Examine the following two statements about Pahi-kashta peasants in Mughal India and select the correct option: Statement I: Pahi-kashta peasants were non-resident cultivators who tilled lands on a contractual basis. Statement II: Pahi-kashta peasants often worked under the temptation of favourable revenue terms or the compulsion of economic distress.

Introduction / Context:
In Mughal and early modern Indian agrarian history, different categories of peasants and cultivators existed, distinguished by their residence, obligations, and the terms under which they held land. Pahi-kashta peasants are one such category discussed in historical sources. Exam questions often provide two statements about these groups and ask the candidate to judge their truth value and relationship. This question focuses on Pahi-kashta peasants as non-resident cultivators working on contractual terms and explores the reasons behind their migration and labour decisions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement I: Pahi-kashta peasants were non-resident cultivators who cultivated lands on a contractual basis.
• Statement II: Pahi-kashta peasants worked under the temptation of favourable revenue terms or the compulsion of economic distress.
• The context is the agrarian structure in pre colonial or Mughal India.
• We assume standard historical interpretations of the terms "Pahi-kashta" and "Khud-kashta."

Concept / Approach:
In many historical accounts, a distinction is made between khud-kashta peasants (resident peasants who cultivated their own or locally held land) and pahi-kashta peasants (non-resident or migrant peasants). Pahi-kashtas often moved from one village or region to another, taking land on a contractual basis when they found better revenue terms, such as lower assessment or more secure tenure. They could also be pushed into migration by economic distress in their home areas, such as crop failure or high revenue demand. Thus, Statement I correctly describes their non-resident, contractual status, and Statement II correctly explains the economic and incentive based reasons for their movement and work conditions. Therefore both statements are true, and Statement II provides a valid explanation of Statement I.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Historical writings on Mughal agrarian relations, such as village records and revenue documents, repeatedly mention khud-kashta and pahi-kashta categories. Khud-kashtas are described as settled villagers, while pahi-kashtas are identified as outsiders who move in based on specific revenue arrangements. Analyses of peasant mobility emphasise that such movements were linked to economic incentives and pressures. This correlation supports the idea that the non-resident contractual status (Statement I) arose due to the economic motivations and compulsions (Statement II), verifying the explanatory link between the two statements.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Both the Statements are individually true but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I: Incorrect because Statement II directly provides the economic reasons that lead to the situation described in Statement I.
• Statement I is true but Statement II is false: Incorrect because Statement II is consistent with the historical understanding of why peasants became pahi-kashta.
• Statement I is false but Statement II is true: Incorrect because Statement I accurately defines Pahi-kashta peasants as non-resident contractual cultivators; there is no evidence that it is false.

Common Pitfalls:
Some candidates may erroneously think that Pahi-kashta refers to a different category, such as resident peasants, and mark Statement I as false. Others may accept both statements as true but fail to see the cause and effect relationship, choosing the option that denies the explanatory link. To avoid these mistakes, it is helpful to remember the khud-kashta versus pahi-kashta distinction and the fact that economic incentives and distress often drive peasant migration and contractual cultivation practices.

Final Answer:
Both the Statements are individually true and Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I in the case of Pahi-kashta peasants.