Question 1

In the sequence of Delhi Sultanate dynasties, which dynasty came to power in Delhi after the fall of the Tughlaq dynasty?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question focuses on the political chronology of the Delhi Sultanate, which saw several dynasties rule from Delhi before the rise of the Mughals. Understanding the order of these dynasties helps structure your knowledge of medieval Indian history. After the Tughlaq dynasty declined, a new ruling house took control of Delhi. The question asks you to identify this successor dynasty. Given Data / Assumptions: The starting point is the Tughlaq dynasty. The question asks which dynasty came to power immediately after the Tughlaqs in Delhi. The options are the Guptas, Khiljis, Mughals and Sayyids. We assume familiarity with the standard sequence of Sultanate dynasties. Concept / Approach: The Delhi Sultanate is generally divided into five main dynasties: Slave (Mamluk), Khilji, Tughlaq, Sayyid and Lodi. The Khiljis came before the Tughlaqs, not after. The Sayyid dynasty emerged in the early 15th century following the weakening and collapse of Tughlaq authority. Later, the Lodi dynasty replaced the Sayyids before Babur's Mughal dynasty established itself in 1526. The Guptas were a much earlier ancient dynasty and not part of the medieval Delhi Sultanate line at all. Therefore, the correct answer is the Sayyid dynasty. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the chronological order of Delhi Sultanate dynasties: Slave (Mamluk), Khilji, Tughlaq, Sayyid, then Lodi. Step 2: Note that the Tughlaqs, including rulers like Muhammad-bin-Tughlaq and Firoz Shah Tughlaq, declined in the later 14th century. Step 3: Recognise that the Sayyid dynasty was installed in Delhi after the Tughlaqs, often with support from the Timurids. Step 4: Understand that the Khiljis ruled earlier, before the Tughlaqs, and the Mughals came later after the Lodis. Step 5: Therefore, the dynasty that came to power in Delhi after the Tughlaqs was the Sayyid dynasty. Verification / Alternative check: History texts on the Delhi Sultanate uniformly list the dynasties in the order given above. They explain that after Timur's invasion in 1398 and the weakening of the Tughlaqs, the Sayyid rulers like Khizr Khan established a new line. Only after the Sayyids did the Lodi Afghans emerge, and the Mughal dynasty of Babur came even later. The Guptas belong to an entirely different era (4th–6th centuries CE) long before the Sultanate, which confirms that they cannot be the answer here. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Gupta dynasty: An ancient Indian dynasty that ruled long before the Delhi Sultanate and is unrelated to the medieval sequence of sultanate dynasties. The Khilji dynasty: Came before the Tughlaqs, not after; rulers like Alauddin Khilji preceded the Tughlaq rulers. The Mughal dynasty: Established by Babur in 1526 after the defeat of Ibrahim Lodi, which took place long after the fall of the Tughlaqs; the Mughals did not follow the Tughlaqs directly. Common Pitfalls: Students often confuse the order of Khilji, Tughlaq, Sayyid and Lodi dynasties or jump directly from Tughlaq to Mughal, forgetting the intermediate Sayyid and Lodi phases. Another error is mixing ancient dynasties like the Guptas with medieval ones. To avoid such mistakes, it helps to memorise the neat sequence of five Sultanate dynasties and place the Mughal period after the Lodi defeat at Panipat in 1526. Final Answer: After the Tughlaq dynasty, Delhi came under the rule of the Sayyid dynasty.

Question 2

In the Mauryan dynasty, who was the son and immediate successor of Chandragupta Maurya on the imperial throne?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question comes from ancient Indian political history and focuses on the Mauryan dynasty, one of the earliest and largest empires in the subcontinent. Chandragupta Maurya founded the Mauryan Empire with the help of Chanakya (Kautilya). After him, his son took over the throne before the famous emperor Ashoka. Identifying this immediate successor helps build a clear family and succession tree for the Mauryan rulers. Given Data / Assumptions: The starting ruler is Chandragupta Maurya. The question asks for his son who succeeded him on the throne. The options include Bindusara, Chandragupta II, Ashoka and Binbsara (a misspelt distractor). We assume familiarity with the basic sequence of Mauryan rulers. Concept / Approach: The typical order of early Mauryan rulers is Chandragupta Maurya, followed by his son Bindusara, and then by his grandson Ashoka. Chandragupta II, sometimes called Vikramaditya, belongs to the later Gupta dynasty and is unrelated to the Mauryan line. Ashoka is extremely famous but is the grandson, not the son, of Chandragupta. The option "Binbsara" appears to be a misspelled form of Bindusara and should be treated as an incorrect distractor. Thus, the correct immediate successor and son is Bindusara. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Chandragupta Maurya founded the Mauryan Empire with its capital at Pataliputra. Step 2: Remember that after Chandragupta abdicated or died, his son Bindusara became emperor. Step 3: Bindusara is then succeeded by his own son Ashoka, who later became one of India's most celebrated rulers. Step 4: Recognise that Chandragupta II is a Gupta ruler, not Mauryan, and that "Binbsara" is not the standard spelling of any Mauryan king. Step 5: Conclude that the son and immediate successor of Chandragupta Maurya was Bindusara. Verification / Alternative check: Standard histories of ancient India and the Mauryan Empire list the early rulers in order: Chandragupta Maurya, Bindusara and Ashoka. They discuss Bindusara's reign as a transitional period between the empire's creation and its zenith under Ashoka. Chandragupta II is always placed in the Gupta period several centuries later. These consistent genealogical accounts confirm that Bindusara is the correct answer and that any differently spelled variant in the options should be treated as a distractor. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Chandragupta II: A Gupta dynasty ruler known as Vikramaditya, not related to the Mauryan family line of Chandragupta Maurya. Ashoka: The famed Mauryan emperor and grandson of Chandragupta Maurya, but he came after Bindusara and was not the immediate successor. Binbsara: This appears to be a misspelling and is not the standard name of Chandragupta Maurya's son; the recognised historical name is Bindusara. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes skip Bindusara in their memory and jump directly from Chandragupta Maurya to Ashoka because Ashoka is so well known. This leads them to incorrectly identify Ashoka as the son of Chandragupta, when he was actually the grandson. Others may confuse Chandragupta Maurya with Chandragupta II, not realising they belong to different dynasties. To avoid such mistakes, remember the simple sequence: Chandragupta Maurya → Bindusara → Ashoka, and separately, in the Gupta dynasty, rulers like Chandragupta I and II appear much later. Final Answer: The son and immediate successor of Chandragupta Maurya was Bindusara.

Question 3

The Quit India Movement, calling for an immediate end to British rule in India with the slogan ‘‘Do or Die’’, was launched by Mahatma Gandhi in which year?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question concerns one of the final mass movements of the Indian freedom struggle. The Quit India Movement was a nationwide call for British withdrawal, launched by Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress during the Second World War. It is remembered for the powerful slogan "Do or Die". Knowing the year of its launch is a basic but important detail in modern Indian history. Given Data / Assumptions: The movement is the Quit India Movement. It was led by Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress. The question asks for the year in which it was launched. The options are 1885, 1942, 1947 and 1939. We assume knowledge of the broad timeline of the national movement and World War II. Concept / Approach: The Quit India Resolution was passed by the Congress at Bombay in August 1942, specifically on 8 August, and Gandhi gave the "Do or Die" call. This occurred during World War II, after the failure of the Cripps Mission in 1942. The year 1885 is associated with the founding of the Indian National Congress; 1939 marks the beginning of World War II and some internal political changes; 1947 is the year of Indian independence. Thus, among the options, 1942 is the correct year for the launch of the Quit India Movement. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Quit India was a wartime movement and took place during World War II. Step 2: Note that Gandhi called for "Do or Die" and the British responded with mass arrests, especially in August 1942. Step 3: Remember that 1947 is when India actually achieved independence, not when Quit India was launched. Step 4: Recognise that 1885 is the year the Indian National Congress was founded, and 1939 marks the beginning of World War II rather than this particular movement. Step 5: Therefore, choose 1942 as the year of the Quit India Movement. Verification / Alternative check: Historical accounts of the Indian national movement clearly state that the Quit India Resolution was adopted in August 1942 at the Bombay session of the Congress and that it led to widespread protests, strikes and underground activities. Many leaders were arrested, and the movement continued in various forms despite severe repression. Chronologies of the freedom struggle list 1942 as the key date for Quit India, confirming that this is the correct year among those given. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 1885: This is the year in which the Indian National Congress was formed in Bombay, long before the Quit India Movement. 1947: Marks Indian independence and partition, but by then the Quit India Movement had already peaked and subsided. 1939: The year World War II began; it is associated with political developments like the resignation of some Congress ministries, but not the launch of Quit India. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates confuse various milestones of the freedom struggle, such as the Non Cooperation Movement (1920), Civil Disobedience Movement (1930), Quit India (1942) and Independence (1947). Others may mix up the dates of World War II with those of national movements. To avoid this, it is useful to remember a simple sequence: Non Cooperation (early 1920s), Civil Disobedience (1930), Quit India (1942) and Independence (1947), each tied to its own key events and slogans. Final Answer: The Quit India Movement was launched by Mahatma Gandhi in the year 1942.

Question 4

Name the Viceroy of India who formally inaugurated New Delhi as the new capital of British India in the year 1931, replacing Calcutta (Kolkata) as the imperial capital.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question combines political history with the history of India’s capital cities. The British originally ruled India from Calcutta (Kolkata), but in the early 20th century they decided to shift the capital to Delhi. The formal inauguration of New Delhi as the capital took place in 1931 under a particular Viceroy. Knowing which Viceroy presided over this important ceremony is a useful factual detail for modern Indian history and general knowledge. Given Data / Assumptions: New Delhi was officially inaugurated as the capital of British India in 1931. The question asks for the name of the Viceroy at that time. The options are Lord Wellesley, Lord Curzon, Lord Cornwallis and Lord Irwin. We assume knowledge of key Viceroys and their time periods. Concept / Approach: The decision to shift the capital from Calcutta to Delhi was announced in 1911 during the Delhi Durbar under King George V, with Lord Hardinge as Viceroy. However, the actual construction of New Delhi took about two decades. The new capital, designed by architects Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker, was formally inaugurated in 1931, during the tenure of Lord Irwin as Viceroy (1926–1931). Wellesley and Cornwallis belonged to much earlier periods, and Curzon's viceroyalty ended in 1905, well before the inauguration of New Delhi. Therefore, Lord Irwin is the correct answer. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the capital of British India shifted from Calcutta to Delhi around the early 20th century. Step 2: Note that the announcement of the shift was made in 1911, but the new city of New Delhi was formally inaugurated only in 1931. Step 3: Recognise that Lord Irwin served as Viceroy from 1926 to 1931, covering the year of inauguration. Step 4: Lord Curzon was Viceroy earlier (1899–1905), and Lord Wellesley and Lord Cornwallis served in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, far before New Delhi was built. Step 5: Therefore, the Viceroy who inaugurated New Delhi as the capital in 1931 was Lord Irwin. Verification / Alternative check: Historical accounts of the planning and construction of New Delhi mention that the city was inaugurated in 1931 and that Lord Irwin presided over the ceremony as Viceroy. They also discuss his association with other events, such as the Gandhi–Irwin Pact in 1931. By contrast, Curzon is remembered for the partition of Bengal and educational reforms at the turn of the century, and Wellesley and Cornwallis are associated with earlier wars and administrative reforms under the East India Company. This chronological evidence confirms Irwin's role. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Lord Wellesley: Governor General in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, known for expansionist wars, long before the capital shift. Lord Curzon: Viceroy at the turn of the 20th century, famous for the 1905 partition of Bengal, but he left office years before New Delhi was ready. Lord Cornwallis: Associated with the Permanent Settlement and earlier Company rule, not with the 20th century inauguration of New Delhi. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse the 1911 Delhi Durbar, where the capital shift was announced, with the 1931 inauguration when New Delhi was actually ready. Because Curzon is a very famous Viceroy, some candidates also wrongly pick his name for many capital or administrative questions. To avoid such confusion, it is useful to remember: announcement of capital shift in 1911 under Lord Hardinge; formal inauguration of New Delhi in 1931 under Lord Irwin. Final Answer: The Viceroy who inaugurated New Delhi as the new capital of India in 1931 was Lord Irwin.

Question 5

Who built the famous Vijay Stambha (Tower of Victory) at Chittorgarh in Rajasthan history?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Vijay Stambha, or Tower of Victory, at Chittorgarh in present day Rajasthan is one of the most iconic monuments of Rajput history. It symbolizes military success, devotion, and the cultural richness of the Mewar kingdom. Many competitive examinations ask about the patron or builder of this tower, so this question tests your knowledge of the rulers of Mewar and their architectural legacy. Given Data / Assumptions: The monument in question is the Vijay Stambha, also called the Tower of Victory. Its location is Chittorgarh, which was the capital of the Mewar kingdom. The options list famous Rajput rulers associated with Mewar, such as Maharana Pratap, Rana Kumbha, and Rana Sanga. The question is asking who actually commissioned and built this tower. Concept / Approach: To answer correctly, you need to connect the monument with the specific ruler and the historical event it commemorates. The Vijay Stambha was constructed by Rana Kumbha of Mewar in the fifteenth century to celebrate his victory over combined armies of Malwa and Gujarat. Although Maharana Pratap and Rana Sanga are also very famous as warrior rulers of Mewar, they belong to a later period and are linked with different battles, such as Haldighati for Maharana Pratap. Therefore, remembering the timeline and the victory associated with Rana Kumbha guides you to the right option. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Note that the Vijay Stambha is a tower with intricate carvings located inside the Chittorgarh Fort complex. Step 2: Recall that Rana Kumbha ruled Mewar during the fifteenth century and fought against the Sultanates of Malwa and Gujarat. Step 3: Understand that he built the tower to commemorate his victory over Mahmud Khilji of Malwa. Step 4: Identify that Maharana Pratap and Rana Sanga were later rulers involved in struggles against Mughal power, not the builders of this particular monument. Step 5: Conclude that the correct answer is Rana Kumbha, the ruler who commissioned and completed the Vijay Stambha. Verification / Alternative check: Standard history textbooks on medieval India, as well as tourism information on Chittorgarh, clearly attribute the Vijay Stambha to Rana Kumbha. Descriptions often refer to it as a nine storey tower built by Rana Kumbha in the fifteenth century. No credible historical source claims that Maharana Pratap, Rana Sanga, or Kunwar Durjan Singh built this structure, which confirms that Rana Kumbha is the only historically correct answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Maharana Pratap: He is famous for resisting Mughal emperor Akbar, especially at the Battle of Haldighati, but he did not build the Vijay Stambha. Rana Sanga: He was a later ruler who fought Babur at the Battle of Khanwa; the tower already existed before his time. Kunwar Durjan Singh: He was a lesser known figure and is not associated with commissioning any major victory tower at Chittorgarh. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to assume that the most famous warrior of Mewar, Maharana Pratap, must be associated with every important monument. Another error is not paying attention to the time period in which each ruler lived. By memorizing that Rana Kumbha was the great builder king of Mewar, responsible for several forts and temples including the Vijay Stambha, you can avoid confusion in similar questions. Final Answer: The Vijay Stambha or Tower of Victory at Chittorgarh was built by Rana Kumbha.

Question 6

In modern Indian history, in which year did the Kakori conspiracy case take place against revolutionaries on a train near Lucknow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Kakori conspiracy case is a landmark event in the history of the Indian freedom struggle. It involved a planned robbery of a train carrying government money and led to the arrest and trial of several revolutionaries associated with the Hindustan Republican Association. Questions about the year of the Kakori incident frequently appear in competitive exams, so knowing the correct date is essential for modern Indian history. Given Data / Assumptions: The event mentioned is the Kakori conspiracy case. It involved a train robbery near Kakori, close to Lucknow. The options are four consecutive years in the nineteen twenties. The task is to identify the exact year when the incident took place. Concept / Approach: The Kakori train robbery occurred on a specific date in the mid nineteen twenties. The incident is widely recorded as having happened on nine August nineteen twenty five. By linking the incident to this date, you can identify the correct year from the options. Remembering the names of revolutionaries like Ram Prasad Bismil, Ashfaqulla Khan, Rajendra Lahiri, and others can also help you recall the time period of their activities, which centered around nineteen twenty five. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Kakori incident was a train robbery planned to seize government funds and support revolutionary activities. Step 2: Remember that the robbery took place on nine August in the mid nineteen twenties. Step 3: Connect this date to the year nineteen twenty five, which is widely mentioned in history books as the year of the Kakori conspiracy. Step 4: Compare the given options nineteen twenty four, nineteen twenty five, nineteen twenty six, and nineteen twenty seven. Step 5: Select nineteen twenty five as the correct year for the Kakori conspiracy case. Verification / Alternative check: Multiple sources on the Indian independence movement record the Kakori case as occurring in nineteen twenty five. The subsequent arrests, trials, and executions of some revolutionaries took place over the following years, which sometimes leads to confusion. However, the incident that triggered the case was firmly in nineteen twenty five. When exam guides list major events year wise, the Kakori conspiracy consistently appears under nineteen twenty five, confirming this choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 1924: This is too early; the key revolutionary activities that led to the Kakori robbery had not yet culminated in this particular incident. 1926: This year is associated more with the trials and consequences, but the robbery itself did not take place then. 1927: By this time many of the accused had already been tried or executed, so it cannot be the year of the incident. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse the year of the robbery with the years of the trial and sentencing, which extended beyond nineteen twenty five. Another common issue is mixing up Kakori with other revolutionary actions of the nineteen twenties and thirties. A simple memory aid is to associate Kakori with nineteen twenty five and the date nine August as a turning point in revolutionary activities of that period. Final Answer: The Kakori conspiracy case took place in the year 1925.

Question 7

In the Indian national movement, in which year did Mahatma Gandhi launch the Non Cooperation Movement against British rule?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Non Cooperation Movement was one of the first mass movements led by Mahatma Gandhi that drew large sections of Indian society into active participation against British rule. It marked a major shift from petition based politics to mass satyagraha and boycott on a national scale. Knowing the year in which this movement started is a fundamental fact for anyone studying modern Indian history or preparing for competitive exams. Given Data / Assumptions: The movement mentioned is the Non Cooperation Movement. It was launched under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress. Four possible years are given: nineteen hundred, nineteen twenty, nineteen forty, and nineteen thirty five. The question focuses on the year of its formal beginning. Concept / Approach: The Non Cooperation Movement was launched in response to a series of events, including the Rowlatt Act of nineteen nineteen and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. The Congress session at Nagpur and earlier decisions at Calcutta in nineteen twenty provided the framework for non cooperation. Therefore, the correct year to remember is nineteen twenty. Later mass movements like the Civil Disobedience Movement and Quit India Movement belong to the nineteen thirties and nineteen forties, so those options can be excluded. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Rowlatt Act and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre occurred in nineteen nineteen, creating widespread anger in India. Step 2: Mahatma Gandhi proposed a nationwide Non Cooperation Movement as a response to these injustices and to demand self rule. Step 3: The movement was formally approved by the Indian National Congress and launched in nineteen twenty. Step 4: Compare this with the options and note that nineteen twenty is present. Step 5: Reject the other years because they correspond to different phases of the freedom struggle, not the start of Non Cooperation. Verification / Alternative check: A standard timeline of the national movement lists Non Cooperation Movement under nineteen twenty to nineteen twenty two. The movement saw actions such as boycott of foreign cloth, surrender of titles, and non cooperation with government schools and courts. Since these activities are clearly dated to the early nineteen twenties, nineteen twenty is the only suitable starting year among the options. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 1900: This is far too early and belongs to a period dominated by moderate leaders, long before Gandhi mass leadership in India. 1940: This year is closer to the time of the individual satyagraha and the buildup to Quit India, not to Non Cooperation. 1935: This relates more to constitutional developments like the Government of India Act nineteen thirty five, not to the movement in question. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes mix up the launch years of different Gandhian movements, especially Non Cooperation, Civil Disobedience, and Quit India. A simple memory aid is to remember the sequence as nineteen twenty for Non Cooperation, nineteen thirty for Civil Disobedience and the Salt March, and nineteen forty two for Quit India. Fixing these three in mind helps avoid confusion. Final Answer: The Non Cooperation Movement was launched in the year 1920.

Question 8

Regarding the all India Census in India, which of the following statements about its beginning and frequency are correct?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The all India Census is a crucial source of demographic, social, and economic data for planning and policy making. Understanding when it was first attempted and how regularly it has been conducted is an important part of Indian polity and administrative history. This question asks you to evaluate three specific statements about the Indian Census and decide which combination is correct. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement 1: The all India Census was first attempted in 1872. Statement 2: It has been regularly undertaken since 1881. Statement 3: It has always been undertaken as a five year exercise. The options combine these statements in different ways, and you must choose the correct combination. Concept / Approach: To answer, you must know the historical development of the census in India. The first synchronous, modern style census for all of British India was conducted in 1881. An earlier attempt was made in 1872, but it was not conducted on a single reference date throughout the country. After 1881, censuses have been held regularly at intervals of ten years, not five years. Therefore, statements 1 and 2 are correct, while statement 3 is clearly incorrect. This leads you to pick the option that includes 1 and 2 only. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Assess statement 1. Historical records show that 1872 marked the first attempt at an all India Census, though it was not fully synchronous. So statement 1 is correct. Step 2: Assess statement 2. From 1881 onwards, India has conducted censuses at regular intervals. Thus, it is true that the census has been regularly undertaken since 1881. Step 3: Assess statement 3. In practice, the decennial census in India is held every ten years, not every five years. So the claim of a five year exercise is incorrect. Step 4: Combine the results. Statements 1 and 2 are correct, and statement 3 is incorrect. Step 5: From the options, the combination that reflects this evaluation is 1 and 2 only. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify this by recalling that census years in India follow a ten year pattern: 1881, 1891, 1901, and so on, with recent examples being 1991, 2001, and 2011. This confirms that the exercise is decennial, not quinquennial. Historical notes on the census also clearly mention that 1872 was an experimental or first attempt and 1881 was the first regular all India Census, thereby validating statements 1 and 2. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 1 only: This ignores the fact that from 1881 the census has been conducted regularly, so it is incomplete. 2 and 3 only: This option wrongly accepts statement 3, which contradicts the actual ten year frequency of the census. 1, 2 and 3: This option treats all three statements as correct, but statement 3 is clearly incorrect because India does not follow a five year census cycle. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to confuse the five year plan cycle with the census cycle and assume that both follow the same schedule. Some learners also misremember 1872 as the first regular census rather than as an initial attempt. To avoid such confusion, keep a clear distinction in mind: the census is a ten year exercise with regular counts from 1881 onwards, while 1872 is remembered as the first broad attempt. Final Answer: The correct statements are 1 and 2 only, which means the all India Census was first attempted in 1872 and has been regularly undertaken since 1881, but it is not a five year exercise.

Question 9

In 2015, some Indian territory was transferred to Bangladesh under which specific constitutional and legal procedure?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In 2015, India and Bangladesh resolved a long pending border issue that involved enclaves and adverse possessions along the international boundary. The settlement required an actual transfer of territory between the two countries. Such a transfer cannot be done merely through a simple executive agreement, because it changes the territory and the Constitution of India. This question checks whether you understand the correct constitutional procedure used for this land boundary agreement and the subsequent territorial adjustment. Given Data / Assumptions: The year in question is 2015. The issue concerns transfer of some Indian territory to Bangladesh. Schedule 1 of the Constitution of India lists the states and their territories. The options describe different ways this schedule could be changed, involving agreements, ordinary laws, or constitutional amendments with or without state ratification. Concept / Approach: Changing the territory of India or the boundaries of states in a way that affects the Constitution requires a constitutional amendment, not just an executive agreement or ordinary law. Additionally, certain types of constitutional amendments that affect federal provisions need ratification by at least half of the State Legislatures under Article 368. The 100th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2015, implemented the India Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement and included such a process, which means that Parliament used its amending power and the amendment was ratified by more than half of the states. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Understand that altering the boundary between India and Bangladesh required changes in the constitutional description of territory. Step 2: Recognise that Schedule 1 of the Constitution lists states and territories, so transferring enclaves means adjusting this schedule. Step 3: Under Article 368, amendments that affect federal provisions, including changes in state boundaries, often require ratification by more than half of the State Legislatures. Step 4: In 2015, the 100th Constitutional Amendment was passed to give effect to the Land Boundary Agreement with Bangladesh. Step 5: This amendment involved the constitutional amending power of Parliament and ratification by state legislatures, which matches option describing amendment plus ratification. Verification / Alternative check: If you look at lists of constitutional amendments, the 100th Amendment Act clearly mentions the India Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement and changes in territories of states like West Bengal, Assam, Meghalaya, and Tripura. Such amendments are not possible through a simple executive agreement or ordinary law, because they alter the constitutional definition of territory. Reports on the process also highlight the requirement of ratification by state legislatures, confirming that this was not a unilateral action by Parliament alone. Why Other Options Are Wrong: By a simple agreement between the governments of India and Bangladesh: An international agreement alone cannot alter the constitutional territory of India; it must be implemented by constitutional processes. By ordinary legislation of Parliament amending Schedule 1: Ordinary law cannot override or amend the Constitution; changes to Schedule 1 require a constitutional amendment. By amending Schedule 1 using the ordinary amending power of Parliament alone: While Parliament amends the Constitution, certain federal changes also need ratification by the states, so this description is incomplete. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to assume that any boundary arrangement between two countries can be handled only through diplomacy and executive agreements. However, when such arrangements affect the constitutional description of India territory, formal constitutional amendment procedures must be followed. Another pitfall is overlooking the role of state ratification in specific amendments that have a federal impact. Final Answer: In 2015, some Indian territory was transferred to Bangladesh by amending Schedule 1 using the constitutional amending power of Parliament plus ratification by more than half of the State Legislatures.

Question 10

During the Revolt of 1857, which rebel leader was popularly known as “Danka Shah” among the people?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Revolt of 1857 saw the emergence of many local leaders who became symbols of resistance against British rule. Some of these leaders were remembered by special titles or nicknames that reflected their role and popularity among the masses. One such figure is known as Danka Shah, a title that appears in several historical accounts of the uprising. This question tests your ability to connect that nickname with the correct rebel leader. Given Data / Assumptions: The time period is the Revolt of 1857. The nickname mentioned is Danka Shah. The options list prominent rebel leaders such as Shah Mal, Maulavi Ahmadullah Shah, Nana Sahib, and Tantia Tope. You must identify which one of these leaders was called Danka Shah during the revolt. Concept / Approach: Maulavi Ahmadullah Shah of Faizabad and Awadh region was a prominent religious leader and an active participant in the revolt. Historical narratives describe him as a charismatic figure whose arrival in a town was often announced by beating drums, symbolising his call to arms against the British. This led people to refer to him as Danka Shah, associated with the beating of drums. The other leaders listed were important rebels, but this particular title is specifically attached to Ahmadullah Shah. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Maulavi Ahmadullah Shah played an important role in Awadh and was known for his fiery speeches and ability to mobilise people. Step 2: Historical accounts indicate that his followers used drums to announce his presence and summon people, leading to the popular name Danka Shah. Step 3: Shah Mal was a local leader in the region of Baraut, Nana Sahib was associated with Kanpur, and Tantia Tope was a famous military leader, but none of them is widely known by this particular nickname. Step 4: Compare the options and identify that only Maulavi Ahmadullah Shah matches the title Danka Shah. Step 5: Conclude that Maulavi Ahmadullah Shah is the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Many exam oriented history books and summaries of the Revolt of 1857 include lists of leaders with their nicknames or special references. In these lists, Danka Shah is consistently associated with Maulavi Ahmadullah Shah. Other leaders like Nana Sahib and Tantia Tope are instead linked with different locations and roles, such as the siege of Kanpur or campaigns in central India. The absence of any mention of this nickname for the other options supports the conclusion that Ahmadullah Shah is the person referred to. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Shah Mal: Although he led peasants in the region of Baraut, there is no well documented use of the title Danka Shah for him. Nana Sahib: He was a key figure at Kanpur, claiming the title of Peshwa, but his name is not associated with the Danka Shah nickname. Tantia Tope: He was a brilliant military commander during the revolt, yet he is not recorded as being called Danka Shah in historical records. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes guess the nickname based solely on partial knowledge or on linguistic similarity of names without recalling the specific association described in history texts. Another pitfall is to select a more famous leader like Nana Sahib or Tantia Tope simply because their names are more familiar. To avoid such errors, it is useful to make small flashcards linking each nickname or special description with the correct historical figure. Final Answer: During the Revolt of 1857, the leader known as Danka Shah was Maulavi Ahmadullah Shah.

Question 11

Which European ruler famously remarked that the commerce of India is the commerce of the world and that whoever controls it is the dictator of Europe?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: India strategic importance in world trade has been recognized for centuries due to its spices, textiles, and other valuable commodities. Many European powers understood that controlling trade routes to India could give them global economic and political influence. This awareness is captured in a famous quote that describes the commerce of India as the commerce of the world and claims that whoever commands it is the dictator of Europe. This question tests your knowledge of which European ruler made that observation. Given Data / Assumptions: The quote emphasizes the centrality of Indian commerce to global trade. It states that exclusive command over this commerce makes a power the dictator of Europe. The options include Queen Victoria, Peter the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Gustav II Adolf. You must correctly associate the quote with one of these historical figures. Concept / Approach: Napoleon Bonaparte of France had a strong strategic interest in undermining British power by targeting its trade links, including the route to India. His campaigns in Egypt and the Middle East aimed to threaten British access to India. The given quote aligns well with Napoleon geopolitical thinking that control over the trade of India would translate into dominance in Europe. The other rulers listed had different priorities and contexts, making them less likely candidates for this specific statement. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise that the quote is about the economic and strategic value of Indian trade to European powers. Step 2: Recall that Napoleon Bonaparte fought several wars against Britain and considered various ways to weaken British trade. Step 3: His expedition to Egypt in the late eighteenth century was partly intended to threaten British access to its eastern colonies, especially India. Step 4: This strategic mindset matches the idea that controlling the commerce of India could make a power dominant in Europe. Step 5: Conclude that Napoleon Bonaparte is the ruler most closely associated with such a statement. Verification / Alternative check: Historical writings and exam guides that discuss European imperial rivalries often quote Napoleon remarks about the importance of India and its trade routes. Queen Victoria, while ruling over the British Empire, did not articulate this specific quote in the same strategic tone. Peter the Great focused on modernizing Russia and gaining access to warm water ports, and Gustav II Adolf was a Swedish king concerned more with European religious and territorial conflicts. The clear link between Napoleon policy and the Indian trade route confirms him as the correct answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Queen Victoria of Britain: Although she was Empress of India, there is no widely recognized record of her making this specific statement in this strategic form. Peter the Great of Russia: His focus was primarily on internal reforms and access to the Baltic and Black Seas, not directly on Indian commerce as a route to dictate Europe. Gustav II Adolf of Sweden: He was key in the Thirty Years War but had little direct involvement with Indian trade routes, making this quote unlikely to come from him. Common Pitfalls: Some learners may choose Queen Victoria simply because she is strongly associated with the British Empire and India. Others may not recall Napoleon Asia related strategies and therefore overlook him. To avoid this, remember that Napoleon was obsessed with British trade routes and viewed control over eastern commerce as a way to dominate Europe. Final Answer: The ruler who observed that the commerce of India is the commerce of the world and that whoever commands it is the dictator of Europe was Napoleon Bonaparte of France.

Question 12

Who was honoured with the title “Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity” for his leading role in the historic Lucknow Pact of 1916?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Lucknow Pact of 1916 was a significant agreement between the Indian National Congress and the All India Muslim League. It marked a rare moment of unity between major Hindu and Muslim political organizations in British India. One particular leader played a central role in negotiating and shaping this pact and was therefore described as the Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity. This question checks whether you can correctly identify that leader. Given Data / Assumptions: The key event is the Lucknow Pact of 1916. The title mentioned is Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity. The options include Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, A K Fazl ul Haq, Syed Mohammad Sharfuddin Quadri, and Muhammad Ali Jinnah. You must connect the title with the correct person based on historical accounts. Concept / Approach: During the time of the Lucknow Pact, Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a member of both the Indian National Congress and the All India Muslim League and worked actively to bring the two organizations together on common political demands. Because of his negotiating role and his effort to foster Hindu Muslim cooperation, contemporaries praised him with the title Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity. The other figures listed played important roles in Muslim educational or political movements but are not associated with this specific title in the context of the Lucknow Pact. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Lucknow Pact was concluded in 1916 between the Congress and the Muslim League. Step 2: Recognise that Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a key leader who worked within both organizations to frame the agreement. Step 3: Historical narratives describe Jinnah as a strong advocate of Hindu Muslim cooperation during this phase of his political life. Step 4: Because of this role, he earned the title Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity from colleagues and observers. Step 5: Therefore, choose Muhammad Ali Jinnah from the options as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Biographies of Jinnah, as well as standard textbooks on the Indian national movement, mention that he was once known as the Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity. This reference is almost always tied to his work on the Lucknow Pact. Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan is associated with the Aligarh movement and earlier educational reforms, not with this pact. A K Fazl ul Haq is known for the Lahore Resolution, and Syed Mohammad Sharfuddin Quadri does not feature prominently in this specific context. This makes the identification of Jinnah as the correct answer straightforward. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan: He was a major figure in Muslim education and reform in the nineteenth century but not the architect of the Lucknow Pact and not given this exact title. A K Fazl ul Haq: He is better known for moving the Lahore Resolution in 1940, which is a different political context. Syed Mohammad Sharfuddin Quadri: He does not occupy the central position in negotiations of the Lucknow Pact that Jinnah held. Common Pitfalls: Some learners confuse different Muslim leaders and may pick Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan due to his importance in earlier periods. Others may forget that Jinnah political positions changed over time, and that in the pre 1920 phase he actively promoted cooperation between communities. To avoid this, always associate the title Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity with Jinnah role in the Lucknow Pact. Final Answer: The leader known as the Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity for his role in the Lucknow Pact was Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

Question 13

The national motto “Satyameva Jayate” has been taken from which ancient Upanishad of Indian philosophical literature?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The phrase Satyameva Jayate, which means truth alone triumphs, is inscribed at the base of the State Emblem of India and is regarded as the national motto. It comes from the ancient corpus of Hindu philosophical texts known as the Upanishads. This question tests your ability to correctly identify which specific Upanishad contains this famous phrase. Given Data / Assumptions: The phrase Satyameva Jayate is given. The question asks about its source Upanishad. The options list Akshi Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, Garuda Upanishad, and Mahavakya Upanishad. You must select the correct scriptural source from these alternatives. Concept / Approach: Satyameva Jayate occurs in the Mundaka Upanishad, which is one of the principal Upanishads belonging to the Atharva Veda tradition. The verse asserts that truth alone triumphs, not falsehood, and that through truth seekers reach the supreme reality. While other Upanishads and texts also discuss truth, this particular phrase is specifically associated with Mundaka Upanishad. The other options are either less prominent or not the source of this exact Sanskrit expression used as the national motto. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that India adopted Satyameva Jayate as its national motto after independence. Step 2: Remember that the phrase is cited from a verse in the Mundaka Upanishad, a well known Upanishad connected with the Atharva Veda. Step 3: Note that Akshi Upanishad and Garuda Upanishad are lesser known texts and are not typically mentioned as the source of the national motto. Step 4: Mahavakya is a term that refers to great sayings from various Upanishads but is not the name of a standard principal Upanishad that contains this specific phrase as its title. Step 5: Therefore, identify Mundaka Upanishad as the correct answer from the given list. Verification / Alternative check: Standard references on Indian national symbols and civics textbooks clearly state that Satyameva Jayate is taken from the Mundaka Upanishad. They often provide the full Sanskrit verse and its translation to emphasize the importance of truth in the Indian cultural and philosophical tradition. None of the other listed Upanishads are cited in this official context, which confirms that Mundaka Upanishad is the correct source. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Akshi Upanishad: This is not widely recognized as the source of the national motto and does not hold the same canonical position as Mundaka Upanishad in this context. Garuda Upanishad: Though it is part of the later Upanishadic literature, it is not associated with the phrase Satyameva Jayate. Mahavakya Upanishad: The term Mahavakya usually refers to great sentences like Tat tvam asi from various Upanishads and is not the direct textual source of this specific phrase. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse the term Mahavakya with the actual titles of Upanishads, leading them to guess incorrectly. Others may not be clear about the classification of principal versus minor Upanishads. To avoid confusion, it helps to remember a few key associations, such as Satyameva Jayate with Mundaka Upanishad and Tat tvam asi with Chandogya Upanishad, which are frequently mentioned in exams. Final Answer: The national motto Satyameva Jayate has been taken from the Mundaka Upanishad.

Question 14

General Dyer, responsible for ordering the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in 1919, was later shot dead in London by which Indian revolutionary?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 1919 in Amritsar, where British troops fired on an unarmed gathering, is one of the darkest episodes of colonial rule in India. The officer responsible for ordering the firing was Brigadier General Reginald Dyer. Years later, an Indian revolutionary avenged the massacre by assassinating Michael O Dwyer, who had supported Dyer actions, in London. Many exam questions combine these figures, so this question tests whether you can correctly identify the revolutionary associated with that assassination. Given Data / Assumptions: The incident referred to is the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in 1919. The name General Dyer is mentioned as responsible for the firing. The options list Indian nationalist and revolutionary figures such as Hasrat Mohani, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Udham Singh, and Jatin Das. You must choose who shot dead the British official connected with the massacre in London. Concept / Approach: The assassination that avenged Jallianwala Bagh is historically associated with Udham Singh, who killed Michael O Dwyer in London in 1940. O Dwyer had been Lieutenant Governor of Punjab at the time of the massacre and had strongly supported Dyer actions. While the question names General Dyer, in many simplified exam formulations Udham Singh is still treated as the avenger of the massacre as a whole. The other figures listed are important freedom fighters but are not linked to this London assassination. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Jallianwala Bagh massacre occurred on 13 April 1919 under the command of General Dyer. Step 2: Remember that Michael O Dwyer, the Lieutenant Governor of Punjab, endorsed the massacre and was widely blamed for supporting Dyer. Step 3: In 1940, in Caxton Hall, London, Udham Singh assassinated Michael O Dwyer as an act of revenge for Jallianwala Bagh. Step 4: Many exam summaries state that Udham Singh avenged Jallianwala Bagh by this act, connecting his name strongly with the massacre. Step 5: Therefore, from the given options, Udham Singh is the correct revolutionary to select. Verification / Alternative check: History texts on revolutionary movements in the Indian freedom struggle clearly state that Udham Singh travelled to England and assassinated Michael O Dwyer in 1940. They also mention that he regarded this act as justice for the victims of Jallianwala Bagh. Hasrat Mohani was a poet and freedom fighter, Savarkar was a nationalist ideologue and revolutionary, and Jatin Das was associated with the Lahore Conspiracy Case and hunger strike, but none of them are connected with this particular assassination in London. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Hasrat Mohani: He was a leader of the freedom movement and a poet but did not carry out the London assassination related to Jallianwala Bagh. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar: He was a revolutionary leader and writer but is not associated with shooting any British official in London for this incident. Jatin Das: He is remembered for his hunger strike and death in jail during the Lahore Conspiracy Case, not for involvement in London based actions. Common Pitfalls: Some learners mistakenly think that General Dyer himself was the target of Udham Singh action, whereas it was actually Michael O Dwyer. However, exam questions often mention Dyer name while expecting Udham Singh as the answer because the act was still seen as revenge for Jallianwala Bagh. To avoid confusion, remember that Udham Singh is the key revolutionary associated with avenging the massacre in London. Final Answer: The revolutionary who shot dead a British official in London as revenge for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre was Udham Singh.

Question 15

In political theory, who among the following thinkers is best known for propounding the monistic theory of sovereignty?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The concept of sovereignty is central to political science and constitutional theory. Different thinkers have offered various explanations of who or what holds supreme power in a state. The monistic theory of sovereignty holds that sovereignty is absolute, indivisible, and resides in a single determinate authority. This question asks you to identify the thinker most famous for advocating this monistic, legalistic view of sovereignty. Given Data / Assumptions: The focus is on the monistic theory of sovereignty. The options list John Austin, Charles Darwin, Aristotle, and Karl Marx. You must choose the thinker whose political theory clearly reflects a monistic, legal understanding of sovereignty. Concept / Approach: John Austin, a nineteenth century legal philosopher, is known for his command theory of law, in which laws are commands issued by a sovereign and backed by sanctions. For him, sovereignty is indivisible and resides in a determinate human superior who is habitually obeyed by the bulk of the population and does not habitually obey any other human superior. This is a classic example of a monistic theory of sovereignty. The other thinkers listed either belong to different disciplines or have very different approaches to state and power. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that John Austin is a legal positivist who defined law as the command of the sovereign backed by sanctions. Step 2: Understand that in Austin theory, sovereignty is undivided and supreme within a political society, which matches the idea of monistic sovereignty. Step 3: Recognise that Charles Darwin is a biologist known for the theory of evolution, not for political sovereignty. Step 4: Aristotle discussed different forms of government and the concept of the polis but did not frame a modern legal doctrine of monistic sovereignty. Step 5: Karl Marx analysed class struggle and the role of the state as an instrument of class power, focusing on material and social relations rather than monistic legal sovereignty. Verification / Alternative check: Textbooks on political science and legal theory consistently identify John Austin as the main exponent of the monistic theory of sovereignty and legal positivism. They usually contrast his view with pluralist theories of sovereignty, which recognise multiple sources of authority in society. The names of Darwin, Aristotle, and Marx appear in entirely different contexts, confirming that Austin is the correct answer for this specific theoretical position. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Charles Darwin: He contributed to biology and natural science, not to formal theories of political sovereignty, so this option is clearly incorrect. Aristotle: Although he studied politics and ethics, he did not develop a monistic legal theory of sovereignty in the sense used in modern constitutional discussions. Karl Marx: His theory revolves around economic structures, class relations, and the eventual withering away of the state, not on an indivisible legal sovereign. Common Pitfalls: Students may confuse the broader idea of power or authority with the specific legal concept of sovereignty as defined by Austin. Others might associate Aristotle with all classical political ideas without distinguishing between ancient notions of rule and modern legal theories. To avoid errors, remember that monistic, legalistic sovereignty and the command theory of law are key phrases that should immediately make you think of John Austin. Final Answer: The thinker best known for the monistic theory of sovereignty is John Austin.

Question 16

Which one of the following gives the correct chronological order of major events: Poona Pact, Quit India Movement, Shimla Conference, and Cabinet Mission?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Understanding the chronological order of significant events in the Indian freedom struggle is essential for building a clear mental timeline of how the movement evolved. The Poona Pact, Quit India Movement, Shimla Conference, and Cabinet Mission were all crucial events in the period from the early nineteen thirties to the mid nineteen forties. This question checks whether you can correctly arrange these events in the order in which they occurred. Given Data / Assumptions: Event I: Quit India Movement. Event II: Shimla Conference. Event III: Poona Pact. Event IV: Cabinet Mission. The options provide different sequences of these four events, and you must pick the correct chronological order. Concept / Approach: To solve this, you need to recall the specific years of each event: Poona Pact took place in 1932, Quit India Movement was launched in 1942, Shimla Conference occurred in 1945, Cabinet Mission arrived in India in 1946. Once you know these dates, you can easily arrange them from earliest to latest. The correct order is therefore Poona Pact, Quit India Movement, Shimla Conference, and Cabinet Mission. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Poona Pact was an agreement in 1932 between Mahatma Gandhi and Dr B R Ambedkar regarding separate electorates and reserved seats for depressed classes. Step 2: Remember that the Quit India Movement was launched by the Indian National Congress in August 1942 with the slogan Do or Die. Step 3: Note that the Shimla Conference took place in 1945 under Viceroy Wavell to discuss constitutional arrangements after the war. Step 4: Recognise that the Cabinet Mission came to India in 1946 to propose a plan for constitutional transfer of power and framing of the Constitution. Step 5: Arrange the events by year: 1932, 1942, 1945, 1946, which corresponds to Poona Pact, Quit India Movement, Shimla Conference, and Cabinet Mission. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify the order by placing the events in relation to broader historical markers such as the Second World War. The Poona Pact is clearly pre war, Quit India occurs during the war in 1942, the Shimla Conference is a late war effort in 1945, and the Cabinet Mission arrives in 1946 just before independence. This contextual check confirms that any option which reverses or scrambles this pattern is incorrect. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Shimla Conference, Cabinet Mission, Quit India Movement, Poona Pact: This option wrongly places wartime movements and pre war agreements after post war conferences. Poona Pact, Cabinet Mission, Shimla Conference, Quit India Movement: Here, the Cabinet Mission is placed before the Shimla Conference and Quit India, which contradicts the actual dates. Cabinet Mission, Shimla Conference, Poona Pact, Quit India Movement: This sequence reverses the true historical order and is far from the correct timeline. Common Pitfalls: A common error is to remember the approximate decade of events but not their exact sequence, leading to confusion between 1942, 1945, and 1946. Another pitfall is not connecting the events to key milestones like the Second World War and the approach of independence. To avoid this, memorise a compact timeline placing Poona Pact in 1932, Quit India in 1942, Shimla Conference in 1945, and the Cabinet Mission in 1946. Final Answer: The correct chronological order is Poona Pact, Quit India Movement, Shimla Conference, Cabinet Mission.

Question 17

Verses attributed to the poet saint Kabir have been compiled in which of the following textual traditions and collections?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Kabir is one of the most influential poet saints of the Bhakti movement in North India. His verses on devotion, social criticism, and spiritual wisdom have been preserved in multiple textual traditions belonging to different religious and regional communities. Understanding where Kabir verses are compiled is important for both religious studies and medieval Indian history. This question asks you to identify which among the listed traditions contain verses ascribed to Kabir. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement 1: Bijak in Varanasi. Statement 2: Kabir Granthavali in Rajasthan. Statement 3: Adi Granth Sahib of the Sikh tradition. The options combine these statements in various ways, and you must pick the correct combination. Concept / Approach: Kabir verses have circulated in oral and written form across different communities. The Bijak is a key collection followed by Kabir Panth traditions, especially in and around Varanasi. Kabir Granthavali is another compilation associated with traditions in regions like Rajasthan. Additionally, several hymns of Kabir are included in the Adi Granth, the central scripture of Sikhism. Therefore, all three listed traditions have preserved verses attributed to Kabir, which means that the correct answer includes 1, 2, and 3. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate statement 1. The Bijak is a well known compilation of Kabir verses, and it is associated with the Kabir Panth based in and around Varanasi, so statement 1 is correct. Step 2: Evaluate statement 2. Kabir Granthavali is another important textual tradition that collects Dohas and poems attributed to Kabir, particularly in the literary and devotional traditions of Rajasthan, so statement 2 is also correct. Step 3: Evaluate statement 3. The Adi Granth Sahib, the sacred scripture of the Sikhs, contains hymns not only of the Sikh Gurus but also of several Bhakti saints including Kabir, so statement 3 is correct as well. Step 4: Since all three statements accurately name traditions that include Kabir verses, you must choose the option that lists 1, 2, and 3. Step 5: Option 1, 2 and 3 corresponds to this evaluation and is therefore correct. Verification / Alternative check: If you consult sources on Kabir literature, you will find frequent references to the Bijak as a primary collection in the Kabir Panth. Literary studies also mention Kabir Granthavali as an important compilation used by scholars of Rajasthani and Hindi poetry. Sikh studies confirm that the Adi Granth contains many hymns by Bhakti saints, including Kabir, Ravidas, and Namdev. The presence of Kabir verses in all three traditions is thus well documented and widely accepted. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 1 and 2 only: This option wrongly excludes the Adi Granth Sahib, even though it definitely contains Kabir hymns. 2 and 3 only: This option leaves out the Bijak, which is one of the central Kabir Panth scriptures and a key Kabir compilation. 3 only: This narrows the tradition to the Sikh scripture alone and ignores the independent Kabir related compilations Bijak and Kabir Granthavali. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to assume that Kabir is associated exclusively with one religious community, such as the Kabir Panth, and to overlook his presence in Sikh scripture or in regional literary collections. Another error is to think that Adi Granth Sahib contains only hymns by Sikh Gurus. To avoid these pitfalls, remember that Kabir was a shared figure whose verses moved across religious boundaries and are preserved in multiple textual traditions. Final Answer: Verses ascribed to Kabir have been compiled in Bijak, Kabir Granthavali, and the Adi Granth Sahib, so all three statements 1, 2, and 3 are correct.

Question 18

Who among the following Indian leaders founded the Phoenix Settlement as a community experiment in South Africa?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Before returning to India to lead the national movement, Mahatma Gandhi spent many years in South Africa, where he experimented with simple living, community organization, and the practice of satyagraha. One of his important initiatives there was the founding of the Phoenix Settlement, which became a model for communal living and self reliance. This question asks you to identify the Indian leader who established this settlement. Given Data / Assumptions: The institution mentioned is the Phoenix Settlement. The location is South Africa, not India. The options include Mahatma Gandhi, B R Ambedkar, Rabindranath Tagore, and Swami Vivekananda. You must choose which leader was responsible for founding this settlement. Concept / Approach: Mahatma Gandhi established the Phoenix Settlement in 1904 near Durban in South Africa. He created it as a self sufficient community for himself, his family, and co workers in his newspaper and political activities. The settlement emphasised simple living, manual labour, and the values of truth and non violence. The other leaders listed were important in different contexts: Ambedkar as a social reformer and architect of the Constitution, Tagore as a poet and founder of Santiniketan in India, and Vivekananda as a spiritual teacher. None of them founded Phoenix Settlement in South Africa. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Gandhi legal and political career in South Africa laid the foundation for his later leadership in India. Step 2: Remember that during this period he established two community settlements, Phoenix Settlement near Durban and later Tolstoy Farm near Johannesburg. Step 3: The Phoenix Settlement was founded in 1904 and was associated with his printing press and the newspaper Indian Opinion. Step 4: B R Ambedkar activities were concentrated in India and focused on social justice and rights of depressed classes, not on settlements in South Africa. Step 5: Rabindranath Tagore founded Visva Bharati at Santiniketan in India, while Swami Vivekananda promoted the Ramakrishna Mission, so neither of them is linked with Phoenix Settlement. Verification / Alternative check: Biographical accounts of Gandhi clearly describe the founding of Phoenix Settlement as a turning point in his experiments with communal life and simple living. They emphasise that this settlement and later Tolstoy Farm were practical training grounds for satyagraha and cooperative living. In contrast, standard biographies of Ambedkar, Tagore, and Vivekananda do not mention any such settlement in South Africa, confirming that Gandhi is the correct answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: B. R. Ambedkar: He worked mainly in India on social and political reforms and did not establish a community settlement in South Africa. Rabindranath Tagore: He founded educational and cultural institutions in India, especially at Santiniketan, but there is no Phoenix Settlement in his life story. Swami Vivekananda: Although he travelled widely and inspired many institutions, he did not create this particular settlement in South Africa. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes mix up Phoenix Settlement with Tagore Santiniketan because both are associated with alternative community living and education. Others may vaguely remember South Africa in Gandhi life but forget the specific names of the settlements. A useful memory aid is to associate Phoenix with Gandhi printing press and Tolstoy Farm with his admiration for Leo Tolstoy ideas, both located in South Africa. Final Answer: The Phoenix Settlement in South Africa was founded by Mahatma Gandhi.

Question 19

In the Vijayanagara Empire, what was the name of the high platform used by kings for important ritual and ceremonial purposes?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Vijayanagara Empire in South India is known for its grand architecture and carefully planned royal complexes. Within the royal enclosure at Hampi, several important structures served different functions in the life of the king and the court. One of these was a massive raised platform used for rituals, festivals, and royal ceremonies, especially during the Mahanavami festival. This question asks you to correctly identify the name of that platform. Given Data / Assumptions: The empire discussed is the Vijayanagara Empire. The structure is a platform used for ritual and ceremonial purposes by kings. The options include Mahanavami Dibba, Lotus Mahal, Hazara Rama, and Virupaksha. You must choose which name refers specifically to the ritual platform. Concept / Approach: Mahanavami Dibba is the term used for the high platform inside the royal enclosure where the king would observe festivities, military parades, and sacred rituals during the Mahanavami festival and other important occasions. Lotus Mahal is a beautiful palace building with arched openings and is not a platform. Hazara Rama refers to a temple, and Virupaksha is the name of a major temple complex dedicated to Lord Shiva. Therefore, the only option that matches the description of a ritual platform is Mahanavami Dibba. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that in Hampi, capital of the Vijayanagara Empire, the royal enclosure includes several major structures, including a large stone platform. Step 2: This platform is known as the Mahanavami Dibba and was used by the kings to oversee royal ceremonies and festive processions. Step 3: Lotus Mahal, with its lotus like arches, functioned more as a pleasure pavilion or palace rather than a ceremonial viewing platform. Step 4: Hazara Rama is the name of a temple noted for its bas reliefs, and Virupaksha refers to a temple dedicated to Shiva, both serving religious roles but not as royal platforms. Step 5: Therefore, associate the ritual platform used by Vijayanagara kings with the name Mahanavami Dibba. Verification / Alternative check: Archaeological surveys and tourism descriptions of Hampi repeatedly label the large ceremonial platform as Mahanavami Dibba, highlighting its role in the Navaratri celebrations and other state rituals. Photographs and site plans also show this structure as distinct from the nearby Lotus Mahal and temple complexes. No serious source confuses these names, which supports the conclusion that Mahanavami Dibba is the correct answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Lotus Mahal: This is a palace structure within the royal centre that served as a pavilion and is not the ritual platform described in the question. Hazara Rama: This is a temple in the royal enclosure, known for its detailed Ramayana carvings, not a viewing platform for royal ceremonies. Virupaksha: This is a large temple dedicated to Lord Shiva, part of the sacred centre, and not a platform used by kings for ritual observances. Common Pitfalls: A frequent confusion arises from the fact that all these names are associated with monuments at Hampi. Students sometimes mix up palace structures, temples, and platforms due to similar sounding or unfamiliar names. A helpful strategy is to link each name with a visual image: Mahanavami Dibba as a huge stepped platform, Lotus Mahal as a graceful multi arched pavilion, and Virupaksha as a temple tower, so that their functions stay clear. Final Answer: The ritual and ceremonial platform of the Vijayanagara kings was called the Mahanavami Dibba.

Question 20

The Mughal idea of kingship based on the divine light or “Farr i Izadi” was first developed in the teachings of which Sufi thinker?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Mughal emperors in India often justified their rule using ideas of divine sanction and special spiritual status. One such concept was Farr i Izadi, meaning the divine light or glory granted by God to the ruler. This idea has intellectual roots in earlier Islamic philosophy and Sufi thought, especially in the illuminationist tradition. This question asks you to identify the Sufi or philosophical thinker whose teachings first developed the notion that influenced the Mughal understanding of Farr i Izadi. Given Data / Assumptions: The key concept is Farr i Izadi, the divine light associated with kingship. The question connects this concept to a specific Sufi or philosophical figure. The options are Shihabuddin Suhrawardi, Nizamuddin Auliya, Ibn al Arabi, and Bayazid Bistami. You must link Mughal kingship ideology with its earlier intellectual source. Concept / Approach: Shihabuddin Suhrawardi, also known as Suhrawardi Maqtul, was a Persian philosopher associated with the illuminationist school of Islamic philosophy. His writings described light as a key symbol of divine presence and authority. The Mughal notion of Farr i Izadi, divine radiance granted to the king, drew upon this illuminationist idea that legitimate authority manifests divine light. While Nizamuddin Auliya, Ibn al Arabi, and Bayazid Bistami are major Sufi figures, the specific connection to Farr i Izadi and illuminationist kingship is most closely associated with Suhrawardi thought. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise that Farr i Izadi describes a divine radiance or halo that legitimises a ruler authority. Step 2: Recall that Mughal theorists used this concept to argue that the emperor received divine grace and light, making obedience to him a religious duty. Step 3: Understand that this idea connects to the illuminationist philosophy of Shihabuddin Suhrawardi, who emphasised light as a metaphysical principle. Step 4: Nizamuddin Auliya was a Chishti Sufi saint in India focused on personal devotion and compassion, not specifically on theories of royal light. Step 5: Ibn al Arabi and Bayazid Bistami developed important mystical doctrines, but the systematic illuminationist framework that links divine light to political authority is most clearly associated with Suhrawardi. Verification / Alternative check: In discussions of Mughal political thought, textbooks and scholarly works often mention that the idea of Farr i Izadi has roots in the illuminationist philosophy of Shihabuddin Suhrawardi. They trace how Persian political and mystical concepts travelled into the Mughal court and were adapted to justify imperial authority. While Ibn al Arabi doctrine of the unity of existence influenced Sufism more broadly, the specific connection between divine light and kingship is found in Suhrawardi writings, confirming him as the best answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Nizamuddin Auliya: He was a beloved Sufi saint known for his spiritual teachings and service to the poor, but he did not develop the philosophical concept that directly underpins Farr i Izadi. Ibn al-Arabi: His profound mystical ideas influenced many later Sufis, yet the structured illuminationist theory of light as a basis for authority is not primarily his contribution. Bayazid Bistami: He is remembered for ecstatic utterances and asceticism, not for a detailed doctrine of kingship grounded in divine light. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes assume that any famous Sufi could be linked with any mystical sounding concept, leading to random guessing. Another pitfall is not distinguishing between illuminationist philosophy and more general Sufi teachings. To avoid this, associate Farr i Izadi and theories of divine light in kingship with Shihabuddin Suhrawardi and his illuminationist school. Final Answer: The idea of Farr i Izadi on which Mughal kingship was based was first developed in the teachings of Shihabuddin Suhrawardi.

Indian History Questions