Q.Two statements are given below as Assertion (A) and Reason (R). Read them carefully and choose correct option. Assertion (A) : Harappa was a well-planned city. Reason (R) : It had a well-planned drainage system. Options : (A) Both (A) and (R) are correct and (R) is the correct reasoning of (A). (B) Both (A) and (R) are correct but (R) is not the correct reasoning of (A). (C) (A) is correct but (R) is not correct. (D) (A) is not correct but (R) is correct.

Showing the 12 most recent of 18 on this concept.

1. CBSE 2026Set 61/1/11 markMCQ
   Q.Two statements as Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are given below. Read them carefully and choose the correct option : Assertion (A) : Baba Guru Nanak Devji advocated Nirguna Bhakti. Reason (R) : For Baba Guru Nanak, the absolute or 'rab' had no gender or form. Options : (A) Assertion (A) is correct and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of Assertion (A). (B) Assertion (A) is correct, but Reason (R) is not the correct explanation of Assertion (A). (C) Assertion (A) is correct, but Reason (R) is incorrect. (D) Assertion (A) is incorrect, but Reason (R) is correct.

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   The question tests your understanding of Guru Nanak’s theology. Assertion (A) is correct — he advocated Nirguna Bhakti. Reason (R) is also correct — he believed the Absolute (Rab) is formless and genderless. And (R) directly explains why his bhakti is called Nirguna (without attributes). So both are true, and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).

   Let’s unpack this step by step.

   1. What does “Nirguna Bhakti” mean?

      In Indian devotional traditions, Nirguna (literally “without qualities”) refers to devotion to a formless, attribute-less, transcendent God. This is contrasted with Saguna Bhakti, where God is worshipped with form and attributes (e.g., as Krishna, Rama, or Shiva).

      Guru Nanak’s teachings are squarely in the Nirguna stream. He rejected idol worship, ritualism, and any attempt to confine God to a particular shape or name. For him, the Divine was nirankar (formless) and alakh (invisible).

   2. Why is Assertion (A) correct?

      Guru Nanak’s compositions in the Guru Granth Sahib repeatedly emphasize that God is beyond human categories. He uses terms like Ek Onkar (One Supreme Reality) and describes the Divine as sun samadhi (eternal, absorbed in itself). His path of nam simran (meditation on the Name) is a form of Nirguna Bhakti — loving remembrance of a God who has no image, no gender, no birth, no death.

      So yes, Assertion (A) is historically and theologically accurate.

   3. Why is Reason (R) correct?

      The Reason states that for Guru Nanak, the absolute or rab had no gender or form. This is directly from his writings. In the Japji Sahib, he says:

      Sochai soch na hovai, je sochi lakh vaar — “By thinking, He cannot be reduced to thought, even if you think millions of times.”

      And in the Guru Granth Sahib, God is called nirbhau (fearless), nirvair (without enmity), ajuni (unborn), and sabhna ghat (present in all hearts). No gender, no form, no location. So (R) is factually correct.

   4. Does (R) explain (A)? …

   🔒 Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
2. CBSE 2026Set 61/2/11 markMCQ
   Q.Given below are two statements as Assertion (A) and Reason (R). Read them carefully and answer the question by choosing correct options : Assertion (A) : Like Buddhism, Jainism also spread to many parts of India. Reason (R) : Jaina scholars produced literature in various languages like Tamil, Prakrit and Sanskrit etc. Options : (A) Both (A) and (R) are correct and (R) is the correct explanation of (A). (B) Both (A) and (R) are correct, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A). (C) (A) is correct but, (R) is not correct. (D) (A) is not correct but, (R) is correct.

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   Both the assertion (Jainism spread widely across India) and the reason (Jaina scholars produced multilingual literature) are historically accurate, and the production of vernacular literature directly facilitated Jainism's geographical and social spread. The answer is (A).

   The question asks us to evaluate two historical claims about Jainism and determine whether they are factually correct and logically connected. This requires understanding both the historical geography of Jainism and the role of language in religious diffusion.

   Understanding the Assertion

   Jainism, founded by Mahavira in the 6th century BCE, did indeed spread extensively across the Indian subcontinent. While it originated in the Gangetic plains (modern Bihar), it found strong footholds in:

   • Western India: Gujarat, Rajasthan, and parts of Maharashtra became major Jaina centers
   • Southern India: Karnataka in particular developed a vibrant Jaina tradition; Tamil Nadu also had significant Jaina presence
   • Central India: Madhya Pradesh and parts of Odisha

   The archaeological and literary evidence—cave temples at Ellora, the monolithic statue at Shravanabelagola, inscriptions across multiple regions—confirms this wide geographical distribution. So Assertion (A) is correct.

   Understanding the Reason

   Jaina scholars were remarkably prolific and linguistically versatile. Unlike some religious traditions that insisted on a single sacred language, Jainism adapted to local linguistic contexts:

   • Prakrit: The Jaina canonical texts (Agamas) were composed in Ardhamagadhi Prakrit; later commentaries used Maharashtri and Shauraseni Prakrit
   • Sanskrit: From around the 1st century CE onward, Jaina philosophers like Umasvati wrote sophisticated treatises in Sanskrit
   • Tamil: The Jaina contribution to early Tamil literature is substantial—works like Silappadikaram and parts of the Sangam corpus show Jaina influence
   • Kannada: Medieval Karnataka saw Jaina poets produce classics in Kannada

   This multilingual literary output is well-documented. So Reason (R) is correct.

   The Causal Connection

   Now the critical question: did producing literature in multiple languages cause or facilitate Jainism's spread?

   The answer is yes, and the mechanism is straightforward. Religious ideas spread when they become accessible to local populations. By composing texts in regional languages rather than restricting themselves to Sanskrit or Prakrit alone, Jaina scholars: …

   🔒 Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
3. CBSE 2026Set 61/3/11 markMCQ
   Q.Two statements labelled as Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are given below. Read them carefully and choose the correct option : Assertion (A) : Most Asokan inscriptions were in the Prakrit language. Reason (R) : The use of Prakrit shows his attempt to spread the message amongst the common people. Options : (A) Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of the Assertion (A). (B) Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true, but Reason (R) is not the correct explanation of the Assertion (A). (C) Assertion (A) is true, but Reason (R) is false. (D) Assertion (A) is false, but Reason (R) is true.

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   Ashoka primarily used Prakrit in his inscriptions because it was the language of the common people, making his message of Dhamma accessible to a wider audience. Both statements are true, and the Reason correctly explains the Assertion.

   Ashoka's reign (c. 268 to 232 BCE) is a pivotal period in Indian history, marked by his unique approach to governance and the propagation of Dhamma (a moral code). Unlike many rulers who focused solely on military conquest, Ashoka, especially after the Kalinga War, dedicated himself to spreading ethical principles. His inscriptions, carved on rocks and pillars across his vast empire, were the primary medium for this communication. Understanding the language choice for these inscriptions is key to grasping his strategy.

   1. Analyzing Assertion (A): Most Asokan inscriptions were in the Prakrit language.

      • Ashoka's inscriptions are indeed found in various languages and scripts, reflecting the linguistic diversity of his empire. However, the overwhelming majority of these edicts, particularly those found in the central and eastern parts of his empire, were composed in different dialects of Prakrit.
      • Prakrit was a group of Middle Indo-Aryan vernacular languages spoken by the common people in ancient India. While some inscriptions in the northwest frontier regions were in Greek and Aramaic (to cater to those populations), the core message across the heartland was consistently in Prakrit.
      • Therefore, Assertion (A) is true.

   2. Analyzing Reason (R): The use of Prakrit shows his attempt to spread the message amongst the common people.

      • Ashoka's objective with his Dhamma edicts was not to create exclusive religious texts, but to disseminate a universal moral code that could be understood and followed by everyone, regardless of their social standing or specific religious beliefs.
      • To achieve this widespread understanding, it was crucial to use a language that was familiar to the masses. Sanskrit, while a classical language, was more associated with the learned elite and religious rituals. Prakrit, on the other hand, was the everyday spoken language of the common populace. …

   🔒 Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
4. CBSE 2026Set 61/3/11 markMCQ
   Q.Two statements labelled as Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are given below. Read them carefully and choose the correct option : Assertion (A) : The Sepoys proclaimed Bahadur Shah Zafar as their leader in the Revolt of 1857. Reason (R) : Bahadur Shah Zafar's acceptance gave legitimacy to the Revolt of 1857. Options : (A) Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of the Assertion (A). (B) Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true, but Reason (R) is not the correct explanation of the Assertion (A). (C) Assertion (A) is true, but Reason (R) is false. (D) Assertion (A) is false, but Reason (R) is true.

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   The sepoys did proclaim Bahadur Shah Zafar as their leader, and his acceptance did give the revolt legitimacy — but the reason explains why they chose him, not just that they did. Both statements are true, and the reason correctly explains the assertion.

   The heart of this question is about cause and effect in history. The Assertion states a fact: the sepoys proclaimed Bahadur Shah Zafar as their leader. The Reason gives a motive: his acceptance gave the revolt legitimacy. The trick is to see if the reason is the correct explanation for the assertion — that is, did the sepoys choose him because his acceptance would give legitimacy? Yes, that is exactly why.

   Let’s break it down step by step.

   1. The Assertion is true.

      When the revolt erupted in Meerut on 10 May 1857, the sepoys marched to Delhi and declared the ageing Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar, as their leader. This is a well-documented historical fact. The sepoys needed a figurehead who could unite diverse groups — soldiers, peasants, landlords, and religious leaders — under a single banner.

   2. The Reason is also true.

      Bahadur Shah Zafar was the symbolic head of the Mughal Empire, which had ruled India for centuries. By accepting the leadership, he lent the revolt an aura of legitimacy. It transformed the uprising from a mere mutiny of sepoys into a broader struggle to restore the old order. The British themselves recognised this — they saw the proclamation as a direct challenge to their authority.

   3. Now, does the Reason explain the Assertion?

      Yes, it does. The sepoys did not choose Zafar randomly. They chose him precisely because his name carried weight. His acceptance would rally support from those who still revered the Mughal name — Hindus and Muslims alike. The reason (legitimacy) is the very logic behind the assertion (the proclamation). Without that logic, the act of proclaiming him would have been meaningless. …

   🔒 Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
5. CBSE 2026Set 64/2/11 markMCQ
   Q.Two statements are given below. They are Assertion (A) and Reason (R). Read both statements carefully and choose the correct option : Assertion (A) : There is a strong dichotomy between physical elements and human beings. Reason (R) : Nature and human are intricately interwined. Options : (A) Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A). (B) Both (A) and (R) are true but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A). (C) (A) is incorrect but (R) is correct. (D) (A) is correct but (R) is incorrect.

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   A dichotomy means separation; if nature and humans are intricately intertwined, they cannot be strongly separated. The assertion contradicts the reason. The correct option is (C).

   The question tests your understanding of the relationship between humans and the natural world, a foundational idea in environmental studies and geography.

   A dichotomy means a division into two parts that are sharply distinct or opposed—essentially, a separation. Assertion (A) claims there is a strong dichotomy between physical elements (nature, the environment) and human beings, suggesting they exist as separate, independent entities.

   Reason (R) states that nature and humans are intricately intertwined—meaning they are deeply connected, interdependent, and cannot be meaningfully separated.

   These two statements are logically incompatible. If humans and nature are intertwined, there cannot simultaneously be a strong separation between them. One must be true and the other false.

   Now let's evaluate which reflects reality:

   1. Humans depend on nature for survival. Every breath of oxygen, every drop of water, every grain of food comes from natural systems. We are embedded in ecosystems, not outside them.

   2. Human actions reshape nature. Deforestation, urbanization, agriculture, pollution—all demonstrate that human activity profoundly affects the physical environment. The Anthropocene concept itself recognizes humans as a geological force.

   3. Cultural and philosophical traditions worldwide recognize this interconnection. Indigenous knowledge systems, ecological science, and even modern sustainability frameworks all emphasize that humans are part of nature, not separate from it. …

   🔒 Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
6. CBSE 2025Set 61/2/11 markMCQ
   Q.Two statements are given below as Assertion (A) and Reason (R). Read them carefully and choose correct option. Assertion (A) : Harappa was a well-planned city. Reason (R) : It had a well-planned drainage system. Options : (A) Both (A) and (R) are correct and (R) is the correct reasoning of (A). (B) Both (A) and (R) are correct but (R) is not the correct reasoning of (A). (C) (A) is correct but (R) is not correct. (D) (A) is not correct but (R) is correct.

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   Harappa was indeed a well-planned city, and its drainage system was one feature of that planning, but drainage alone doesn't explain the full scope of urban planning. Both statements are correct, but the reason is incomplete.

   The Harappan civilization (c. 2600–1900 BCE) represents one of the earliest examples of sophisticated urban planning in human history. When we say a city is "well-planned," we mean it shows evidence of deliberate design, standardization, and forethought in its layout—not haphazard growth.

   Harappa and other Indus Valley cities demonstrate this through multiple features: a grid pattern of streets intersecting at right angles, standardized burnt bricks (in a ratio of 4:2:1), a clear division between the citadel (raised platform with public buildings) and the lower town (residential areas), uniform house construction, and yes, an elaborate drainage system. The planning extended to weights and measures, which were standardized across the civilization.

   Now let's examine both statements:

   1. Assertion (A): "Harappa was a well-planned city"

      This is unquestionably correct. Archaeological evidence from multiple Harappan sites confirms systematic urban planning. The regularity of street layouts, the standardization of construction materials, and the functional zoning all point to centralized planning authority.

   2. Reason (R): "It had a well-planned drainage system"

      This is also correct. The drainage system was remarkably advanced: covered drains ran along the streets, house drains connected to street drains through ceramic pipes, manholes allowed maintenance access, and soak pits filtered wastewater. This level of sanitation engineering was unmatched in the ancient world.

   3. Does (R) correctly explain (A)? …

   🔒 Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
7. CBSE 2025Set 61/2/11 markMCQ
   Q.Why did Gandhi call for a nationwide campaign against the 'Rowlatt Act' ? Choose the appropriate option from the following : (A) The British Government closed all the schools and colleges. (B) The first World War came to an end. (C) British Govt. permitted detention without trial. (D) People expected independence from the British.

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   Gandhi launched the nationwide satyagraha against the Rowlatt Act because it gave the British government sweeping powers to detain Indians without trial, crushing civil liberties at the very moment Indians expected political rewards for their wartime loyalty. The answer is (C).

   Why the Rowlatt Act sparked mass resistance

   The end of the First World War in 1918 created a peculiar moment in Indian history. Millions of Indians had fought for the British Empire, and the rhetoric of "self-determination" that emerged from the war raised hopes that India would be rewarded with meaningful self-governance. Instead, the British response was the Rowlatt Act of 1919.

   This law was a betrayal on two fronts. First, it extended the repressive wartime measures into peacetime—allowing the colonial state to imprison any Indian suspected of sedition without trial, without a jury, and without the right to know the evidence. Second, it came at precisely the moment when Indians expected political concessions, not tighter chains.

   Gandhi saw this clearly: a law that stripped away basic legal protections was not just unjust policy but an assault on human dignity itself. It revealed that the British had no intention of treating Indians as equals deserving of the rule of law.

   Evaluating each option

   Let's examine why each choice does or doesn't explain Gandhi's call for resistance:

   1. Option (A): Schools and colleges were closed

      This did not happen as a cause of the Rowlatt Act agitation—rather, closures and strikes occurred during the protests as part of the hartal (general strike) Gandhi organized. The sequence is reversed here.

   2. Option (B): The First World War ended

      The war's end in November 1918 set the context—it raised expectations—but it wasn't itself a reason to oppose the Rowlatt Act. If anything, the war's conclusion made the Act's repression more shocking, but the Act's content was the trigger.

   3. Option (C): Detention without trial was permitted

      This is the heart of the matter. The Rowlatt Act (formally the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act) gave the government power to arrest and detain any person without warrant, hold them without trial, and conduct trials without juries. It suspended habeas corpus—the ancient legal principle that you cannot be imprisoned without being charged and given a fair hearing. For Gandhi, who believed in the moral authority of law, this was intolerable tyranny.

   4. Option (D): People expected independence …

   🔒 Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
8. CBSE 2025Set 61/4/11 markMCQ
   Q.Two statements labelled as Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are given below. Read them carefully and select the correct option : Assertion (A) : The Tripitaka written in Pali is one of the primary collections of Buddhist scriptures. Reason (R) : The Tripitaka consists of three collections, which include the Vinaya Pitaka, the Sutta Pitaka and the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Options : (A) Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of the Assertion (A). (B) Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true, but Reason (R) is not the correct explanation of the Assertion (A). (C) Assertion (A) is true, but Reason (R) is false. (D) Assertion (A) is false, but Reason (R) is true.

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   Both the Assertion (A) and the Reason (R) are true statements. The Reason (R) correctly explains why the Tripitaka is considered a primary collection of Buddhist scriptures by detailing its comprehensive three-part structure. The correct option is (A).

   Assertion-Reason questions require a two-step evaluation. First, we must determine if each statement (Assertion and Reason) is independently true or false. Second, if both are true, we then assess whether the Reason provides a correct explanation for the Assertion.

   Let's break down the statements:

   1. Evaluate Assertion (A): "The Tripitaka written in Pali is one of the primary collections of Buddhist scriptures."

      • The Tripitaka, meaning "Three Baskets," is indeed the traditional term for the primary and foundational collection of Buddhist scriptures. It forms the canon of Theravada Buddhism, which is the oldest surviving branch of Buddhism.
      • These scriptures are preserved in the Pali language, which is an ancient Middle Indo-Aryan language native to the Indian subcontinent. The collection is often referred to as the Pali Canon.
      • Given these facts, Assertion (A) is True.

   2. Evaluate Reason (R): "The Tripitaka consists of three collections, which include the Vinaya Pitaka, the Sutta Pitaka and the Abhidhamma Pitaka."

      • The name "Tripitaka" itself signifies "Three Baskets" ('tri' for three, 'pitaka' for basket). These three baskets are distinct collections of texts, each serving a specific purpose within the Buddhist tradition.
      • The three collections are:
        • Vinaya Pitaka: Contains rules and regulations for the monastic community (sangha), governing the conduct of monks and nuns.
        • Sutta Pitaka: Comprises the discourses and teachings attributed to Gautama Buddha and sometimes his close disciples. This is the largest collection and includes many well-known suttas (sutras).
        • Abhidhamma Pitaka: Deals with the systematic philosophical and psychological analysis of Buddhist doctrine, often presented in a scholastic and analytical manner.
      • Given this structure, Reason (R) is also True.

   3. Determine if Reason (R) is the correct explanation for Assertion (A).

      • Assertion (A) states that the Tripitaka is a "primary collection of Buddhist scriptures." The term "primary" implies foundational, comprehensive, and authoritative.
      • Reason (R) explains that the Tripitaka consists of three distinct collections: Vinaya, Sutta, and Abhidhamma Pitaka. …

   🔒 Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
9. CBSE 2025Set 61/4/11 markMCQ
   Q.Two statements labelled as Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are given below. Read them carefully and select the correct option : Assertion (A) : India was considered a suitable country for cotton cultivation due to its soil, climate and cheap labour, by the Britishers. Reason (R) : The American Civil War (1861 - 65) caused a significant drop in raw cotton imports from America, leading Britain to seek alternative sources. Options : (A) Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of the Assertion (A). (B) Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true, but Reason (R) is not the correct explanation of the Assertion (A). (C) Assertion (A) is true, but Reason (R) is false. (D) Assertion (A) is false, but Reason (R) is true.

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   Both statements are historically accurate: India's natural advantages made it ideal for cotton, and the American Civil War disrupted British cotton supplies. However, the Civil War created urgency rather than explaining why India was inherently suitable — the answer is (B).

   The question tests whether you understand the relationship between two historical facts about British colonial cotton policy. The Assertion describes India's suitability for cotton cultivation, while the Reason points to a specific crisis that affected British cotton imports. The key is to determine whether one explains the other or whether they are simply two true but independent facts.

   Understanding the Assertion

   India possessed three critical advantages for cotton cultivation from the British perspective:

   Soil and climate: Large parts of India, particularly the Deccan plateau (Maharashtra, Gujarat) and parts of Punjab, had black cotton soil (regur) and a tropical climate with distinct wet and dry seasons — ideal for cotton growth.

   Cheap labour: The colonial economy ensured that Indian farmers and workers received minimal wages, making production costs extremely low compared to other regions.

   These factors made India a naturally attractive location for cotton cultivation long before any American crisis emerged.

   Understanding the Reason

   The American Civil War (1861–65) had a dramatic impact on global cotton markets:

   The war disrupted cotton exports from the southern United States, which had been Britain's primary source of raw cotton for its textile mills in Lancashire and Manchester. This created what historians call the "Cotton Famine" in Britain — mills ran short of raw material, workers faced unemployment, and prices soared.

   Britain desperately needed alternative sources, and India became the obvious choice to fill the gap. Cotton cultivation in India expanded rapidly during this period.

   The Relationship Between Them

   Now we arrive at the crucial distinction. Both statements are factually correct, but does the Reason explain the Assertion?

   1. The Assertion is true: India was indeed suitable for cotton cultivation due to natural and economic factors. …

   🔒 Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
10. CBSE 2024Set 61/1/11 markMCQ
    Q.Two statements as Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are given below. Read them carefully and select the correct option: Assertion (A): To broaden the Non-Cooperation Movement, Gandhiji had joined hands with the Khilafat Movement. Reason (R): Gandhiji hoped that coupling Non-Cooperation and Khilafat could collectively bring an end to the Colonial rule. Options: (A) Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of the Assertion (A). (B) Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true, but Reason (R) is not the correct explanation of the Assertion (A). (C) Assertion (A) is correct, but Reason (R) is incorrect. (D) Assertion (A) is incorrect, but Reason (R) is correct.

    ›Reveal solutionSolution

    Gandhi allied the Non-Cooperation Movement with Khilafat to unite Hindus and Muslims against British rule, hoping their combined strength would end colonialism. Both statements are true, and the Reason correctly explains the Assertion.

    The Non-Cooperation Movement (1920–22) marked a turning point in India's freedom struggle because it was the first mass movement that drew millions of ordinary Indians into active resistance. But Gandhi understood a crucial strategic reality: no movement could succeed if it remained confined to one community or class. The British had long exploited religious divisions to maintain control, and Gandhi saw an opportunity to turn the tables.

    The Khilafat Movement arose from Muslim anger over the British treatment of the Ottoman Caliph after World War I. Indian Muslims viewed the Caliph as their spiritual leader, and his humiliation felt personal. Gandhi recognized that this grievance could become a bridge. By supporting the Khilafat cause, he could bring the Muslim community—particularly its leadership—into a unified anti-colonial front.

    Let's examine each statement:

    1. The Assertion claims Gandhi joined hands with Khilafat to broaden Non-Cooperation. This is historically accurate. In September 1920, at a special session in Calcutta, the Congress formally adopted the Non-Cooperation programme and explicitly linked it with the Khilafat issue. Gandhi had been working with Khilafat leaders like the Ali Brothers (Muhammad Ali and Shaukat Ali) since 1919. The alliance was deliberate: Gandhi wanted to expand the movement's base beyond the educated middle class and Hindu majority. By embracing a Muslim cause, he demonstrated that the freedom struggle belonged to all Indians.

    2. The Reason states Gandhi hoped this coupling would collectively end colonial rule. This too is correct. Gandhi's strategy rested on the belief that mass participation across religious lines would create irresistible pressure on the British. He wrote and spoke extensively about Hindu-Muslim unity being essential for swaraj. The combined strength of two powerful movements—one driven by nationalist aspirations, the other by religious sentiment—was meant to paralyze British administration through widespread non-cooperation in schools, courts, legislatures, and economic life. …

    🔒 Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
11. CBSE 2024Set 61/3/11 markMCQ
    Q.Two statements as Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are given below. Read them carefully and choose the correct option : Assertion (A) : Ibn Battuta found Indian agriculture very productive. Reason (R) : The soils were fertile which allowed the farmers to produce two crops a year. Options : (A) Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are correct and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of the Assertion (A). (B) Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are correct, but Reason (R) is not the correct explanation of the Assertion (A). (C) Assertion (A) is correct, but Reason (R) is incorrect. (D) Assertion (A) is incorrect, but Reason (R) is correct.

    ›Reveal solutionSolution

    Ibn Battuta observed India's highly productive agriculture, which was indeed due to fertile soils enabling multiple crop cycles annually. Both statements are correct, and the Reason explains the Assertion.

    Ibn Battuta, the renowned Moroccan traveler of the 14th century, meticulously documented his observations of India in his travelogue, the Rihla. His accounts provide invaluable insights into the economic, social, and cultural conditions of the subcontinent during the Delhi Sultanate period. When evaluating the given Assertion and Reason, we need to consider the historical context of Indian agriculture as described by him and other contemporary sources.

    1. Analyzing Assertion (A): Ibn Battuta found Indian agriculture very productive.

       Ibn Battuta's writings consistently highlight the remarkable fertility of Indian land and the abundance of its produce. He was particularly impressed by the variety of crops grown and the efficiency of agricultural practices. For instance, he noted the cultivation of wheat, rice, pulses, oilseeds, and various fruits and vegetables, often in quantities that astonished him compared to his homeland. This observation is well-supported by historical evidence, which indicates that medieval India, especially the Gangetic plains, was an agriculturally rich region. Thus, Assertion (A) is correct.

    2. Analyzing Reason (R): The soils were fertile which allowed the farmers to produce two crops a year.

       The fertility of Indian soils, particularly the alluvial soils of the Indo-Gangetic plain, is a well-established geographical and historical fact. These soils, replenished by river systems, were highly conducive to agriculture. Furthermore, the monsoon climate, combined with traditional irrigation methods, enabled farmers in many regions to cultivate two or even three crops in a year (e.g., Kharif and Rabi crops). This practice of multiple cropping significantly boosted agricultural output and contributed to the overall productivity that Ibn Battuta observed. Therefore, Reason (R) is also correct.

    3. Evaluating the relationship between Assertion (A) and Reason (R). …

    🔒 Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
12. CBSE 2023Set 61/1/11 markMCQ
    Q.Two statements as Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are given below. Read them carefully and answer the questions that follow : Assertion (A) : Francois Bernier has called the Mughal king as the 'king of barbarians'. Reason (R) : Crown ownership of land was its reason. (A) Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are correct and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of the Assertion (A). (B) Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are correct, but Reason (R) is not the correct explanation of the Assertion (A). (C) Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are not correct. (D) Assertion (A) is correct, but Reason (R) is incorrect.

    ›Reveal solutionSolution

    François Bernier used the term "king of beggars" (not "barbarians") to describe the Mughal emperor because he believed crown ownership of land impoverished the nobility and populace; both the assertion and reason are factually incorrect as stated.

    This question tests your understanding of François Bernier's observations about Mughal India and his interpretation of the land revenue system. Bernier was a French physician and traveler who spent nearly a decade (1658–1668) in India during Aurangzeb's reign, and his accounts became influential in shaping European perceptions of the Mughal Empire.

    The core issue here is twofold: what exactly did Bernier say, and what was his reasoning?

    Understanding Bernier's Actual Terminology

    1. The assertion claims Bernier called the Mughal king "king of barbarians"

       This is factually incorrect. Bernier actually used the phrase "king of beggars" (or "roi des gueux" in French). This was not a comment on cultural sophistication or civilization but rather an economic observation about the consequences of the Mughal land system.

    2. Why "king of beggars"?

       Bernier argued that because the Mughal state claimed theoretical ownership of all land (the crown ownership mentioned in the reason), there was no concept of private property in land as understood in Europe. He believed this discouraged long-term investment, impoverished the intermediary classes (nobles, zamindars), and ultimately left the emperor ruling over a population with no secure wealth—hence, metaphorically, "beggars."

    Evaluating the Reason

    3. Crown ownership of land as explanation

       The reason correctly identifies that Bernier linked his critique to the Mughal land revenue system. In Mughal India, the emperor was considered the ultimate proprietor of all land, with revenue assignments (jagirs) granted to nobles who collected taxes but did not "own" the land in perpetuity. Bernier contrasted this with European feudalism, where landed property was heritable and secure.

    4. Was Bernier's interpretation accurate?

       Modern historians recognize that Bernier oversimplified and misunderstood the Mughal system. There were forms of property rights, hereditary holdings, and substantial private wealth. His European lens led him to impose categories that didn't quite fit. Nevertheless, his writings were historically significant in forming Western views of "Oriental despotism." …

    🔒 Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →