Question 1

Which Indian freedom fighter is widely credited with addressing Mahatma Gandhi as the Father of the Nation for the first time in a public message?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The honorific Father of the Nation is closely associated with Mahatma Gandhi in India. It expresses the idea that Gandhi played a foundational role in inspiring and leading the freedom struggle. A key question of historical trivia is who first used this title for Gandhi in a public message, especially during the intense years of the Second World War. This question tests your knowledge of that moment and the leader who used this affectionate and symbolic form of address. Given Data / Assumptions: The title in focus is Father of the Nation, used for Mahatma Gandhi. The question asks who first addressed Gandhi with this phrase in a public context. The options include Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhash Chandra Bose, Sarojini Naidu, Chandra Shekhar Azad, and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. You must identify the leader associated with a famous radio broadcast that used this address. Concept / Approach: Subhash Chandra Bose, while leading the Indian National Army and broadcasting from overseas radio stations during the Second World War, is widely credited with addressing Gandhi as Father of the Nation in a message seeking his blessings. In a recorded broadcast in 1944, he used this phrase when speaking to Indians and sending a message to Gandhi. While Nehru, Sarojini Naidu, and Patel all admired Gandhi deeply, this specific first usage in a public message is associated with Bose rather than with them. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that during the Second World War, Subhash Chandra Bose led the Azad Hind government and the Indian National Army from abroad. Step 2: In one of his radio broadcasts in 1944, he addressed Gandhi and asked for his blessings for the freedom struggle. Step 3: In that message, Bose used the expression Father of the Nation when referring to Gandhi. Step 4: Although other leaders showed respect and love for Gandhi, this specific phrase in an early public context is linked with Subhash Chandra Bose. Step 5: Jawaharlal Nehru, Sarojini Naidu, Chandra Shekhar Azad, and Sardar Patel do not have a recorded first usage of this exact title in the same way. Step 6: Therefore, the correct answer is Subhash Chandra Bose. Verification / Alternative check: Biographical accounts of Bose and Gandhi, as well as compilations of famous quotations, often mention the 1944 broadcast in which Bose addressed Gandhi as Father of the Nation. They quote his appeal for Gandhi blessings on the Indian National Army cause. Although the title has since become widely used in India, this origin story is consistently repeated in exam oriented reference materials. Other options in the list may have paid tributes to Gandhi in different terms, but they are not credited with introducing this specific phrase in a notable public message. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Jawaharlal Nehru: He was a close colleague of Gandhi and later the first Prime Minister of India, but there is no well known broadcast or first usage of Father of the Nation attributed to him. Sarojini Naidu: She often praised Gandhi in speeches and poems, yet the specific phrase in a historically noted first usage is linked to Bose rather than to her. Chandra Shekhar Azad: He belonged to an earlier generation of revolutionaries and died in 1931, before the widely documented 1944 broadcast by Bose. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel: He was a key Congress leader and admirer of Gandhi but is not recorded as using this title first in the way described. Common Pitfalls: Because Nehru and Patel had very close relationships with Gandhi, some students guess their names based on familiarity rather than on evidence. Others may not remember the details of Bose overseas activities and radio messages. To avoid such confusion, associate the phrase Father of the Nation with Bose 1944 broadcast, in which he specifically addressed Gandhi in this way while leading the Indian National Army. Final Answer: The freedom fighter who first addressed Mahatma Gandhi as the Father of the Nation in a famous public message was Subhash Chandra Bose.

Question 2

Which nationalist leader gave the famous slogan Swaraj is my birthright and I shall have it during the freedom struggle?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Slogans played a powerful role in inspiring people during the Indian freedom movement. One of the best known slogans is Swaraj is my birthright and I shall have it, which expressed a strong demand for self government and stirred nationalist feelings in the early twentieth century. This question asks you to identify the leader associated with this famous declaration, which is often quoted in textbooks and speeches about the national struggle. Given Data / Assumptions: The slogan is Swaraj is my birthright and I shall have it. It belongs to the freedom struggle against British rule. The options include Mahatma Gandhi, Subhash Chandra Bose, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai, and Bhagat Singh. You must match the slogan with the correct historical personality. Concept / Approach: Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a prominent nationalist leader from Maharashtra and a key figure in the extremist wing of the Indian National Congress, is widely credited with coining and popularising this slogan. He used it to demand Swaraj, or self rule, as a natural right of Indians. While Gandhi later led the mass phase of the movement and other leaders like Bose, Lala Lajpat Rai, and Bhagat Singh gave their own inspiring calls, this specific phrase is firmly associated with Tilak and his early twentieth century activism. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise that Swaraj means self rule or self government. Step 2: Recall that Bal Gangadhar Tilak was one of the first national leaders to make a bold, uncompromising demand for Swaraj as an immediate goal. Step 3: He used the slogan Swaraj is my birthright and I shall have it to express his conviction that Indians had a natural right to govern themselves. Step 4: Mahatma Gandhi later popularised slogans like Do or Die and focused on non violent mass struggle, while Subhash Chandra Bose used calls such as Give me blood and I will give you freedom. Step 5: Lala Lajpat Rai and Bhagat Singh were also inspirational figures, but they are not credited with this particular slogan in standard historical accounts. Step 6: Therefore, Bal Gangadhar Tilak is the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Histories of the Indian national movement and biographies of Tilak consistently mention this slogan in connection with his political campaigns. Many exam preparation books list famous slogans and their authors, placing Swaraj is my birthright and I shall have it under Tilak name. Other leaders are mentioned with their own well known slogans, which helps clearly map each phrase to the correct personality. This repeated attribution across sources confirms that Tilak is the appropriate choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Mahatma Gandhi: He used many powerful phrases but is not associated with this particular slogan, which belongs to an earlier phase of the movement. Subhash Chandra Bose: His notable slogan was Give me blood and I will give you freedom, so attributing the Swaraj birthright slogan to him would be incorrect. Lala Lajpat Rai: He was a colleague of Tilak in the extremist wing but did not coin this phrase. Bhagat Singh: As a revolutionary, he wrote and spoke about freedom and sacrifice, yet this exact slogan is not linked to him in mainstream history. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse different slogans because they all express a desire for freedom. Another error is to pick a more widely known figure like Gandhi or Bose without recalling the precise wording. To avoid this, create mental pairs, such as Tilak with Swaraj is my birthright, Gandhi with Do or Die, and Bose with Give me blood and I will give you freedom. This practice keeps the associations clear and exam answers accurate. Final Answer: The slogan Swaraj is my birthright and I shall have it was given by Bal Gangadhar Tilak.

Question 3

In biological classification, who proposed the five kingdom system that grouped living organisms into Monera, Protista, Fungi, Plantae, and Animalia?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Biological classification systems have evolved over time as scientists gained more knowledge about the diversity of life and the differences between organisms at cellular and ecological levels. Earlier systems recognised only two kingdoms, plants and animals, but later proposals expanded this to include additional groups. The five kingdom system became widely known in school and college textbooks for many years. This question asks you to identify the scientist who first proposed this five kingdom classification. Given Data / Assumptions: The question is about the originator of the five kingdom classification system. The five kingdoms in that system are Monera, Protista, Fungi, Plantae, and Animalia. The options list Ernst Mayr, R. H. Whittaker, M. W. Beijerinck, D. I. Ivanovsky, and Carl Linnaeus. You must match the correct scientist with this classification proposal. Concept / Approach: R. H. Whittaker, an American ecologist, proposed the five kingdom classification in 1969. His system was based on criteria such as cell structure, body organisation, mode of nutrition, and ecological role. It separated prokaryotes into Monera, unicellular eukaryotes into Protista, fungi into their own kingdom, and kept plants and animals as separate kingdoms. Ernst Mayr contributed to evolutionary biology and species concepts, Beijerinck and Ivanovsky were pioneers in virology and microbiology, and Linnaeus developed the earlier binomial nomenclature and two kingdom classification. Therefore, Whittaker is the correct choice. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the five kingdom system became widely taught in the late twentieth century, with Monera, Protista, Fungi, Plantae, and Animalia as the five groups. Step 2: Remember that R. H. Whittaker proposed this system in 1969, emphasising differences in cell type, ecological role, and nutrition. Step 3: Recognise that earlier, Carl Linnaeus worked with a simpler plant animal division and developed the binomial naming system, not the five kingdom scheme. Step 4: Understand that Ernst Mayr major contributions were in evolutionary theory and species definitions, not in creating the five kingdom structure. Step 5: M. W. Beijerinck and D. I. Ivanovsky made discoveries related to viruses and microbiology, but they did not propose this particular classification. Step 6: Therefore, the scientist who proposed the five kingdom classification is R. H. Whittaker. Verification / Alternative check: Biology textbooks that discuss the history of classification systems usually present a timeline: Linnaeus with two kingdoms, later three and four kingdom models, and then Whittaker with five kingdoms in 1969. They summarise his reasoning for separating fungi and grouping prokaryotes in Monera. These books consistently attribute the five kingdom scheme to Whittaker. Other scientists in the options are mentioned for different contributions, such as nomenclature or virology, which confirms that Whittaker is the correct answer here. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Ernst Mayr: He worked on evolutionary biology, speciation, and systematics, but he did not introduce the five kingdom classification. M. W. Beijerinck: He is known for pioneering work in microbiology and the study of viruses, not for the five kingdom system. D. I. Ivanovsky: He is recognised as one of the discoverers of viruses but did not propose this classification scheme. Carl Linnaeus: He laid the foundation of modern taxonomy and binomial nomenclature, but his system had only two kingdoms, not five. Common Pitfalls: Students may confuse the roles of different biologists, especially Linnaeus and Whittaker, because both are associated with classification. Another mistake is to assume that any famous evolutionary biologist, such as Ernst Mayr, must also have proposed classification hierarchies. To avoid this, remember that Linnaeus created the basic naming system and two kingdom scheme, while Whittaker later expanded it to five kingdoms in 1969 based on modern biological understanding. Final Answer: The five kingdom classification system of Monera, Protista, Fungi, Plantae, and Animalia was proposed by R. H. Whittaker.

Question 4

Which one of the following pairs of historical figures is not correctly matched as per their well known association or relationship?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Examination questions often test not only dates and events but also the correct association between historical figures, such as allies, opponents, or close political partners. This question presents several pairs of names drawn from Mughal and Maratha history and asks you to identify the one pair that is not correctly matched in terms of well known association. To answer correctly, you must recall how these individuals interacted in real historical situations. Given Data / Assumptions: The pairs given are Shivaji – Afzal Khan, Nur Jahan – Mahabat Khan, Akbar – Rana Pratap, Babar – Bairam Khan, and Aurangzeb – Shivaji. A correctly matched pair should reflect a historically significant association, such as an important battle, rivalry, or political struggle. You must find the pair where the two individuals did not have the widely known relationship suggested by the pairing. Concept / Approach: Shivaji and Afzal Khan are correctly associated with the famous meeting at Pratapgad where Shivaji killed Afzal Khan after suspecting treachery. Nur Jahan and Mahabat Khan are linked through Mahabat Khan rebellion and his seizure of Emperor Jahangir, against whom Nur Jahan manoeuvred. Akbar and Rana Pratap are opponents in the context of Rajput resistance and the Battle of Haldighati. Aurangzeb and Shivaji clashed repeatedly over territory and power in the Deccan. In contrast, Babar and Bairam Khan did not share a direct political relationship of the type suggested; Bairam Khan served later as regent for Babar grandson Akbar, not for Babar himself. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate the pair Shivaji – Afzal Khan. This pair is correctly matched because Afzal Khan was a Bijapur general sent against Shivaji, and their encounter at Pratapgad is a famous episode in Maratha history. Step 2: Look at Nur Jahan – Mahabat Khan. Mahabat Khan staged a coup by capturing Emperor Jahangir, leading to a political struggle in which Nur Jahan influence and actions were central, so this pair is also correctly associated. Step 3: Consider Akbar – Rana Pratap. They are well known opponents, with Rana Pratap resisting Akbar expansion and the two associated with the Battle of Haldighati. Step 4: Examine Babar – Bairam Khan. Bairam Khan was a powerful noble and general who later acted as regent for Akbar, Babar grandson. He did not play a similar role under Babar, and they are not remembered as a key historic pair. Step 5: Check Aurangzeb – Shivaji. Their rivalry over control in the Deccan and Aurangzeb policies toward Shivaji are well documented, making this another correctly matched association. Step 6: Therefore, among all the pairs, Babar – Bairam Khan stands out as the one that is not correctly matched. Verification / Alternative check: If you consult standard histories, you will find detailed narratives of Shivaji encounter with Afzal Khan, of Mahabat Khan rebellion during Jahangir reign and Nur Jahan efforts, of Akbar conflict with Rana Pratap, and of Aurangzeb repeated clashes with Shivaji. In contrast, Bairam Khan career is linked primarily with Humayun and especially Akbar as regent and military leader. Babar is associated with commanders like Mir Baqi and other early supporters, not with Bairam Khan as a central figure. This distribution of associations confirms that Babar – Bairam Khan is the incorrectly matched pair. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Shivaji – Afzal Khan: This is correctly matched because Afzal Khan was sent to subdue Shivaji, leading to a dramatic meeting in which Shivaji killed him. Nur Jahan – Mahabat Khan: Their conflict around Mahabat Khan capture of Jahangir is a well known episode demonstrating Nur Jahan political skill. Akbar – Rana Pratap: The Mughal emperor Akbar and the Rajput ruler Rana Pratap are historical opponents linked with the long resistance of Mewar. Aurangzeb – Shivaji: Their relationship is defined by struggles over forts, taxes, and sovereignty in the Deccan and western India. Common Pitfalls: Because Bairam Khan is a familiar name in Mughal history, some students may assume he must be paired with any famous emperor, including Babar, without recalling the actual timeline. Others may mistakenly think that any two powerful names listed together must have a direct association. To avoid such errors, mentally check the century and generation of each figure and confirm whether they were contemporaries. Once you recall that Bairam Khan served Akbar and not Babar, it becomes easy to see why this pair is not correctly matched. Final Answer: The pair that is not correctly matched is Babar – Bairam Khan.

Question 5

In the context of medieval India, during the Middle Ages formal education was largely confined only to which social group?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: During the Middle Ages in India, education was closely linked with religion, social status, and the traditional varna hierarchy. Formal learning mainly meant Vedic and scriptural education that was provided in gurukulas and pathshalas. Understanding which social group had privileged access to this knowledge helps learners grasp how rigid social structures shaped opportunities in pre modern Indian society. Given Data / Assumptions: - The question refers to the Middle Ages in India, not to modern times. - Education here primarily means formal religious and scriptural education, especially the study of Vedas and related texts. - The options list four major social groups of the traditional varna order: Kshatriyas, Brahmins, peasants, and Shudras. - The phrase "confined only to" indicates an exclusive privilege rather than broad access. Concept / Approach: In the traditional varna system, Brahmins formed the priestly and scholarly class. They were considered custodians of sacred knowledge. Classical dharma texts and historical evidence show that Vedic education was primarily a Brahmin privilege, although some Kshatriyas and Vaishyas could access limited learning in specific contexts. Shudras and the broad mass of peasants had very restricted or almost no access to formal schools of religious learning. Therefore, the correct approach is to identify the group for whom systematic formal education was a core traditional occupation and largely an exclusive right. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the varna system divided society broadly into Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras. Step 2: Recognise that Brahmins were traditionally responsible for performing rituals, preserving scriptures, and teaching sacred texts. Step 3: Note that classical rules in many dharma texts restricted Vedic study primarily to the higher varnas, and among them Brahmins were the main recipients and transmitters. Step 4: Kshatriyas did receive some training, but their main focus was warfare, administration, and leadership, not exclusive engagement in scholarly pursuits. Step 5: Peasants and Shudras were usually engaged in agriculture, manual work, and service occupations, and were generally excluded from formal centres of learning. Step 6: Since the question stresses that education was "confined only to" one group, the best answer is the Brahmins. Verification / Alternative check: If we cross check with historical descriptions of medieval Indian society, gurukulas and Vedic pathshalas are overwhelmingly associated with Brahmin teachers and Brahmin students. Epigraphic records, religious commentaries, and travellers’ accounts repeatedly indicate that scriptural learning was considered the birthright and duty of the Brahmin caste. While individual exceptions existed, the pattern of systemic access was clearly tilted in favour of Brahmins. This confirms that among the given options, Brahmins alone match the idea of education being confined to one social group in that period. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Kshatriyas: They did receive training in warfare, administration, and sometimes basic religious instruction, but education was not confined only to them, nor were they the main scholarly class. Peasants: Most peasants were from a variety of lower and middle groups and did not enjoy routine access to formal education in the medieval period. Shudras: Shudras were largely excluded from traditional schools of Vedic learning and were not the group to which education was confined. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to assume that both Brahmins and Kshatriyas equally shared educational privilege and therefore to hesitate between these two options. However, the question uses the word "only", which highlights exclusivity. Another pitfall is to project modern ideas of schooling backwards, imagining that peasants or all higher castes had similar educational access. The correct answer is based on the historical context of scriptural education, not on present day norms. Final Answer: The group to which formal education in medieval India was largely confined was Brahmins.

Question 6

In the Kushana period, who among the following was the famous court physician of Emperor Kanishka, closely associated with early Ayurveda?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Emperor Kanishka of the Kushana dynasty ruled a vast empire in North West India and Central Asia and is remembered for his patronage of Buddhism, art, and learning. One important aspect of his court was the presence of distinguished scholars and physicians. The question asks about the famous court physician who is also a foundational figure in the history of Ayurveda, the traditional system of Indian medicine. Given Data / Assumptions: - The ruler mentioned is Kanishka, a prominent Kushana emperor. - The focus is on the identity of his court physician. - The options list Vasumitra, Nagarjuna, Charaka, and Patanjali, all known names from ancient Indian intellectual traditions. - We assume the question refers to standard textbook historical associations used in competitive exams. Concept / Approach: To answer this question, we need to recall which figure is traditionally associated with Ayurveda and also linked with Kanishka’s court. Charaka is widely regarded as one of the principal contributors to the classical text Charaka Samhita, a foundational compilation on internal medicine. Many historical traditions and secondary sources mention that Charaka served as a royal physician in the time of Kanishka, which directly connects him with this question. The other names on the list are famous but linked to different roles or periods. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify that the question is about Kanishka, a Kushana ruler, and his court intellectuals. Step 2: Recall that Charaka is a key authority in Ayurveda and credited with the Charaka Samhita. Step 3: Note that historical tradition places Charaka in the court of Kanishka as his personal or court physician. Step 4: Compare this with the other figures named, who are known for different fields such as philosophy or grammar rather than royal medical service. Step 5: Conclude that Charaka is the only option that satisfies the requirement of being a court physician of Kanishka. Verification / Alternative check: Standard reference books on ancient Indian history and culture, as well as summaries of Ayurveda, consistently mention Charaka as associated with Kanishka. In contrast, Nagarjuna is usually linked with Mahayana Buddhist philosophy, Patanjali with Yoga and grammar, and Vasumitra with Buddhist scholastic activities. None of these are primarily remembered as Kanishka’s royal physician. This cross check reinforces that Charaka is the historically accepted answer for exam purposes. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Vasumitra: Known more as a Buddhist scholar, especially in the context of councils and doctrinal discussions, not as a royal physician. Nagarjuna: A major Mahayana Buddhist philosopher and alchemist, associated primarily with philosophical works, not specified as Kanishka’s court doctor. Patanjali: Traditionally connected with Yoga philosophy and Sanskrit grammar, not with medical service in Kanishka’s court. Common Pitfalls: Some learners mix up famous names and may think of Patanjali or Nagarjuna because of their general renown in classical Indian thought. Others may incorrectly assume that all such scholars served as royal physicians. Another common error is to overlook Charaka’s direct link with Ayurveda and Kanishka, which is strongly emphasised in exam oriented history summaries. Remembering the pair Kanishka and Charaka helps to avoid confusion. Final Answer: The celebrated court physician of Emperor Kanishka was Charaka.

Question 7

Examine the following two statements about the Zamindars in Mughal India and choose the correct explanation relationship between them: Statement I: The Zamindars were an exploitative class in Mughal India. Statement II: The Zamindars often received …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question examines the complex role of Zamindars in Mughal India and how they related both to the state and to the peasantry. Zamindars acted as intermediaries who collected revenue and often wielded considerable local power. The statements probe two aspects: their exploitative tendencies and the surprising fact that peasants sometimes supported them in uprisings. Understanding the relationship between these two statements is crucial for interpreting rural politics in seventeenth century North India. Given Data / Assumptions: - Statement I says that Zamindars were an exploitative class in Mughal India. - Statement II says that they often received peasant support in many agrarian uprisings in seventeenth century North India. - The task is to judge the truth of both statements and whether Statement II explains Statement I. - We assume the standard interpretation of Mughal agrarian structure used in school and university level history. Concept / Approach: Zamindars occupied an ambiguous position. They collected revenue and enjoyed customary dues, which often translated into exploitation of peasants through heavy demands. At the same time, they were local leaders, part of kin networks, and could become rallying points against excessive imperial pressure. When conflicts grew between the Mughal state and Zamindars over revenue or authority, peasants sometimes sided with the Zamindars, not because exploitation disappeared, but because these local chiefs represented a more familiar and sometimes protective authority compared to distant imperial officials. Therefore, both statements can be true without Statement II directly explaining Statement I. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate Statement I. Zamindars routinely extracted rent and dues from peasants and could be harsh in revenue collection, so describing them as an exploitative class is broadly accurate. Step 2: Evaluate Statement II. In many recorded uprisings, such as local agrarian revolts, Zamindars and peasants together resisted Mughal revenue officials, indicating that peasants did at times support Zamindars. Step 3: Determine the truth value of each statement. Both statements are individually true. Step 4: Examine whether Statement II explains Statement I. The fact that peasants supported Zamindars in uprisings does not explain why Zamindars were exploitative; rather it shows a political alliance formed against a common adversary. Step 5: Therefore, both statements are true, but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I. Verification / Alternative check: Historians of Mughal agrarian relations point out that Zamindars were often accused of over assessment and resistance to imperial authority. At the same time, when the Mughal state tried to increase revenue or curb local autonomy, Zamindars and peasants sometimes joined hands. This indicates that peasant support was context specific and strategic. It does not cancel or explain away the exploitative character of Zamindari exactions. This confirms that the correct logical relationship fits the option where both statements are true but the second statement is not an explanation for the first. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a: Suggests that Statement II explains Statement I, which is incorrect because peasant support in uprisings does not explain Zamindari exploitation. Option c: Claims Statement II is false, but historical evidence shows joint Zamindar peasant revolts against imperial authorities, so this is not accurate. Option d: Treats Statement I as false and Statement II as true, which contradicts the well documented exploitative role of many Zamindars in revenue extraction. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to assume that if peasants supported Zamindars, then Zamindars could not have been exploitative, leading to rejection of Statement I. Another confusion is to think that any two true statements must have an explanatory relationship, which is not always the case. It is important to separate the idea of social exploitation from the political alliances that arise in specific conflicts. Final Answer: Both statements are individually true, but Statement II does not correctly explain Statement I, so the correct choice is Both the statements are individually true but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I.

Question 8

Examine the following two statements about Ashoka and choose the correct option: Statement I: King Ashoka abolished capital punishment and disbanded his army. Statement II: After the Kalinga War, Ashoka was remorseful and became a follower of Buddhi…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Ashoka, one of the most famous Mauryan emperors, is known for his transformation after the Kalinga War and for his policy of Dhamma. Many exam questions test the difference between well known legends and what inscriptions actually tell us. This question asks you to judge two statements about capital punishment, the army, and Ashoka’s conversion to Buddhism, and then choose the correct logical combination. Given Data / Assumptions: - Statement I claims that Ashoka abolished capital punishment and disbanded his army. - Statement II says that after the Kalinga War, Ashoka felt remorse and became a Buddhist. - We assume evidence is based mainly on Ashokan edicts and standard historical interpretations. - The task is to check the truth of each statement and their relationship. Concept / Approach: Ashoka’s inscriptions emphasise non violence, compassion, and concern for all beings. He certainly reduced warfare and promoted moral governance, but they do not say he fully abolished capital punishment or disbanded the army. In fact, some edicts still mention punishments and the need for disciplined administration. It is also widely accepted that after the Kalinga carnage Ashoka turned towards Buddhism and became a patron of Buddhist institutions. Therefore we must carefully separate an exaggerated claim about abolishing punishment and the army from the historically supported statement about remorse and conversion. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate Statement II. Inscriptions such as the Rock Edicts clearly express Ashoka’s sorrow over the suffering caused by the Kalinga War and his embrace of Dhamma linked with Buddhism. So Statement II is true. Step 2: Evaluate Statement I. While Ashoka reduced aggressive warfare and advocated mild punishments, there is no reliable evidence that he completely abolished capital punishment or dissolved the army. Step 3: Recognise that a large empire like the Mauryan state still needed an army for defence and internal order. Step 4: Therefore Statement I overstates and distorts the historical picture and is false. Step 5: Combine the results: Statement I is false, Statement II is true. Verification / Alternative check: If we compare different sources, we find that Ashoka continued to rule a sizeable empire with frontier regions that required military presence. His edicts refer to officers of justice and punishments, which implies that the legal system, including severe penalties in some cases, still existed. At the same time, Buddhist texts and inscriptions agree that Kalinga was a turning point that pushed Ashoka towards Buddhism and non violent ethics. This combination confirms that only Statement II matches historical evidence. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a: Treats both statements as true and links them, but capital punishment was not fully abolished and the army was not disbanded, so this cannot be correct. Option b: Assumes both statements are true, which fails because Statement I is historically inaccurate. Option c: Claims Statement I is true and Statement II is false; this reverses the real situation and is clearly incorrect. Common Pitfalls: Some learners romanticise Ashoka as a completely pacifist king who removed all harsh measures. This leads them to accept the abolition of capital punishment and disbanding of the army as fact. Another pitfall is not reading inscriptions carefully and relying on simplified stories. Remember that Ashoka changed the direction of state policy, but he remained a practical ruler who still needed administrative and military structures. Final Answer: The accurate assessment is that Statement I is false and Statement II is true, so the correct option is Statement I is false but Statement II is true.

Question 9

Which of the following historical sources tells us about women publicly protesting against the infidelity of their husbands or neglect of the wife and children by the male head of the household in pre modern India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Social history increasingly uses local level records to understand everyday life, including the experiences of women. One striking theme is how women responded when husbands were unfaithful or neglected their responsibilities. This question asks which source specifically provides evidence of women protesting such behaviour by the male head of the household in pre modern India, especially at the village level. Given Data / Assumptions: - The focus is on protests by women against infidelity or neglect by husbands. - The options include a classical Arabic text about India, local Panchayat records, temple sculptures, and a Mughal administrative work. - We assume that the correct answer is based on documented research in regional social history. - The question refers to Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Maharashtra specifically in one of the options. Concept / Approach: To solve this, we need to match the type of source that would record everyday disputes and protests by ordinary women. High level administrative chronicles or foreign accounts usually focus on kings, wars, or elite culture. In contrast, village Panchayat documents often recorded disputes within families, property conflicts, and moral complaints, because Panchayats had to mediate such issues. Therefore, the category of local documents from village Panchayats in regions like Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Maharashtra is the most natural place where formal records of women protesting their husbands behaviour would appear. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Consider Kitab ul Hind, an eleventh century description of India by Al Biruni. It mainly discusses religious practices, sciences, and social customs in general, not specific village level disputes. Step 2: Consider the records of village Panchayats from Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Maharashtra. These were local councils that adjudicated disputes and kept written documents. Step 3: Such Panchayat records are known to include petitions by women complaining against husbands who were unfaithful, failed to provide maintenance, or neglected children. Step 4: Sculptures from Mandor show visual representations of deities and narratives, but they do not function as detailed complaint registers. Step 5: The Ain i Akbari is a Mughal administrative compendium that lists revenue, officials, and descriptions of the empire, not mainly village level marital disputes. Step 6: Therefore, the source that directly fits the description in the question is the body of documents belonging to village Panchayats in the named regions. Verification / Alternative check: Scholars studying rural society in western India have used surviving Panchayat records from Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Maharashtra to reconstruct everyday conflicts. These records sometimes preserve the voices of women who approached the council because their husbands had taken second wives, abandoned them, or refused to support children. Such documents provide rare but powerful evidence of women protesting against male infidelity and neglect. This matches the wording of the question very closely and confirms the choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The Kitab ul Hind: Although valuable for understanding early medieval India, it is a general survey and does not preserve specific village level protest documents by women. Sculptures from Mandor: These are important art historical sources but do not serve as written records of individual women protesting against their husbands behaviour. The Ain i Akbari of Abul Fazl: A rich administrative and descriptive text about Akbars empire, but not a primary source for local marital disputes and women’s protests. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes choose famous texts such as Kitab ul Hind or Ain i Akbari simply because they recognise the names, without checking whether the type of material in those works matches the question. Another pitfall is to assume that any religious or artistic source will automatically reflect women’s lives in detail. For questions about everyday conflicts, land records, and interpersonal disputes, always consider local administrative or Panchayat documents first. Final Answer: The evidence of women protesting against the infidelity and neglect of their husbands comes from documents belonging to the village Panchayats of Rajasthan, Gujarat and Maharashtra.

Question 10

The basic structure doctrine in relation to the Constitution of India is associated with which of the following ideas and judicial developments? 1. The power of judicial review 2. The judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973 3. The constrain…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The basic structure doctrine is one of the most important constitutional innovations developed by the Supreme Court of India. It limits the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and protects core features such as judicial review, federalism, and fundamental rights. This question asks which statements correctly relate to this doctrine, including key cases and the role of Article 368. Given Data / Assumptions: - Statement 1 links the doctrine with the power of judicial review. - Statement 2 cites the Kesavananda Bharati judgment of 1973. - Statement 3 mentions constraints on the amendment power under Article 368. - Statement 4 mentions the Golaknath judgment of 1967. - The task is to select the correct combination of statements that truly define or flow from the basic structure doctrine. Concept / Approach: The basic structure doctrine was clearly articulated in the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973. The Court held that while Parliament can amend most parts of the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot destroy its basic structure. Judicial review itself has been repeatedly recognised as one such basic feature. The Golaknath case, decided earlier in 1967, restricted Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights, but the term basic structure was not yet used in the same sense. Golaknath is an important precursor, but the doctrine is firmly associated with Kesavananda and the resulting limits on Article 368, not with Golaknath as a source of the doctrine itself. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate Statement 1. Judicial review, especially of constitutional amendments, has been recognised as part of the basic structure. So this statement is correct. Step 2: Evaluate Statement 2. The Kesavananda Bharati case is the landmark judgment that explicitly formulated the basic structure doctrine. So this statement is correct. Step 3: Evaluate Statement 3. The doctrine is precisely about limiting the amending power under Article 368, stating that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure. Therefore this statement is also correct. Step 4: Evaluate Statement 4. Although the Golaknath case limited Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights, the basic structure doctrine in its classic form is not directly identified with Golaknath. It is better seen as a precursor rather than part of the doctrine itself. Step 5: Combine the results, which show that Statements 1, 2, and 3 are correct, but Statement 4 is not strictly part of the basic structure doctrine. Verification / Alternative check: Standard constitutional law textbooks treat Kesavananda Bharati as the birth point of the basic structure doctrine. They explain how Article 368 was interpreted in that case to mean that Parliament cannot damage the basic framework of the Constitution. Judicial review is repeatedly described as an essential basic feature that cannot be removed. Golaknath is discussed as an earlier decision that prompted Parliament to pass constitutional amendments and set the stage for Kesavananda, but it is not itself labelled as the origin of the basic structure doctrine. This confirms that the correct combination is 1, 2, and 3 only. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option b: Includes Statement 4 and therefore wrongly implies that the doctrine is directly about Golaknath, which is misleading. Option c: Leaves out Statement 2, even though Kesavananda Bharati is central to the doctrine and cannot be excluded. Option d: Includes only Statements 2 and 4, ignoring the essential role of judicial review and Article 368, which is incomplete. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to treat every important constitutional case as part of the same doctrine without distinguishing their specific contributions. Students sometimes assume that because Golaknath dealt with amendment of fundamental rights, it must be part of the basic structure doctrine. It is important to remember that the doctrine in its classic form comes from Kesavananda Bharati and revolves around limits on Article 368 and the preservation of core features like judicial review. Final Answer: The basic structure doctrine relates to 1, 2 and 3 only, that is, the power of judicial review, the Kesavananda Bharati judgment of 1973, and the constraints imposed on Article 368.

Question 11

Which of the following statements about the Deccan Riots of 1875 in western India is or are true? 1. The Deccan Riots resulted in protection for peasants through the Deccan Agriculturalists Relief Act of 1879. 2. The riots did not spread to the whol…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Deccan Riots of 1875 were an important episode in the history of colonial agrarian unrest. They reflected tensions between indebted peasants and moneylenders in the Deccan region of western India. This question asks you to evaluate four statements related to the causes, spread, and consequences of these riots, including the later Deccan Agriculturalists Relief Act and the impact of the cotton boom linked to the American Civil War. Given Data / Assumptions: - Statement 1 links the riots to the passage of the Deccan Agriculturalists Relief Act of 1879. - Statement 2 says that the riots did not spread throughout Maharashtra because of prompt British suppression. - Statement 3 says the opposite, claiming that the riots spread widely and could not be contained. - Statement 4 mentions the cotton boom during the American Civil War as a factor in later peasant impoverishment. - We assume standard textbook interpretations of the Deccan Riots. Concept / Approach: To answer correctly, we must recall three key points. First, the Deccan Agriculturalists Relief Act was passed in 1879 to provide some legal protection to indebted peasants after the riots. Second, the riots were geographically limited, particularly in parts of Poona and Ahmednagar, and were quickly controlled by colonial authorities, so they did not engulf the whole of Maharashtra. Third, the cotton boom brought temporary prosperity during the American Civil War, but when the war ended and prices fell, many peasants were left deeply indebted to moneylenders, which contributed to their impoverishment and anger. Therefore, we need to pick the statements that match this historical understanding. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Consider Statement 1. It is correct that after the Deccan Riots, the British government passed the Deccan Agriculturalists Relief Act of 1879 to regulate moneylending practices and offer some relief to peasants. Step 2: Consider Statement 2. Historical accounts show that the riots were confined mainly to certain areas and were suppressed by the British through police and military action, so they did not spread to the whole of Maharashtra. This makes Statement 2 correct. Step 3: Statement 3 directly contradicts Statement 2 by claiming that the British were unable to contain the riots and that they spread widely. This is not supported by historical evidence, so Statement 3 is false. Step 4: Statement 4 notes that the cotton boom caused by wartime demand led, in the long term, to peasant impoverishment when prices crashed and debts remained. This interpretation is widely accepted, so Statement 4 is correct. Step 5: Combine the results: Statements 1, 2, and 4 are true, while Statement 3 is false. Therefore the correct combination is 1, 2 and 4 only. Verification / Alternative check: Histories of colonial India explain that in the 1860s, Deccan peasants experienced a temporary boom because of high cotton prices during the American Civil War. They borrowed heavily to expand cultivation. When the war ended, prices collapsed, but debts remained, leading to dispossession and anger against moneylenders. The Deccan Riots in 1875 involved attacks on moneylenders’ houses and records. These uprisings were quickly suppressed by the colonial state, and as a response, legal changes like the Deccan Agriculturalists Relief Act were introduced. This narrative clearly supports Statements 1, 2, and 4 while contradicting Statement 3. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a: Includes only Statement 1 and ignores the accurate information in Statements 2 and 4, so it is incomplete. Option b: Includes Statement 3, which is wrong, and omits Statement 2 and 4 in the right combination. Option c: Picks Statements 2 and 4 but leaves out Statement 1, even though the Relief Act is a direct consequence of the riots. Common Pitfalls: Learners may mistakenly assume that any major riot in colonial India must have spread widely, leading them to accept Statement 3. Another pitfall is forgetting the chronological link between the 1875 riots and the 1879 Relief Act, which can cause doubt about Statement 1. Finally, some students misinterpret the cotton boom as purely beneficial, overlooking how the later price collapse and accumulated debt created conditions for unrest and impoverishment. Final Answer: The statements that are true about the Deccan Riots of 1875 are 1, 2 and 4 only.

Question 12

During the mid nineteenth century Industrial Revolution in cities such as Manchester in England, what was the approximate average life span of industrial workers?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Industrial Revolution in Britain brought rapid urbanisation and factory based production, especially in cities like Manchester. While it created great wealth for some, the living and working conditions of industrial workers were often harsh and unhealthy. This question focuses on the approximate average life span of workers in Manchester during the mid nineteenth century, a key indicator of the human cost of early industrialisation. Given Data / Assumptions: - The question refers to the mid nineteenth century, a peak period of the Industrial Revolution in Britain. - It specifically mentions workers in Manchester, a major textile manufacturing city. - The options provide life spans ranging from 17 to 62 years. - We assume that the figure is based on contemporary reports comparing life expectancy in industrial towns and rural areas. Concept / Approach: To answer this, we need to recall that industrial cities like Manchester had overcrowded slums, polluted air, unsafe drinking water, and long working hours. Infant mortality was high, and diseases like cholera and tuberculosis were common. Historical studies and social reformers reports often highlighted that life expectancy in such urban centres was shockingly low compared to rural districts. In some reports, the average age of death for workers in certain parts of Manchester was around the late teens. Therefore we should select the smallest figure among the options that corresponds with these findings. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Observe that 55 and 62 years are typical of modern or healthier life expectancies and are too high for a polluted industrial city in that period. Step 2: Compare 17 and 30 years. Reports from social investigators like Engels and later health commissions show very low average ages of death in working class districts. Step 3: Recognise that some classic statistics for Manchester in the mid nineteenth century give average life spans of workers in the teens. Step 4: Based on this, 17 years is the figure that best matches historical evidence about average life spans in the worst affected industrial areas. Step 5: Therefore the correct answer is 17 years. Verification / Alternative check: Many textbooks on nineteenth century Europe reproduce dramatic comparisons: for example, they show that while people in rural districts might live into their 30s or 40s on average, the working classes in cities like Manchester or Liverpool had average life spans sometimes below 20 years in the most crowded neighbourhoods. These statistics were used by reformers to criticise industrial capitalism and demand public health measures. This supports the choice of 17 years rather than any higher figure given in the options. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 30 years: Although low by modern standards, it is still higher than the particularly grim averages recorded for some industrial districts in that era. 55 years and 62 years: These figures are much too high and are closer to life expectancy in healthier or much later twentieth century conditions, not for mid nineteenth century industrial workers in Manchester. Common Pitfalls: Some students hesitate to choose a very low number like 17 because it seems extreme. They may instead pick 30, thinking it is a more moderate figure. Another mistake is to confuse overall national averages with specific statistics for heavily industrialised and impoverished neighbourhoods. The question is about the life span of workers in one of the most polluted industrial cities, not about the broader population of Britain. Final Answer: During the mid nineteenth century Industrial Revolution, the average life span of workers in Manchester was approximately 17 years according to contemporary reports.

Question 13

In 1236, the Delhi Sultan Iltutmish was succeeded by his daughter, who became Sultan. What was her name?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The early Delhi Sultanate witnessed a remarkable event when a woman briefly occupied the throne. After the death of Sultan Iltutmish in 1236, his daughter ascended as ruler. This question tests knowledge of her name and reminds us of the exceptional but short lived experiment with female sovereignty in a predominantly male political world. Given Data / Assumptions: - The year mentioned is 1236, during the Delhi Sultanate. - The ruler whose daughter became Sultan is Iltutmish. - Four possible names are given: Rehana, Rukhsana, Rashida, and Raziyya. - We assume the standard spelling Raziyya or Razia for this famous queen. Concept / Approach: Iltutmish of the Slave or Mamluk dynasty is known for having chosen his capable daughter Raziyya as his successor, bypassing his less competent sons. Raziyya Sultan, often called Razia Sultana in popular history, ruled Delhi for a short period and is remembered as the only woman to sit on the throne of the Delhi Sultanate. Recognising this unique figure allows us to quickly identify the correct option among the similar sounding names. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Iltutmish had several children, but he considered his daughter Raziyya the most suitable to rule. Step 2: Remember that she is widely known in textbooks as Razia Sultan or Raziyya Sultan. Step 3: Compare the options and look for the one that matches this well known name. Step 4: Option d, Raziyya, clearly corresponds to Razia Sultan. Step 5: Therefore, the correct answer is Raziyya. Verification / Alternative check: Historical accounts of the Delhi Sultanate universally identify Raziyya as the daughter of Iltutmish who became Sultan in 1236. Although her reign was brief and contested, her name stands out as an exception to the general male dominance of the throne. None of the other names listed in the options are associated with Iltutmish’s succession in standard histories. This confirms that Raziyya is the accurate choice for exam purposes. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Rehana: Not associated with Iltutmish in major historical works as his successor or as a ruling queen. Rukhsana: A common female name but not the documented daughter who became Sultan after Iltutmish. Rashida: Again, there is no record of a Sultan named Rashida in the Delhi Sultanate, and this name does not match the historical queen. Common Pitfalls: Because the names in the options sound similar, some learners may confuse them if they only have a vague memory of a female ruler. Another pitfall is to remember her only as Razia Sultan and not recognise the spelling Raziyya. It helps to keep in mind that minor spelling differences often appear in transliteration, but the core name Razia or Raziyya always refers to the same historical figure. Final Answer: The daughter of Iltutmish who became Sultan in 1236 was Raziyya.

Question 14

Mahatma Gandhi decided in 1919 to launch a nationwide satyagraha campaign against which proposed law of the British Government in India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In the years after the First World War, the British colonial government in India introduced harsh legislation to curb political activity and suspected revolutionary violence. Mahatma Gandhi responded by mobilising a new kind of mass non violent resistance called satyagraha. This question asks which proposed law in 1919 prompted Gandhi to call for a nationwide satyagraha campaign for the first time on an all India scale. Given Data / Assumptions: - The year is 1919. - Gandhi decided to launch a nationwide satyagraha. - The law in question was proposed by the British Government in India. - The options include the Simon Commission, the Rowlatt Act, the Salt Act, and Pitts India Act. Concept / Approach: The Rowlatt Act of 1919 extended emergency wartime powers into peacetime, allowing detention without trial and severe curbs on civil liberties. It was widely condemned as unjust and repressive. Gandhi saw this as a direct attack on basic freedoms and called for a nationwide hartal and satyagraha in protest. The Simon Commission came later in 1928, the famous Salt Satyagraha was in 1930, and Pitts India Act dates to the late eighteenth century. Thus, the only option that matches the year and context is the Rowlatt Act. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Remember that Gandhi’s first all India satyagraha was against the Rowlatt legislation in 1919. Step 2: Note that the Simon Commission was appointed in 1927 and arrived in India in 1928, so it cannot be the correct answer for 1919. Step 3: The Salt Act and the related Salt Satyagraha are linked with 1930, not 1919. Step 4: Pitts India Act is an eighteenth century statute and has no connection with Gandhi’s satyagraha movement. Step 5: Therefore, the repressive law that triggered the nationwide satyagraha in 1919 was the Rowlatt Act. Verification / Alternative check: Standard narratives of the Indian national movement mark 1919 as the year of the Rowlatt Satyagraha. Gandhi called for non violent resistance against the Rowlatt Act, and there were widespread protests, particularly in Punjab. These events form the immediate background to the tragic Jallianwala Bagh massacre. No other law among the options fits both the date and the description given in the question, which confirms that the Rowlatt Act is the right answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Simon Commission: A fact finding commission on constitutional reforms that was opposed in 1928 with the slogan that it had no Indian members. It is not the 1919 law against which satyagraha was launched. Salt Act: The Salt Satyagraha in 1930 protested the salt tax and monopoly but happened more than a decade later than the events mentioned in the question. Pitts India Act: Passed in 1784 to regulate the East India Company, long before Gandhi’s time and unrelated to satyagraha. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes confuse different satyagrahas and associate any major Gandhi led protest with the Salt March, because it is the most famous. Others mix up the timeline and link Gandhi’s early activism with later events like the Simon Commission. Keeping a simple chronological mental map of 1919 Rowlatt Satyagraha, 1920 Non Cooperation, 1930 Civil Disobedience, and so on helps avoid these errors. Final Answer: In 1919, Mahatma Gandhi decided to launch a nationwide satyagraha against the proposed Rowlatt Act.

Question 15

According to categories of land mentioned in Chola inscriptions, which type of land was specifically known as land gifted to temples?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Chola inscriptions from South India provide detailed information about land categories and revenue arrangements. Different terms were used for land granted to Brahmins, to temples, or to other beneficiaries. This question asks which specific category described land that was gifted directly to temples, an important feature of the temple centred economy and culture in the Chola period. Given Data / Assumptions: - The context is the Chola dynasty in South India. - The question refers to terms found in inscriptions for different land categories. - The options include Vellanvagai, Brahmadeya, Shalabhoga, and Devadana. - We assume standard meanings as given in South Indian epigraphic studies. Concept / Approach: The word Devadana literally means gift to a deity. In practice, Devadana land was dedicated to temples and used to support rituals, maintenance, and the temple staff. Brahmadeya, by contrast, was land gifted to a Brahmin or group of Brahmins. Vellanvagai generally referred to land of non Brahmin peasant proprietors. Shalabhoga is also connected with land grants but not as specifically the main term for temple land. To answer correctly, we need to match each technical term with its most widely accepted meaning and pick the one that clearly fits land gifted to temples. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Chola inscriptions categorised land according to who owned it and how it was used. Step 2: Identify Devadana as land given to a deity, that is, to the temple as an institution. Step 3: Recognise that Brahmadeya stands for land grants to Brahmins, often tax free villages or plots. Step 4: Vellanvagai is associated more with ordinary cultivable land held by non Brahmin peasants. Step 5: Shalabhoga can indicate land for maintenance of certain services, but the standard and clear temple gift term is Devadana. Step 6: Therefore, the correct answer is Devadana. Verification / Alternative check: Epigraphic glossaries and studies of Chola land revenue repeatedly define Devadana as land entrusted to the temple deity and managed by temple authorities or local bodies on behalf of the deity. Such land provided resources for offerings, festivals, and upkeep. Brahmadeya is consistently explained as Brahmin land grants and is treated separately in inscriptions. This distinction confirms that Devadana is the precise term for temple gifted land in Chola records. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Vellanvagai: Refers to land of ordinary peasant cultivators and is not specifically a temple grant category. Brahmadeya: Denotes land given to Brahmins, often with revenue privileges, not directly to temples as institutions. Shalabhoga: While associated with certain service or maintenance lands, it is not the standard technical label for general temple gifted land in Chola epigraphy. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse Brahmadeya and Devadana because both relate to religious contexts. The key difference is that Brahmadeya concerns grants to Brahmins, whereas Devadana concerns gifts to temples as corporate religious institutions. Keeping these definitions separate in memory helps in answering many South Indian history questions accurately. Final Answer: In Chola inscriptions, land gifted to temples was known as Devadana.

Question 16

Prithviraja III (reigning approximately from 1168 to 1192) is best known as a ruler of which dynasty in early medieval northern India?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Prithviraja III, commonly known as Prithviraj Chauhan, is a prominent figure in the history of early medieval North India. He is remembered for his conflicts with Muhammad Ghori and for being one of the last major Hindu kings to rule over parts of the Delhi and Ajmer region before the expansion of Turkish power. This question asks which dynasty he belonged to. Given Data / Assumptions: - The ruler is Prithviraja III, with dates around 1168 to 1192. - The options list Chahamana, Gahadavala, Chalukya, and Brahmana. - We assume the standard identification of Prithviraj Chauhan with a particular Rajput lineage. Concept / Approach: The dynasty of Prithviraj Chauhan is generally described in Sanskrit and inscriptional sources as the Chahamana dynasty, often referred to in later narratives and popular memory as the Chauhans. The Chahamanas ruled over parts of Rajasthan and the Delhi Ajmer region. The Gahadavalas ruled mainly around Kannauj and Varanasi, while the Chalukyas were a major dynasty in the Deccan and western India. Brahmana is a social category, not a ruling dynasty in this context. Therefore, the correct answer is the Chahamana dynasty. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that Prithviraj Chauhan is identified with the Chahamana or Chauhan dynasty. Step 2: Recognise that this dynasty had its stronghold in Ajmer and extended power towards Delhi. Step 3: Note that the Gahadavala dynasty is associated with rulers such as Govindachandra and Jayachandra, not Prithviraj. Step 4: The Chalukyas are best known from the Deccan region, for example in Badami or later in Gujarat, and are not linked to Prithviraj. Step 5: Brahmana is not the name of a political dynasty and can be rejected as an option. Step 6: Thus, the only historically correct choice is Chahamana. Verification / Alternative check: Historical texts and inscriptions use the name Chahamana for the lineage of Prithviraj. Later literary works such as the Prithviraj Raso also present him as a Chauhan ruler. Standard school and competitive exam books state that he was the last important ruler of the Chahamana dynasty of Ajmer and Delhi. None of the other dynasties listed in the options are associated with his name, which confirms the choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Gahadavala: This dynasty ruled around Kannauj and had rulers like Jayachandra, often portrayed as a rival but not as Prithviraj’s family line. Chalukya: Refers to powerful ruling houses in the Deccan and western India, unrelated to the Chauhans of Ajmer and Delhi in this period. Brahmana: A varna category describing priests and scholars, not the name of an early medieval ruling dynasty associated with Prithviraj. Common Pitfalls: Because many dynasties coexisted in northern India during the twelfth century, some learners confuse Gahadavala and Chahamana. Remembering the simple pairing of Prithviraj Chauhan with the Chahamana or Chauhan dynasty helps avoid this. Another common error is to pick Chalukya because it is a familiar name, even though it does not fit the regional and chronological context of North Indian politics in 1168 to 1192. Final Answer: Prithviraja III is best known as a ruler of the Chahamana dynasty.

Question 17

Ajatashatru, an important king in the history of the Magadha kingdom during the time of the Buddha and Mahavira, was the son of which ruler?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Ajatashatru is a key figure in early Indian history, particularly in the context of the Magadha kingdom during the sixth and fifth centuries BCE. He is remembered both for his expansionist policies and for his complex relationship with his father. This question asks you to identify his father from among several well known ancient rulers. Given Data / Assumptions: - The king in question is Ajatashatru of Magadha. - The time period overlaps with the lives of the Buddha and Mahavira. - The options include Brahmadatta, Bindusara, Bimbisara, and Chetaka. - We assume standard textbook chronology of Magadha rulers. Concept / Approach: Bimbisara is known as a major early ruler of Magadha from the Haryanka dynasty. Ajatashatru, his son, is frequently mentioned in Buddhist and Jain texts, sometimes with stories about conflict with his father. Bindusara, by contrast, is a later Mauryan ruler and the father of Ashoka. Brahmadatta and Chetaka are associated with other regions or stories. Matching the name Ajatashatru with the right Magadhan king is the key to solving the question quickly. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the sequence of early Magadha rulers: Bimbisara followed by Ajatashatru in the Haryanka line. Step 2: Remember that many sources mention Ajatashatru as the son of Bimbisara, who expanded Magadha and interacted with the Buddha. Step 3: Bindusara is recognised as the father of Ashoka, but he belongs to the much later Mauryan dynasty, not to the early Magadha of Ajatashatru. Step 4: Brahmadatta and Chetaka are associated with other polities and do not match the standard description of Ajatashatru’s father. Step 5: Therefore, the correct answer is Bimbisara. Verification / Alternative check: Historical summaries and religious texts consistently pair Bimbisara and Ajatashatru as father and son. Ajatashatru is often depicted as having seized power from his father and later regretting his actions. Chronologically, this fits the sixth fifth century BCE context of the Buddha’s lifetime. In contrast, Bindusara and Ashoka appear in the third century BCE Mauryan context. This chronological distance confirms that Ajatashatru could not be Bindusara’s son and supports Bimbisara as the only accurate option. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Brahmadatta: Generally used as a name for other kings in Buddhist stories and is not fixed as Ajatashatru’s father in the Magadha context. Bindusara: Father of Ashoka in the Mauryan dynasty, separated by centuries from Ajatashatru’s time. Chetaka: Known as a leader in the republican confederacy of the Licchavis and related to Jain traditions, not as a Magadhan monarch and father of Ajatashatru. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to confuse Bindusara and Bimbisara because their names sound similar and both are associated with important dynasties. Another pitfall is not keeping track of the chronological order of the Haryanka and Mauryan dynasties. Remembering the pair Bimbisara Ajatashatru for early Magadha and the pair Bindusara Ashoka for the Mauryas helps prevent this confusion. Final Answer: Ajatashatru was the son of Bimbisara.

Question 18

In traditional Indian knowledge systems, which one of the following is not counted among the subsidiary Vedas or Upa Vedas?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Indian religious and intellectual traditions classify some bodies of knowledge as Upa Vedas or subsidiary Vedas, which are associated with but distinct from the four main Vedas. Understanding the difference between the main Vedas and the Upa Vedas helps in many culture and religion questions. This question asks you to identify which item is not a sub Veda. Given Data / Assumptions: - The question is about Upa Vedas or subsidiary Vedas. - The options are Ayurveda, Yajurveda, Gandharva Veda, and Shilpa Veda. - We assume widely accepted classifications in traditional literature. Concept / Approach: The four main Vedas are Rigveda, Samaveda, Yajurveda, and Atharvaveda. Upa Vedas are additional bodies of knowledge closely associated with these, such as Ayurveda (science of life and healing), Gandharva Veda (music and performing arts), and Shilpa Veda (arts and crafts or architecture). Yajurveda itself is one of the principal Vedas, not a subsidiary text. Therefore, among the options, the one that does not belong to the category of sub Vedas is Yajurveda. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: List the four main Vedas: Rigveda, Samaveda, Yajurveda, and Atharvaveda. Step 2: Recognise that Ayurveda is commonly mentioned as an Upa Veda, mainly associated with the Atharvaveda. Step 3: Gandharva Veda is linked with music and is often seen as associated with the Samaveda as a subsidiary tradition. Step 4: Shilpa Veda is connected with arts, sculpture, or architecture and is also treated as a subsidiary group of knowledge. Step 5: Yajurveda is itself a main Veda containing sacrificial formulae and cannot be an Upa Veda. Step 6: Therefore, Yajurveda is the one that is not counted among the sub Vedas. Verification / Alternative check: Standard introductions to Hindu scriptures and many competitive exam guides list Ayurveda, Dhanurveda, Gandharva Veda, and Shilpa Veda as examples of Upa Vedas. These are consistently distinguished from the four main Vedas. Yajurveda is always listed along with Rigveda, Samaveda, and Atharvaveda as a foundational text, not as a subsidiary one. This confirms that Yajurveda is the correct choice for the question. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Ayurveda: Widely recognised as an Upa Veda focusing on medicine and healthcare, not a main Veda. Gandharva Veda: Considered a subsidiary text dealing with music and performance, often connected with Samaveda. Shilpa Veda: Treated as a body of knowledge associated with crafts, architecture, and fine arts, and included among Upa Vedas in many traditional lists. Common Pitfalls: Because the names all end with Veda, students sometimes assume they are all of the same type. Not distinguishing between main Vedas and Upa Vedas leads to confusion. A simple memory aid is to remember that only four are main Vedas, and these include Yajurveda. Anything described as an Upa Veda must therefore be a different specialised discipline that is connected to, but not identical with, the main Vedas. Final Answer: The item that is not counted among the sub Vedas is Yajurveda.

Question 19

Who built the Moti Masjid (Pearl Mosque) located inside the Red Fort complex in Delhi during the Mughal period?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Moti Masjid, or Pearl Mosque, inside the Red Fort at Delhi, is a famous example of Mughal architecture. Many exam questions ask you to match monuments with the Mughal emperors who commissioned them. While Shah Jahan is well known for the Taj Mahal and for the main Red Fort complex, this particular small but elegant mosque was actually built by a different emperor. Given Data / Assumptions: - The structure in question is the Moti Masjid inside the Red Fort at Delhi. - The options are Akbar, Jahangir, Shah Jahan, and Aurangzeb. - We assume standard chronology of Mughal building activities. Concept / Approach: While Shah Jahan built the Red Fort at Delhi and many other marble monuments, his son Aurangzeb later added the Moti Masjid inside the fort. The mosque is known for its white marble and compact design, giving it the name Pearl Mosque. Students often mistakenly attribute all marble structures of the later Mughal period to Shah Jahan, so it is important to remember that Aurangzeb also commissioned important buildings, including this mosque. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the Red Fort complex itself was built mainly by Shah Jahan in the seventeenth century. Step 2: Recognise that the Moti Masjid inside the fort was constructed later under Aurangzeb. Step 3: Akbar and Jahangir belonged to earlier phases of the Mughal Empire and did not build this particular mosque in the Delhi Red Fort. Step 4: Shah Jahan is famous for the Taj Mahal and several other mosques and palaces, but the Moti Masjid of the Red Fort is usually attributed specifically to Aurangzeb. Step 5: Therefore, the correct answer is Aurangzeb. Verification / Alternative check: Architectural histories of the Red Fort describe how Aurangzeb added the Moti Masjid within the complex as a private place of worship. The mosque is smaller than Shah Jahan’s grand Friday mosque, Jama Masjid, which stands outside the fort. This separation of authorship between the builder of the fort and the builder of the later mosque is emphasised in most reliable sources, confirming Aurangzeb as the correct emperor for exam purposes. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Akbar: He built important structures at Fatehpur Sikri and elsewhere, but the Moti Masjid in the Delhi Red Fort is not his work. Jahangir: Known more for his interest in gardens and painting, his reign does not include construction of this mosque inside the Red Fort. Shah Jahan: Builder of the Red Fort itself and of the Taj Mahal and Jama Masjid, but not of the Moti Masjid inside the fort, which is an Aurangzeb addition. Common Pitfalls: Because Shah Jahan is associated with many marble monuments, candidates often assume that any white marble mosque of the Mughal period must be his creation. Another pitfall is to ignore the fact that later emperors also contributed to the architectural landscape. A simple memory trick is that the Red Fort is Shah Jahan’s, while the small Pearl Mosque inside it belongs to Aurangzeb. Final Answer: The Moti Masjid inside the Red Fort at Delhi was built by Aurangzeb.

Question 20

Which Mughal emperor imprisoned his own father, the emperor Shah Jahan, for the rest of Shah Jahan’s life?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The later Mughal period was marked by succession struggles within the imperial family. One of the most famous episodes is the imprisonment of Shah Jahan, the builder of the Taj Mahal and the Red Fort. This question asks which Mughal emperor confined Shah Jahan for the rest of his life, a fact often tested in questions on Mughal history. Given Data / Assumptions: - Shah Jahan was a Mughal emperor known for major architectural projects. - After a war of succession, one of his sons took the throne and imprisoned him. - The options given are Akbar, Shah Jahan, Jahangir, and Aurangzeb. Concept / Approach: Aurangzeb, one of Shah Jahan’s sons, emerged victorious in the war of succession against his brothers Dara Shukoh, Murad, and Shuja. After seizing power, Aurangzeb confined his father Shah Jahan, who spent his final years as a prisoner in Agra, traditionally described as being in a tower with a view of the Taj Mahal. The other three emperors listed either ruled earlier (Akbar, Jahangir) or are Shah Jahan himself, so they cannot be the person who imprisoned him. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the time frame: Shah Jahan’s reign was in the first half of the seventeenth century. Step 2: Recall that a succession conflict followed his illness, and Aurangzeb eventually claimed the throne. Step 3: Aurangzeb then confined Shah Jahan in Agra Fort, where he remained until his death. Step 4: Akbar and Jahangir were earlier emperors, so they could not have imprisoned Shah Jahan, who came later. Step 5: Shah Jahan obviously could not imprison himself, so option b is ruled out. Step 6: Therefore, the only correct choice is Aurangzeb. Verification / Alternative check: Standard Mughal histories and biographies of Shah Jahan state that after Aurangzeb triumphed over his brothers, he had Shah Jahan placed under house arrest in Agra Fort. The story of the deposed emperor spending his last years looking at the Taj Mahal from a distance has become part of popular historical memory. No credible account attributes this act of imprisonment to any other emperor, confirming that Aurangzeb is the right answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Akbar: Grandfather of Shah Jahan and a much earlier ruler; he had no role in Shah Jahan’s later life or imprisonment. Shah Jahan: The victim of the imprisonment, not the person responsible for it. Jahangir: Father of Shah Jahan, who ruled before him; the chronology does not allow him to imprison Shah Jahan at the end of Shah Jahan’s reign. Common Pitfalls: Some learners confuse earlier and later Mughal emperors, especially because family relations are complex. Mixing up who imprisoned whom is a frequent error. A helpful memory link is that Aurangzeb is often associated with rigid policies and harsh political decisions, including the decision to confine his own father Shah Jahan. Final Answer: Shah Jahan was imprisoned for the rest of his life by his son Aurangzeb.

Indian History Questions