Industrial & Technological Development
UGC NET HISTORY – Solved PYQs (UNIT 5)
1. Given below are two statements, one is labelled as Assertion (A) and the other is labelled as Reason (R). (JUNE 2014)
Assertion (A): With the establishment of Turkish rule, the art of history writing was firmly established in India.
Reason (R): The Sultanate period witnessed the development of the paper industry in India.
In the context of the above two statements, which one of the following is correct?
(1) Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A
(2) Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A
(3) A is true, but R is false
(4) A is false, but R is true
Answer: 2
The correct answer is (2) Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A.
Assertion (A) is historically accurate because the arrival of the Turks in the 12th and 13th centuries introduced a robust tradition of historiography that was previously less formalized in the Indian subcontinent. While ancient India had historical accounts like the Rajatarangini, the Turko-Persian tradition brought a systematic approach to recording chronological events, court proceedings, and the lives of monarchs. Scholars like Minhaj-us-Siraj (Tabaqat-i-Nasiri) and Ziauddin Barani (Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi) transformed history writing into a distinct literary and administrative genre. These chroniclers focused on the didactic nature of history, believing it provided lessons in statecraft and morality for future rulers.
Reason (R) is also a true statement. The Sultanate period did indeed witness the large-scale introduction and development of the paper industry in India. Before the 13th century, writing was predominantly done on palm leaves (talapatra) or birch bark (bhurjapatra). The Turks introduced the technology of paper-making, which led to a “paper revolution” that made the production of books, administrative records, and religious texts significantly cheaper and more efficient. By the 14th century, as noted by Amir Khusrau, paper was widely used in Delhi for both intellectual pursuits and commercial activities.
However, Reason (R) is not the correct explanation for Assertion (A). While the availability of paper certainly facilitated the physical act of writing, the art and tradition of history writing were established due to the cultural and intellectual heritage of the Perso-Islamic world, which prioritized the recording of dynastic history and military conquests. The shift was primarily ideological and cultural—stemming from the need of the new ruling elite to document their legitimacy and administrative decrees—rather than being a direct mechanical consequence of the invention of paper. Therefore, while both factors coexisted and complemented each other, the rise of historiography was driven by the Perso-Arabic literary tradition rather than just the availability of writing material.
What specific era or chronicler of the Sultanate period are you focusing on for your research?
2. Who proclaimed that the mason and stone cutters of Delhi were superior to their fellow craftsmen in the whole Muslim world? (JUNE 2014)
(1) Amir Khusrau
(2) Minhaj-us-Siraj
(3) Ibn Batuta
(4) Isami
Answer: 1
The correct answer is (1) Amir Khusrau.
Amir Khusrau, the celebrated Indo-Persian poet, musician, and chronicler associated with the Delhi Sultanate, made this observation while describing the cultural and artistic achievements of India. In his writings, particularly in works like Khaza’in-ul-Futuh, he praised the excellence of Indian craftsmanship and explicitly stated that the masons and stone-cutters of Delhi were superior to their counterparts across the entire Muslim world. His admiration reflects not only personal appreciation but also a broader acknowledgment of the high level of technical skill and aesthetic refinement achieved by Indian artisans during the Sultanate period.
Amir Khusrau lived during the reigns of several Delhi Sultans, including Alauddin Khalji, and had firsthand exposure to large-scale architectural projects such as forts, mosques, and palaces being constructed in and around Delhi. These projects required highly skilled labor, and Indian craftsmen developed distinctive styles by blending indigenous techniques with Persian and Central Asian influences. Khusrau’s statement highlights how local artisans were not merely imitators but innovators who contributed significantly to the evolution of Indo-Islamic architecture.
Other options are less appropriate in this context. Minhaj-us-Siraj, author of Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, focused more on political history than on artistic praise. Ibn Battuta, though he described India in detail during his visit to the court of Muhammad bin Tughlaq, did not make this specific comparison. Isami, known for Futuh-us-Salatin, also concentrated more on political narratives. Therefore, it is Amir Khusrau whose writings distinctly emphasize the superiority of Delhi’s craftsmen, offering valuable insight into the cultural and technological vibrancy of medieval India.