verification / Alternative check: Standard religious studies and history textbooks highlight the shared features of Buddhism and Jainism: emphasis on ahimsa, rejection of caste dominance, criticism of Vedic sacrifices and limited regard for Vedic authority. At the same time, they note that Jainism upholds very strict ascetic practices, including prolonged fasting and bodily austerities, whereas Buddhism presents the Middle Path, rejecting extremes. This core doctrinal difference is often used in exam questions to distinguish between the two traditions, confirming that self-mortification is not a common feature. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Emphasis on non-violence (ahimsa): Strongly present in both, though Jainism emphasises it even more rigorously. Indifference to the authority of the Vedas: Both religions rejected the Vedas as the ultimate authority for liberation. Rejection of elaborate Vedic rituals: Both criticised sacrificial rituals and promoted ethical living and meditation instead. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes overgeneralise Jain strictness to Buddhism, assuming both endorse the same level of asceticism. Others may not clearly distinguish between rejecting rituals and practising self-mortification. To avoid confusion, remember this key contrast: both Buddhism and Jainism share ahimsa and anti-ritualism, but extreme self-mortification belongs primarily to Jain practice and is rejected in Buddhist teaching as an extreme to be avoided. Final Answer: The idea that is NOT common to both Buddhism and Jainism is the advocacy of extreme self-mortification.

Question 4

Vikramshila Mahavihara, a famous Buddhist monastic university in eastern India, was founded by which Pala ruler?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: During the early medieval period, eastern India became a major centre of Buddhist learning, with great monastic universities such as Nalanda, Vikramshila and Odantapuri. The Pala dynasty of Bengal and Bihar played a crucial role in patronising these institutions. Knowing which Pala ruler founded Vikramshila Mahavihara is a common question in Indian history exams and helps connect royal patronage with the flourishing of Buddhist education and culture. Given Data / Assumptions: The institution in question is Vikramshila Mahavihara, a Buddhist monastic university. The options list Baladitya, Harsha, Gopala and Dharmapala. We assume the learner knows that the Palas ruled eastern India and were ardent patrons of Buddhism. The question asks which ruler founded this particular Mahavihara. Concept / Approach: Dharmapala, the second ruler of the Pala dynasty, is generally credited with founding Vikramshila Mahavihara. He ruled in the late 8th and early 9th centuries CE and sought to strengthen Buddhism both within his kingdom and across Asia. While Gopala was the founder of the Pala dynasty, he is not usually named as the founder of Vikramshila. Harsha, who ruled earlier from Kannauj, patronised Buddhism but did not establish this specific institution. Baladitya is associated with other historical contexts and is not the Pala king linked to Vikramshila's foundation. Therefore, Dharmapala is the correct answer. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the Pala dynasty as the ruling family in Bengal and Bihar that actively supported Mahayana Buddhism. Step 2: Recall that Dharmapala, the son and successor of Gopala, expanded Pala power and invested heavily in Buddhist monasteries and universities. Step 3: Recognise that historical and traditional accounts credit Dharmapala with founding Vikramshila Mahavihara as a major centre of Buddhist learning. Step 4: Note that Gopala is remembered chiefly as the founder of the Pala dynasty, not as the specific founder of Vikramshila. Step 5: Understand that Harsha ruled earlier in north India and established other centres of patronage, but not Vikramshila. Step 6: Conclude that Dharmapala is the correct choice for the founder of Vikramshila Mahavihara. Verification / Alternative check: Standard histories of medieval India and Buddhism consistently state that Dharmapala founded Vikramshila as a counterpart to Nalanda, creating another great centre of Buddhist scholasticism. They mention that under the Palas, eastern India became a stronghold of Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions, with Vikramshila attracting students from across the Buddhist world. These references confirm Dharmapala's role and do not attribute the foundation to Gopala, Harsha or Baladitya. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Baladitya: Not the Pala ruler associated with founding Vikramshila; this name is connected with different historical contexts. Harsha: An earlier ruler and patron of Buddhism, but he ruled from Kannauj and is not credited with establishing Vikramshila. Gopala: Founder of the Pala dynasty, remembered for stabilising the region, but Vikramshila's foundation is credited to his successor Dharmapala. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes choose Gopala simply because he was the founder of the Pala dynasty and they assume he must have founded all major institutions. Others confuse Harsha's patronage of Buddhism with later Pala initiatives. To answer correctly, focus on the specific pairing: Dharmapala and Vikramshila, just as Nalanda is often associated with earlier Gupta and later Pala patronage. Final Answer: Vikramshila Mahavihara was founded by the Pala ruler Dharmapala.

Question 5

The doctrine of the “three jewels” — Right belief, Right knowledge and Right conduct — is regarded as the crowning glory of which religion?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Many religions summarise their core path to liberation or salvation in a concise doctrinal formula. In Jainism, the spiritual path is famously described in terms of three essential elements called the “three jewels” or “ratnatraya”: Right belief, Right knowledge and Right conduct. Recognising which religion this doctrine belongs to helps you distinguish Jain teachings from those of Buddhism and other faiths, especially because both Jainism and Buddhism emerged in similar historical contexts in India. Given Data / Assumptions: The key phrase is “three jewels” defined as Right belief, Right knowledge and Right conduct. The options list Buddhism, Christianity, Jainism and a generic “None of these.” We assume learners may also know that Buddhism speaks of the “Three Jewels” (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha), which are conceptually different. The question aims to see if you can correctly match the Jain formulation with its religious tradition. Concept / Approach: In Jainism, the “three jewels” (ratnatraya) are Right faith or Right belief (samyak-darshana), Right knowledge (samyak-jnana) and Right conduct (samyak-charitra). Together, they describe the path by which a soul can free itself from karmic bondage and attain liberation (moksha). Buddhism also uses the phrase “Three Jewels,” but there it refers to the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha rather than to belief, knowledge and conduct. Christianity has different central doctrines and does not use this three-jewel terminology. Therefore, the correct answer here is Jainism. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the specific formulation in the question: Right belief, Right knowledge and Right conduct. Step 2: Recall that in Jainism these three are collectively called ratnatraya or the three jewels, forming the core of the path to liberation. Step 3: Distinguish this from Buddhism, where the Three Jewels are Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, not belief, knowledge and conduct. Step 4: Recognise that Christianity uses doctrinal concepts like the Holy Trinity and faith in Christ, but does not frame its teachings around this specific triplet. Step 5: Evaluate the “None of these” option and see that Jainism explicitly matches the description, making “None of these” incorrect. Step 6: Conclude that the three jewels described in the question belong to Jainism. Verification / Alternative check: Introductions to Jain philosophy consistently state that the path to liberation rests on the three jewels of Right view, Right knowledge and Right conduct. They explain that without proper belief in Jain teachings, correct understanding of reality and disciplined ethical behaviour, progress toward moksha is not possible. Books on comparative religion also highlight this as a distinctive Jain doctrine, contrasting it with the Buddhist Three Jewels, which focus on refuge rather than on this particular triad of belief, knowledge and conduct. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Buddhism: Its “Three Jewels” are the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha, a different triad with different meanings. Christianity: Centred on faith in Christ, grace and doctrines such as the Trinity, not on the ratnatraya of belief, knowledge and conduct in the Jain sense. None of these: Incorrect because Jainism specifically matches the doctrine described. Common Pitfalls: A common source of confusion is that both Buddhism and Jainism use the phrase “three jewels,” but they refer to different concepts. Some students may see the phrase and immediately think of Buddhism without reading the specific elements listed. To avoid this mistake, always check the components: if the three items are Right belief, Right knowledge and Right conduct, the religion is Jainism. Final Answer: The doctrine of the “three jewels” — Right belief, Right knowledge and Right conduct — is the crowning glory of Jainism.

Question 6

The statement “Tanjore (Thanjavur) kingdom was founded by Raja Odeyar” is:

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: South Indian history includes several important dynasties and kingdoms, such as the Cholas, Nayaks, Marathas and Wodeyars (Odeyars). Tanjore (Thanjavur) and Mysore are two distinct centres that often appear in questions about southern polities. This question asks you to evaluate a specific statement about the founding of the Tanjore kingdom and to recognise which ruler is associated with which domain, testing both factual knowledge and your ability to spot an incorrect attribution. Given Data / Assumptions: The statement under evaluation is: “Tanjore kingdom was founded by Raja Odeyar.” The options invite you to judge whether this statement is correct, incorrect, partly correct or indeterminate. We assume the learner knows that the Wodeyars (Odeyars) are linked with the kingdom of Mysore. We also assume awareness that Tanjore had its own distinct line of rulers, including the Nayaks and later the Maratha Bhonsles. Concept / Approach: Raja Wodeyar (or Raja Odeyar) is historically associated with the foundation and consolidation of the Mysore kingdom, not the Tanjore kingdom. Tanjore, located in present-day Tamil Nadu, was ruled at different times by the Imperial Cholas, later by the Tanjore Nayaks and then by a branch of the Maratha Bhonsle family. Mysore, on the other hand, developed under the Wodeyar dynasty in the region of present-day Karnataka. Therefore, the statement that “Tanjore kingdom was founded by Raja Odeyar” is factually incorrect because it confuses two different regions and dynasties. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify Raja Odeyar (Raja Wodeyar) as a key figure in the history of the Mysore kingdom. Step 2: Recall that Mysore is located in what is now Karnataka, with its capital historically at places like Mysuru and later Srirangapatna under different rulers. Step 3: Recognise that Tanjore (Thanjavur) is a city and region in Tamil Nadu with a different political history, linked with the Cholas, the Nayaks and later the Maratha rulers. Step 4: Understand that the founding of the Tanjore kingdom is not credited to Raja Odeyar in any reputable historical account. Step 5: Compare this knowledge with the given statement and see that it incorrectly assigns Tanjore to the Mysore Wodeyar dynasty. Step 6: Conclude that the statement is incorrect, and that Raja Odeyar is instead associated with founding or strengthening Mysore. Verification / Alternative check: Standard histories of South India describe the Wodeyars as the royal family of Mysore. They discuss how the Wodeyars established themselves as rulers after weakening the power of the Vijayanagara Empire in the region. Separate chapters cover the Tanjore Nayaks and later Maratha rulers like Serfoji in Thanjavur, with no mention of a Wodeyar founding the Tanjore kingdom. This clear separation in dynastic histories confirms that the statement in the question is factually wrong. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The statement is completely correct: This is false because Raja Odeyar is not known as the founder of Tanjore; he is linked to Mysore. The statement is only partly correct: There is no partial correctness here; the association of Raja Odeyar with Tanjore is entirely misplaced. The truth of the statement cannot be determined from historical sources: Historical sources are quite clear about the separate lineages of Tanjore and Mysore, so it is possible to judge the statement as incorrect. Common Pitfalls: The main pitfall is confusing South Indian kingdoms and assuming that a famous southern ruler like Raja Odeyar might be connected with any major city, including Tanjore. Another issue is not carefully distinguishing between the Wodeyar dynasty of Mysore and the Nayak or Maratha rulers of Thanjavur. To avoid such errors, remember this firm association: Raja Odeyar is linked to Mysore, not Tanjore, making the statement in the question clearly incorrect. Final Answer: The correct evaluation is that the statement is incorrect; Raja Odeyar founded or consolidated the Mysore kingdom, not the Tanjore kingdom.

Question 7

In which year was the Indus Valley (Harappan) civilisation first discovered by modern archaeologists?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The discovery of the Indus Valley (Harappan) civilisation is one of the most important milestones in the study of ancient India. Until the early 20th century, many scholars believed that Indian civilisation began with the Vedic period. The excavation of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro fundamentally changed that picture by revealing an even earlier urban civilisation. Knowing the year when this discovery was first formally recognised is a common general-knowledge and history exam question. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks for the year in which the Indus Valley civilisation was discovered. The options are 1901, 1921, 1935 and 1942. We assume the learner knows that Harappa was the first site to be identified as part of this ancient civilisation. The focus is on the year of this initial archaeological discovery, not on later excavations. Concept / Approach: Harappa, located in present-day Pakistan, was excavated by archaeologist Daya Ram Sahni under the Archaeological Survey of India. The crucial year when the remains were recognised as belonging to a previously unknown ancient urban civilisation is 1921. This was soon followed by the discovery and excavation of Mohenjo-daro. Although there had been earlier minor findings and reports, 1921 is the year generally cited as the official “discovery” of the Indus Valley civilisation in standard history textbooks and exam guides. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Harappa was the first major site excavated that revealed a Bronze Age urban civilisation in the Indus region. Step 2: Identify Daya Ram Sahni as the archaeologist who led the 1921 excavation at Harappa under the Archaeological Survey of India. Step 3: Understand that this excavation brought to light planned streets, brick structures and artefacts that indicated a previously unknown civilisation. Step 4: Note that subsequent excavations, such as at Mohenjo-daro under R.D. Banerji, confirmed and extended these findings. Step 5: Compare the given years and recognise that 1921 is the historically accepted date for the formal discovery. Step 6: Conclude that 1921 is the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Indian history textbooks and archaeological histories consistently state that the Indus Valley civilisation, also called the Harappan civilisation, was discovered in 1921 when Harappa was excavated. Some texts mention earlier observations of mounds or bricks, but they underline that only in 1921 did excavations clearly identify the remains of a large, ancient urban culture. Later years, such as 1935 or 1942, correspond to continued research, not to the initial discovery. Therefore, 1921 is the standard year cited in exams. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 1901: Too early; systematic excavations revealing the Harappan civilisation had not yet been conducted. 1935: By this time more sites were being explored, but the initial discovery had already taken place in 1921. 1942: Even later; by then the existence of the Indus civilisation was well established. Common Pitfalls: Some students confuse 1921 with 1922 (often associated with Mohenjo-daro) or mix up different dates related to the Archaeological Survey of India. Others may guess a later date, thinking that such a major discovery must have happened closer to independence. To avoid mistakes, memorise the pairing: Harappa excavation and formal discovery of the Indus Valley civilisation in 1921. Final Answer: The Indus Valley (Harappan) civilisation was first discovered by modern archaeologists in 1921.

Question 8

During Alexander the Great’s invasion of India, which Indian king famously opposed him in the Battle of the Hydaspes?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Alexander the Great's march into northwestern India is a well-known episode in both Indian and world history. While some local rulers submitted or allied with him, one king has become legendary for his brave resistance at the Battle of the Hydaspes (Jhelum). Remembering which king fought this battle against Alexander is a staple question in competitive exams because it highlights the contrast between collaboration and resistance among Indian rulers of the time. Given Data / Assumptions: The event in focus is Alexander's invasion of India around 326 BCE. The specific battle is the Battle of the Hydaspes, fought on the banks of the Jhelum River. The options are Ambhi, Porus, Dhanananda and Chandragupta Maurya. We assume the learner knows that Ambhi allied with Alexander and that Porus ruled a kingdom in the Punjab region. Concept / Approach: Porus (Puru), an Indian king whose territory lay between the Jhelum and Chenab rivers, chose to resist Alexander. The famous Battle of the Hydaspes was fought between Alexander's forces and those of Porus, who used war elephants and fought bravely despite the odds. Ambhi of Taxila, on the other hand, welcomed and allied with Alexander. Dhanananda and Chandragupta Maurya were rulers of Magadha in eastern India and did not personally engage Alexander in a recorded battle. Therefore, Porus is the correct answer to this question. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Place the Battle of the Hydaspes in 326 BCE on the banks of the river Jhelum (Hydaspes in Greek). Step 2: Recall that Porus ruled the region between the Jhelum and Chenab rivers in the Punjab. Step 3: Recognise that Greek accounts describe a fierce battle where Porus used war elephants and showed great personal courage. Step 4: Contrast this with Ambhi of Taxila, who surrendered and allied with Alexander without a battle. Step 5: Note that Dhanananda and Chandragupta Maurya were far to the east in Magadha and are not recorded as having fought Alexander directly. Step 6: Conclude that Porus was the king who opposed Alexander at the Battle of the Hydaspes. Verification / Alternative check: Greek historians like Arrian and Plutarch describe how Alexander was impressed by Porus's bravery and reportedly restored him to his kingdom after the battle, even granting additional territory. Indian history textbooks summarise this story and emphasise the contrasting roles of Porus (resistance) and Ambhi (alliance). No such battle between Alexander and Dhanananda or Chandragupta Maurya is described in reliable sources, confirming Porus as the correct answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Ambhi: The ruler of Taxila who allied with Alexander and did not fight him in a major battle. Dhanananda: A Nanda king of Magadha, known as a powerful ruler but not as Alexander's direct opponent in battle. Chandragupta Maurya: Later overthrew the Nanda dynasty and founded the Mauryan Empire after Alexander's time; he did not fight Alexander at the Hydaspes. Common Pitfalls: Some students mix up Ambhi and Porus because both are associated with Alexander's campaigns. The key distinction is that Ambhi submitted to Alexander, while Porus fought him. Another pitfall is assuming that famous names like Chandragupta must have opposed Alexander, even though their major achievements belong to the period after Alexander left India. To answer correctly, always connect the Battle of the Hydaspes with Porus. Final Answer: The Indian king who opposed Alexander at the Battle of the Hydaspes was Porus.

Question 9

On the death of which Indian leader did Mahatma Gandhi lament, “My strongest bulwark is gone”?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Mahatma Gandhi often expressed deep admiration and gratitude for his political mentors and colleagues in the Indian freedom struggle. His reactions to their deaths reveal how important they were to him personally and to the national movement in general. The phrase “My strongest bulwark is gone” is one such poignant remark, and knowing to whom Gandhi referred when he said this helps you connect key leaders and their relationships within the Indian National Congress. Given Data / Assumptions: The quotation is “My strongest bulwark is gone.” The speaker is Mahatma Gandhi, reacting to the death of another leader. The options include Gopalakrishna Gokhale, Motilal Nehru, Pherozeshah Mehta and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. We assume that the learner knows Gandhi had a special mentor-disciple relationship with one of these leaders. Concept / Approach: Gopalakrishna Gokhale was a senior moderate leader of the Indian National Congress and a key mentor to Gandhi. Gandhi referred to Gokhale as his “political guru” and often acknowledged his guidance in matters of strategy and constitutional agitation. When Gokhale died in 1915, Gandhi felt that he had lost both a personal guide and a strong protective support within Indian politics. His remark “My strongest bulwark is gone” reflects this sense of loss. Although Gandhi also respected Tilak, Motilal Nehru and Pherozeshah Mehta, this specific phrase is associated with the death of Gokhale. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify Gopalakrishna Gokhale as a moderate Congressman and founder of the Servants of India Society. Step 2: Recall that Gandhi considered Gokhale his political mentor and often sought his advice after returning from South Africa. Step 3: Recognise that Gokhale's death in 1915 left Gandhi without this senior moderating influence at a crucial time in his political development. Step 4: Understand that the phrase “My strongest bulwark is gone” expresses the feeling of losing a key source of support and guidance. Step 5: Distinguish this relationship from Gandhi's interactions with Motilal Nehru, Pherozeshah Mehta and Tilak, important leaders but not his primary “guru.” Step 6: Conclude that Gandhi spoke these words on the death of Gopalakrishna Gokhale. Verification / Alternative check: Biographies of Gandhi and historical works on the Indian freedom movement repeatedly mention that Gandhi viewed Gokhale as his political guru and that he greatly mourned Gokhale's death in 1915. These sources quote or paraphrase Gandhi's remark that with Gokhale's passing, his “strongest bulwark” in Indian politics was gone. While Gandhi also admired leaders like Tilak and Nehru, similar language of mentorship and dependence is most strongly associated with Gokhale, confirming this match. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Motilal Nehru: A prominent leader and father of Jawaharlal Nehru, but not usually described as Gandhi's political guru or “strongest bulwark.” Pherozeshah Mehta: An influential early Congress leader, yet the specific quotation is not linked to his death in Gandhi's writings. Bal Gangadhar Tilak: A fiery nationalist whom Gandhi respected, but Gandhi's statements about Tilak are phrased differently; the phrase in the question is tied to Gokhale. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes choose Tilak or Motilal Nehru because of their prominence and Gandhi's respect for them. However, they may overlook the special mentor-disciple bond between Gandhi and Gokhale. To avoid mistakes, remember that Gandhi explicitly called Gokhale his political guru and expressed his grief at Gokhale's death with the words “My strongest bulwark is gone,” making Gopalakrishna Gokhale the correct answer. Final Answer: Mahatma Gandhi lamented, “My strongest bulwark is gone,” on the death of Gopalakrishna Gokhale.

Question 10

In the context of the Indian freedom struggle, what was the most important immediate cause that led to the outbreak of the Ghadar Revolution?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Ghadar Revolution was an important chapter in the Indian freedom struggle, led mainly by Indian migrants based in North America who aimed to overthrow British rule through armed revolt. To answer this question correctly, learners must identify the most important immediate trigger that transformed discontent and revolutionary planning into a concrete call for uprising. Understanding this helps clarify how specific international events influenced the course of Indian nationalism. Given Data / Assumptions: The question is about the Ghadar Revolution associated with Indian revolutionaries abroad. Several possible historical events are listed as options, all linked to nationalist activities. We must identify the single most important immediate cause, not a general background factor. Concept / Approach: To solve this, we recall that the Ghadar Party was formed by Indian migrants abroad and that it became especially active around the time of the First World War. However, among various events, the Komagata Maru incident stands out as a powerful emotional and political catalyst. This incident involved a ship carrying Indian passengers being denied entry and forced back, leading to violence and casualties. The humiliation and injustice experienced by these passengers created intense anger, which the Ghadar leaders used to call for a widespread revolt in India. Thus, we look for the option that directly reflects this incident. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Ghadar Revolution was planned mainly by Indian revolutionaries in North America. Step 2: Note that the First World War created a favourable global situation, but it was a broad background factor rather than a specific trigger. Step 3: Remember the Komagata Maru incident of 1914, where Indian passengers faced racial discrimination and were forced to return, resulting in violence at Budge Budge in India. Step 4: Understand that this incident deeply angered Indian nationalists and was widely used by the Ghadar leaders to mobilise support for an armed uprising. Step 5: Compare this with other options such as the hanging of Kartar Singh Sarabha and the arrest of Lala Hardayal, which were important but came in a different context or later phase. Step 6: Conclude that the Komagata Maru incident is widely regarded as the most important immediate cause. Verification / Alternative check: A good way to verify is to consult standard modern Indian history references, which usually describe the Komagata Maru episode as the key incident that transformed Ghadar propaganda into a planned uprising around 1915. Other events were either background conditions or consequences, not the primary spark. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Commencement of the First World War created a favourable environment for revolution but was a broad context rather than the specific trigger. The hanging of Kartar Singh Sarabha was a tragic result of the failed Ghadar conspiracy, not the cause of its outbreak. The arrest of Lala Hardayal weakened leadership but did not directly launch the mass call for revolt. Therefore these options are less precise than the Komagata Maru incident as the immediate cause. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to confuse background causes with immediate triggers and select the First World War simply because it is globally significant. Another error is to assume that martyrdom events such as hangings always precede and cause revolutions. Learners should instead focus on which event most directly converted discontent into organised action by the Ghadar Party. Final Answer: The most important immediate cause for the outbreak of the Ghadar Revolution was the Komagata Maru incident involving Indian migrants in 1914.

Question 11

In early historic India, Srikakulam served as the capital of which ancient people or dynasty?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests knowledge of ancient Indian historical geography, especially the association between important cities and the dynasties that ruled from them. Srikakulam is linked with the history of the Andhras, who emerged as a significant political force in the Deccan. Understanding such capital city associations helps learners connect political history with regional locations and archaeological sites. Given Data / Assumptions: Srikakulam is given as an early historic capital city. The options list several dynasties or rulers: Sakas, Pahlavas, Andhras, and Ashoka. We assume the question refers to the ancient Andhras, often linked with the Satavahana context. Concept / Approach: The Andhras are associated with eastern Deccan and coastal regions, and Srikakulam figures in sources as one of their important centres. The Sakas and Pahlavas were foreign-origin groups whose major centres lay elsewhere in western and northwestern India. Ashoka was an emperor of the Maurya dynasty and not a region by itself. Thus, we identify which option correctly corresponds to Srikakulam as a capital in the context of regional power in ancient India and match it to the Andhras. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Andhras were an important ancient people who rose to prominence in the Deccan and eastern coastal regions. Step 2: Recognise that Srikakulam lies in the region that broadly corresponds to the historical Andhra area. Step 3: Note that the Sakas and Pahlavas are connected more with western India and northwestern frontiers, not with Srikakulam. Step 4: Understand that Ashoka was a Mauryan emperor whose capitals were Pataliputra and other Mauryan centres, not Srikakulam. Step 5: Conclude that only the Andhras match Srikakulam as a capital city. Verification / Alternative check: Standard ancient Indian history references and regional histories of Andhra confirm that Srikakulam is associated with early Andhra power. By systematically eliminating other dynasties whose core regions lie elsewhere, we can confidently validate this answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Sakas primarily ruled in western and northwestern India and are not historically linked with Srikakulam as a capital. The Pahlavas similarly belong to a foreign-origin group whose centres were not in this region. Ashoka represents a Mauryan emperor and not a specific regional dynasty tied to Srikakulam. Therefore these options do not correctly match the location. Common Pitfalls: Students may guess based purely on name familiarity and select famous entities such as Ashoka or Sakas. Another error is to overlook regional geography and not connect Srikakulam with the Andhra region. It is helpful to mentally map important dynasties to their zones of influence in India. Final Answer: Srikakulam was the capital of the Andhras.

Question 12

By the reign of which ruler had Gautama Buddha been elevated from a teacher to the position of a worshipped God in Buddhist tradition?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question explores the development of Buddhist religious thought from the time of the historical Gautama Buddha as a teacher to the later phase when he came to be worshipped as a divine figure. The transformation is closely associated with the rise of Mahayana Buddhism. Identifying the ruler under whose reign this major doctrinal shift gained strong support is important for understanding how religion and royal patronage interacted in ancient India. Given Data / Assumptions: The focus is on the elevation of Gautama Buddha to the position of God, rather than just a spiritual teacher. The options list Harsha, Kanishka, Chandragupta Vikramaditya, and Ashoka. We assume the question refers to the phase when Mahayana Buddhism expanded with strong royal backing. Concept / Approach: Mahayana Buddhism, which emphasised the worship of Buddha as a divine being and introduced the concept of Bodhisattvas, grew significantly under the Kushana ruler Kanishka. Ashoka was an earlier Mauryan emperor who patronised Buddhism and spread it widely but still within a largely earlier doctrinal framework. Harsha and Chandragupta Vikramaditya belonged to later periods where different religious trends existed. Therefore, we should link the theological elevation of Buddha to the reign of Kanishka. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Ashoka supported Buddhism in the 3rd century BCE and helped spread it across Asia but did not belong to the Mahayana phase. Step 2: Recognise that Kanishka, a Kushana ruler, reigned in the early centuries CE, when Mahayana doctrines were flourishing. Step 3: Understand that Mahayana Buddhism presented Buddha as a divine saviour and encouraged image worship and devotional practices. Step 4: Note that major Buddhist councils and doctrinal developments under Kanishka contributed to this elevation of Buddha to Godlike status. Step 5: Harsha and Chandragupta Vikramaditya had different religious priorities and came after these developments, so they are not the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Textbooks on Indian religions and history typically associate the spread and institutionalisation of Mahayana Buddhism with Kanishka. Checking the timeline of rulers against the evolution of Buddhist schools confirms that he is the most appropriate choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Ashoka was a major Buddhist patron but lived too early for the fully developed Mahayana phase, so Buddha was still mainly honoured as an enlightened teacher. Harsha was an emperor of the 7th century CE, much later and known for eclectic patronage. Chandragupta Vikramaditya was a Gupta ruler, chiefly associated with a Hindu revival. None of these match the doctrinal turning point in question. Common Pitfalls: Many learners pick Ashoka because his name is strongly linked with Buddhism, ignoring the chronological difference between Theravada or earlier schools and Mahayana. To avoid this error, always relate doctrinal changes to their proper historical period and rulers. Final Answer: Gautama Buddha was elevated to the position of a God by the time of Kanishka.

Question 13

In the Mughal revenue administration, which land revenue system was also popularly known as the bandobast system?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question concerns Mughal revenue administration, especially under Akbar, when land revenue systems were standardised and carefully organised. The term bandobast refers to a systematic arrangement for assessment and collection of land revenue. Understanding which technical name corresponds to bandobast helps learners connect Persian administrative terminology with the practical methods used for taxation. Given Data / Assumptions: The question is about land revenue systems under the Mughals. Bandobast means an organised settlement or arrangement. The options list several known systems: Dahsala, Nasaq, Kankut, and Zabti. Concept / Approach: Akbar and his finance minister Todar Mal introduced a systematic revenue settlement based on measurement of land and calculation of average produce and prices. This comprehensive arrangement was referred to as the bandobast. In administrative terminology, the system that involved measurement and direct assessment based on these calculations is known as the Zabti system. Dahsala is a related aspect involving ten year average, but bandobast as a name is most closely associated with Zabti. Nasaq and Kankut are different methods used in particular situations. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that bandobast refers broadly to a planned settlement of land revenue under Akbar. Step 2: Remember that Todar Mal worked out a method for measuring land, averaging produce and prices, and fixing cash demand. Step 3: Identify that this direct, measurement based system is called Zabti in Mughal revenue terminology. Step 4: Recognise that Dahsala refers specifically to the ten year average used within this broader method, not to bandobast itself. Step 5: Nasaq and Kankut were alternative systems used in special circumstances, not the main bandobast. Verification / Alternative check: Standard texts on Mughal administration consistently describe the Zabti or bandobast system as the main revenue arrangement under Akbar, with Dahsala as a part of it. Cross checking multiple sources confirms that bandobast and Zabti are linked as two names for essentially the same system. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Dahsala system is associated with the use of a ten year average but is not itself the full bandobast. Nasaq is a rough assessment method usually based on past collections. Kankut combines estimation by eye and measurement, again used only in particular areas. None of these alternate methods fully capture the comprehensive bandobast settlement like Zabti does. Common Pitfalls: Learners often confuse Dahsala with the entire revenue system and assume it is called bandobast because it is frequently mentioned alongside Zabti. It is important to distinguish between the broad settlement method and one of its internal calculation techniques. Final Answer: The land revenue system that was also known as the bandobast system was the Zabti system.

Question 14

After independence, which was the first Indian state to be organised primarily on a linguistic basis?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The reorganisation of states on linguistic lines is a key theme in post independence Indian political history. This question asks about the first state that was created mainly to satisfy linguistic identity, which set a precedent for future state reorganisations. Knowing this helps learners understand how language based movements shaped the political map of India. Given Data / Assumptions: The focus is on the period after independence in 1947. The state asked about is specifically one formed on the basis of language. Options include Punjab, Gujarat, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh. Concept / Approach: The demand for a separate state for Telugu speaking people led to the creation of Andhra state in 1953, carved out of the Madras Presidency. This development followed the sacrifice of Potti Sriramulu and a strong popular movement. Andhra state later became part of the larger Andhra Pradesh formed in 1956. Because this was the first major instance of a state being organised mainly on linguistic lines after independence, the correct answer must refer to Andhra. Other linguistic states such as Gujarat and Punjab were formed later. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that soon after independence, there were intense agitations demanding states aligned with major regional languages. Step 2: Note that the earliest successful movement among these was the demand for a separate Telugu speaking state. Step 3: Recognise that this led to the creation of Andhra state in 1953 from the Tamil dominated Madras state. Step 4: Understand that this Andhra state later formed the core of Andhra Pradesh after states reorganisation in 1956. Step 5: Compare timelines and see that Punjab, Gujarat, and Karnataka became linguistic states later, so they cannot be the first. Verification / Alternative check: History of modern India references and state reorganisation committee reports confirm that Andhra was the first state to be formed clearly on a linguistic basis in the early 1950s. Looking at the chronological order of state formations reinforces this conclusion. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Gujarat and Maharashtra were created on linguistic lines in 1960, several years after Andhra. The modern state of Punjab also underwent reorganisation on linguistic and religious lines later in the 1960s. Karnataka, earlier known as Mysore, achieved linguistic reorganisation in stages, not as the first example. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse Andhra state and Andhra Pradesh or get distracted by later high profile linguistic agitations. It is important to remember that the Telugu speaking movement and the creation of Andhra in 1953 were the earliest successful cases. Final Answer: The first state organised on a linguistic basis after independence was Andhra Pradesh (initially formed as Andhra state in 1953).

Question 15

In modern Indian history, which memorial on the Sabarmati riverbank is the resting place of former Prime Minister Morarji Desai?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: India has several memorial ghats along riverbanks in Delhi and elsewhere to honour national leaders. This question focuses on the resting place of Morarji Desai, the first non Congress Prime Minister to complete a full term in that office. Identifying the correct memorial helps learners connect names of ghats with the leaders they commemorate, which is a common topic in general knowledge examinations. Given Data / Assumptions: The question asks about the resting place of Morarji Desai. Options include Abhay Ghat, Ekta Sthal, Shakti Sthal, and Vijay Ghat. We assume the learner knows that these names are associated with memorial sites of different political leaders. Concept / Approach: Each memorial ghat is associated with a specific leader. Abhay Ghat on the Sabarmati riverfront in Ahmedabad is dedicated to Morarji Desai. Shakti Sthal is associated with Indira Gandhi, Vijay Ghat with Lal Bahadur Shastri, and Ekta Sthal with a different leader. The correct approach is to match each memorial with the personality and then select the one linked with Morarji Desai. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Morarji Desai was a former Prime Minister from Gujarat, which makes a memorial in that region plausible. Step 2: Remember that Abhay Ghat is located on the banks of the Sabarmati in Ahmedabad. Step 3: Identify that Shakti Sthal is the memorial dedicated to Indira Gandhi in Delhi. Step 4: Recognise that Vijay Ghat commemorates Lal Bahadur Shastri. Step 5: Conclude that the ghat specifically associated with Morarji Desai is Abhay Ghat. Verification / Alternative check: Standard general knowledge references and guides to Indian memorials list Abhay Ghat as the cremation site and memorial of Morarji Desai. Cross comparing the known associations of the other memorials confirms that they belong to different leaders. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Shakti Sthal is dedicated to Indira Gandhi and is not related to Morarji Desai. Vijay Ghat is the memorial for Lal Bahadur Shastri, the second Prime Minister of India. Ekta Sthal is also linked with a different leader and does not commemorate Morarji Desai. Selecting any of these would mix up memorial associations. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes memorise the names of memorials but forget to attach them to the correct personalities. Another mistake is to assume that all memorial ghats are in Delhi and ignore regional connections like Morarji Desai s link to Gujarat. Final Answer: The resting place of Morarji Desai is Abhay Ghat on the Sabarmati riverbank.

Question 16

When Alexander the Great invaded north western India, which dynasty was ruling the powerful kingdom of Magadha?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question connects foreign invasions with internal Indian political history in the late ancient period. Alexander s invasion of north western India took place around 326 BCE. At that time, Magadha in eastern India was already a powerful kingdom. Knowing which dynasty ruled Magadha during this invasion helps learners align timelines of Indian dynasties with major external events. Given Data / Assumptions: The event in focus is Alexander s invasion of India around 326 BCE. The question asks about the ruling dynasty of Magadha at that time. Options list Haryankas, Shishunagas, Nandas, and Mauryas. Concept / Approach: Magadha saw a succession of dynasties: Haryankas, Shishunagas, Nandas, and later Mauryas. By the time Alexander entered north western India, the Nanda dynasty under Dhana Nanda was in power at Magadha. The Maurya dynasty, founded by Chandragupta Maurya, arose only after the fall of the Nandas. Therefore, matching the correct chronological sequence is the key to solving this question. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Alexander invaded north western India around 326 BCE. Step 2: Remember the order of Magadhan dynasties: Haryankas, then Shishunagas, followed by Nandas, and then Mauryas. Step 3: Note that the Nanda dynasty represented the peak of pre Mauryan Magadhan power. Step 4: Identify Dhana Nanda as the Nanda ruler during Alexander s time, mentioned in Greek and Indian sources. Step 5: Conclude that the Nandas, not the Mauryas, ruled Magadha when Alexander arrived. Verification / Alternative check: Chronological tables in standard history textbooks confirm that the Nanda dynasty ruled Magadha around the time of Alexander s campaign. Chandragupta Maurya rose to power slightly later, partially using the political vacuum left by Alexander s retreat and the fall of the Nandas. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Haryankas and Shishunagas ruled earlier and had been replaced by the Nandas by the late 4th century BCE. The Mauryas came to power only after Chandragupta overthrew Dhana Nanda, so they cannot be the ruling dynasty at the time of Alexander s invasion. Common Pitfalls: A frequent error is to connect Alexander loosely with Chandragupta Maurya and then incorrectly assume that the Mauryas already ruled Magadha during Alexander s invasion. Remember that Chandragupta s rise came only after the decline of Nanda power. Final Answer: When Alexander invaded India, Magadha was ruled by the Nanda dynasty.

Question 17

Which of the following statements about the Indus Valley Civilization is incorrect and therefore should be excluded from a factual description of that culture?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Indus Valley Civilization is one of the earliest urban civilisations in the world, known for its planned cities, drainage systems, and craft specialisation. General knowledge questions often ask learners to distinguish correct facts from incorrect claims about this civilisation. This question requires identification of the statement that clearly contradicts archaeological evidence and therefore must be considered wrong. Given Data / Assumptions: Four statements about the Indus Valley Civilization are provided. Three of them are historically accurate, while one is incorrect. We must identify the single incorrect statement. Concept / Approach: Archaeological excavations at sites like Harappa, Mohenjo daro, and others have revealed not only urban planning but also clear evidence of agriculture, such as granaries, sickles, and seeds. It is also well established that iron came into widespread use in India much later, so the Indus people did not use iron. Determining the wrong statement involves checking each claim against these known facts and selecting the one that clearly contradicts them. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate the statement that the Indus Valley Civilization was an advanced urban civilisation. This is correct, as cities had streets, drainage, and standardised bricks. Step 2: Consider the claim that iron was not known. This is also correct because the Indus period belongs to the Bronze Age, and iron usage appears later. Step 3: Examine the statement that it is difficult to determine the exact racial affiliation of the Indus people. This is broadly true since their script is undeciphered and physical anthropology remains debated. Step 4: Now look at the statement that the people knew nothing about agriculture. This is clearly wrong because there is strong evidence of wheat, barley, and other crops, along with agricultural tools. Step 5: Therefore, identify this last statement as the incorrect one. Verification / Alternative check: Standard history sources confirm that the Indus economy combined agriculture, animal husbandry, and trade. Presence of large granaries, irrigation hints, and crop remains invalidates any claim that they were ignorant of agriculture. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The other three options are factually correct and thus cannot be the incorrect statement. The civilisation was urban and advanced, iron was absent, and racial classification of the population remains uncertain due to limited direct evidence. Common Pitfalls: Sometimes students misread the question and look for a true statement rather than the false one. Another mistake is to confuse the Bronze Age Indus culture with later Iron Age developments, but in this case, the agriculture claim is the obvious error. Final Answer: The incorrect statement is that the people knew nothing about agriculture.

Question 18

Archaeological finds from Alamgirpur in Ghaziabad district are considered to represent which cultural phase in early Indian history?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Alamgirpur is an important archaeological site located in Ghaziabad district of present day Uttar Pradesh. It is often discussed in the context of the spread and extent of the Indus or Harappan Civilization beyond its core region in present day Pakistan and western India. Identifying which cultural phase the finds from Alamgirpur belong to helps learners understand the broad geographical reach of that civilisation. Given Data / Assumptions: The site mentioned is Alamgirpur in Ghaziabad district. The question asks which cultural phase is reflected in its archaeological remains. Options include Harappa Culture, Vedic Culture, Mauryan Culture, and Gupta Period Culture. Concept / Approach: Alamgirpur is recognised as the easternmost site of the Harappan Civilization. Excavations have revealed typical Harappan pottery, bricks, and other artefacts that match the material culture of the Indus sites. The Vedic period, Mauryan era, and Gupta age all come later and show different types of remains. Therefore, we need to connect Alamgirpur specifically with the Harappan or Indus cultural horizon. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Harappan Civilization extended beyond the Indus valley into parts of present day India. Step 2: Note that Alamgirpur is often mentioned as its easternmost known settlement. Step 3: Recognise that the artefacts found at Alamgirpur, especially pottery and bricks, match late Harappan material culture. Step 4: Understand that Vedic, Mauryan, and Gupta cultures are chronologically later and have different material signatures. Step 5: Conclude that Alamgirpur reflects the Harappa Culture. Verification / Alternative check: Archaeological survey reports and standard history textbooks place Alamgirpur firmly within the Harappan cultural zone. Some classify it as a late Harappan site, which still falls under the broader Harappa Culture label. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Vedic Culture is associated with later settlements and a different religious and social pattern. Mauryan Culture corresponds to the period of Ashoka and his successors, marked by inscriptions and polished stone architecture. Gupta Period Culture is even later, known for its classical art and temple building. None of these match the specific Harappan type remains of Alamgirpur. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse the location, assuming that since Alamgirpur lies in the Ganga Yamuna doab, it must be a Vedic site. It is important instead to focus on the material remains and their stylistic features rather than just geography. Final Answer: The archaeological finds from Alamgirpur reflect the Harappa Culture.

Question 19

The famous tribal uprising in Bihar known as Ulgulan, meaning Great Tumult, was led by which tribal leader?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Tribal uprisings formed an important part of resistance to colonial rule and exploitative systems in British India. One of the best known of these was Ulgulan, literally meaning Great Tumult, which took place among the Munda tribal population in the Chotanagpur region. The leader of this movement, Birsa Munda, has since become a symbol of tribal resistance and assertion. Given Data / Assumptions: The movement mentioned is Ulgulan, a tribal rebellion in Bihar. The question asks for the name of its leader. Options include Kanhu, Sidhu, Birsa Munda, and Rampa Munda. Concept / Approach: Different tribes and regions had different leaders in their revolts. Ulgulan refers specifically to the Munda uprising of the late 19th century. Birsa Munda emerged as its central figure, combining religious reform with political resistance against zamindars, moneylenders, and the colonial state. Sidhu and Kanhu are associated with the Santhal rebellion, while Rampa Munda is not the standard name linked with Ulgulan. Therefore, we must match Ulgulan with Birsa Munda. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify Ulgulan as the Great Tumult connected with the Munda tribe in the Chotanagpur region. Step 2: Recall that Birsa Munda was a charismatic leader who led this movement against colonial exploitation. Step 3: Recognise that Sidhu and Kanhu were leaders of the Santhal rebellion, a different tribal uprising. Step 4: Note that the name Rampa Munda does not correspond to a widely known leader of Ulgulan. Step 5: Conclude that the correct leader associated with Ulgulan is Birsa Munda. Verification / Alternative check: Modern Indian history textbooks and government records celebrating tribal freedom fighters clearly identify Birsa Munda as the leader of Ulgulan. Commemorations such as Birsa Munda Jayanti further confirm his central role. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Sidhu and Kanhu led the Santhal uprising, not Ulgulan. Linking them to Ulgulan confuses separate tribal movements. Rampa Munda does not appear in standard accounts as the leader of the Munda Great Tumult movement. Common Pitfalls: Some learners mix up different tribal revolts or simply remember names without associating them with specific events. A clear mental mapping of which leader led which movement prevents such confusion. Final Answer: The Ulgulan or Great Tumult in Bihar was led by Birsa Munda.

Question 20

Which Portuguese figure has been described in Indian accounts as a monster in human disguise who had no bowels of compassion?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question relates to early European contact with India, particularly the Portuguese arrival by sea. Indian chroniclers sometimes used strong moral language to describe European captains whose actions they experienced as cruel or ruthless. One such description refers to a Portuguese captain as a monster in human disguise without compassion. Matching this phrase to the correct historical figure helps learners recall how Indian sources viewed early European visitors. Given Data / Assumptions: The description is monster in human disguise with no bowels of compassion. The figure is a Portuguese leader involved in India. Options include Vasco da Gama, Albuquerque, Almeida, and Joao de Castro. Concept / Approach: Vasco da Gama was the first Portuguese captain to reach India by the Cape route and later returned to the Indian Ocean, often using harsh measures to enforce Portuguese interests. Some Indian records strongly criticise his methods, including burning ships with passengers. Albuquerque and Almeida also used force but are differently remembered, and Joao de Castro appears later. The phrase monster in human disguise is most commonly associated with Vasco da Gama in nationalist and regional accounts. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify that the description implies extreme cruelty and inhuman behaviour. Step 2: Recall historical accounts of Vasco da Gama s later voyages, where he ordered brutal acts against merchant ships. Step 3: Recognise that Indian chroniclers and later writers singled out Vasco da Gama for such condemnations. Step 4: Distinguish this from Albuquerque, who is remembered more as an empire builder and administrator despite his violence. Step 5: Conclude that Vasco da Gama best fits the quoted description. Verification / Alternative check: Indian historical narratives and some secondary works explicitly use language similar to monster in human disguise for Vasco da Gama due to his orders against non combatant pilgrims. Checking biographies of Portuguese captains confirms that this phrase is not standardly attached to the others listed in the options. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Albuquerque and Almeida were also harsh but are more often described in terms of their strategic and administrative roles, not specifically with this phrase. Joao de Castro came later and is not associated with such extreme condemnation in standard texts. Common Pitfalls: Students may lump all Portuguese captains together as equally cruel and guess randomly, or they may associate all negative descriptions with any well known name. It is important to remember this specific phrase is linked most strongly with Vasco da Gama. Final Answer: The Portuguese captain described as a monster in human disguise with no bowels of compassion was Vasco da Gama.

Indian History Questions