Cause–Effect Analysis: I) Activists gathered at Gandhi Chowk despite prohibitory orders to protest alleged police high-handedness. II) Police used force to disperse activists protesting construction of a huge river dam.

Introduction / Context:The problem contrasts two protest episodes with differing stated triggers: alleged police excess (I) and a mega-dam project (II). We must judge whether one directly causes the other or whether both events are separate effects arising from distinct antecedents.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I) Location-specific gathering at Gandhi Chowk against “police high-handedness,” despite prohibitory orders.
• II) Police used force to disperse a dam-related protest (issue-specific to the river project).
• No evidence that the same crowd, location, or timeline links the two episodes.

Concept / Approach:A direct cause–effect requires a concrete bridge: same actors, same context, immediate temporal sequencing, and a plausible mechanism. Different proximate issues (policing standards vs. dam construction) normally indicate different causal roots.

Step-by-Step Solution:1) I likely results from civic concern over policing and restrictions on assembly.2) II likely results from the contentious dam project and crowd-control choices.3) Because the triggers differ and no connective detail is provided, neither I → II nor II → I is established.

Verification / Alternative check:Even if both involve protests and police response, the stems tie them to different issues. Similarity of form (protests) is not causality.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:Options (a) and (b) impose a direction without evidence. Option (c) treats them as causes, whereas both are outcomes/events. Option (e) is unnecessary given (d).

Common Pitfalls:Assuming all protests are one chain of events; inferring causality from shared themes rather than specific linkage.

Final Answer:Both statements are effects of independent causes.