Statement (A): Bahadur Shah Zafar wrote letters to all the chiefs and rulers…

For a two-statement item, first test each statement's truth against the historical record independently, and only then check whether one statement's outcome logically or causally follows from the other.

NCERT's account of the 1857 uprising records that when sepoys who had risen up reached Delhi, Bahadur Shah Zafar initially hesitated but then agreed to bless their cause, lending his Mughal authority to what had begun as scattered mutinies; Statement (B) is therefore true, since this act is exactly what the record credits with reframing the fight as a struggle for the restoration of Mughal rule. Following this, Zafar wrote letters appealing to chiefs and rulers across India to join a confederacy against the British, invoking the loyalty many still held toward Mughal authority even outside Delhi; Statement (A) is therefore also true. The two events sit in one sequence, not two isolated facts: Zafar's local blessing in Delhi (B) gave him the standing to make the wider appeal in (A), and it was that appeal reaching rulers and chiefs across India that carried his blessing's effect beyond Delhi into the dramatic, country-wide transformation Statement (B) itself describes — so while the blessing came first as an event, its full, dramatic, nationwide impact was ensured only once (A) followed it.

• “(A) is true but (B) is false” rules out that Zafar's blessing of the revolt reframed it as a fight for Mughal restoration, which the record clearly documents.

• “(A) is false, but (B) is true” rules out that Zafar wrote appeals to rulers and chiefs, which the record clearly documents.

• “Both (A) and (B) are true but (A) has no relationship with (B)” treats the blessing and the wider appeal as two disconnected facts, when the record traces the nationwide scale of the blessing's impact directly to the appeal that followed it.