Below are two statements (A) and (B) in the context of contemporary debates on…
2019
Below are two statements (A) and (B) in the context of contemporary debates on ‘dates and periods’ of Indian history.
Statement (A) : A Periodisation like ‘Hindu – Muslim – British’ is appropriate as the religion of the rulers has been the only important historical change.
Statement (B) : It is problematic to assign precise dates and time spans to ‘historical processes’ that happened over a period of time.
- A.
Both (A) and (B) are correct and (B) is the correct interpretation of (A).
- B.
Both (A) and (B) are correct, but (B) is not the correct interpretation of (A).
- C.
(A) is correct, but (B) is wrong.
- D.
(A) is wrong, but (B) is right.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: D
Concept: Historians judge a periodisation scheme on two grounds — whether the marker it uses (religion, technology, economic system, political form) actually tracks the kind of change under study, and whether the change itself happened sharply enough to be pinned to precise dates. Most historical processes (shifts in agriculture, trade, social groups, administration, belief systems) unfold gradually and unevenly across regions, so historians treat exact date-boundaries for such processes with caution rather than confidence.
Application: Statement (A) — labelling eras only as ‘Hindu’, ‘Muslim’ and ‘British’ rests on a single narrow marker (the ruling dynasty’s religion) and ignores the far more significant economic, social, administrative and cultural changes occurring at the same time; it also wrongly implies uniform religious practice among a ruler’s subjects. Modern historiography treats such a single-marker scheme as inadequate. Statement (B) — institutions, trade networks, social structures and administrative systems typically take shape over long stretches of time without one verifiable start or end date, so caution about assigning sharp dates to such gradual processes matches how historians actually work.
Cross-check: This is consistent with why historians treat even broader schemes like ‘ancient-medieval-modern’ as loose conventions rather than precise, universally fixed cut-offs — reinforcing that gradual historical change resists exact dating, while a scheme built around one ruler-linked marker oversimplifies the far wider range of change historians actually track. An option that keeps the ruler’s-religion scheme intact (whether or not it also treats the dating caution as its ‘interpretation’) carries forward the same single-marker oversimplification; an option that accepts that scheme while dismissing the dating caution equally misreads how gradual institutional and social change actually unfolds. The assessment that treats the ruler’s-religion scheme as inadequate while upholding the caution about precise dating is the one that matches accepted historiographical practice.