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 the support of the peasantry in a large number of agrarian uprisings in North India in the seventeenth century.

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.