Test: East India Company & Bengal Nawabs- 1 - Delhi Police Constable MCQ

• The first pair is correct; Murshid Quli Jafar Khan did move his capital to Murshidabad.
• The second pair is also correct; Alivardi Khan was involved in dealings with the Marathas, including a chauth agreement.
• The third pair is incorrect; Alivardi Khan advised Siraj-ud-Daulah not to quarrel with Europeans, not necessarily to reduce their power.

All the statements provided are accurate. Murshid Quli Jafar Khan was indeed appointed by Aurangzeb as the Governor of Bengal in 1705, Alivardi Khan overthrew Sarfaraz Khan in 1740, and Siraj-ud-Daulah faced opposition from his aunt Ghasiti Begum when he succeeded Alivardi Khan.

• The assertion correctly links British victory to the economic hardships that followed.
• The reason provides a clear mechanism (imposition of tributes and trade monopolization), making it a valid explanation for Bengal's economic decline post-Plassey.

Each statement is correct. Alivardi Khan did have to agree to a payment to the Marathas, the Anglo-French conflicts influenced Siraj-ud-Daulah's policy towards European powers, and the Black Hole tragedy was a catalyst for the British efforts to retake Calcutta.

• The first pair is correct; Siraj-ud-Daulah did capture Fort William in 1756.
• The second pair is also correct; Chandernagore was a French settlement captured by Clive.
• The third pair is incorrect; Alivardi Khan defeated Sarfaraz Khan near Giria, not Murshidabad.

The statements accurately reflect the outcomes of the treaty post-Battle of Plassey and agreements made with Mir Jafar. These conditions were part of the strategies to ensure British dominance and security in Bengal.

• The assertion is true, as British maneuvers did facilitate Mir Jafar's rise.
• The reason correctly identifies the British motive, thus explaining the assertion accurately.

All statements are factual. Clive's personal gain, the expulsion of the French, and the establishment of British supremacy in Bengal were significant outcomes of the Battle of Plassey and subsequent agreements.

• The first pair is correct; the Maratha raids did result in Alivardi Khan agreeing to pay chauth.
• The second pair is also correct; Siraj-ud-Daulah did aim to stay neutral amidst Anglo-French conflicts.
• The third pair is incorrect; the Black Hole tragedy contributed to the British re-conquest of Calcutta but did not directly lead to the treaty of 1757.

These statements accurately describe the causes and consequences of Siraj-ud-Daulah's actions and the provisions of the treaty that followed the Battle of Plassey, highlighting the escalating tensions and eventual outcomes that favored British interests in the region.

• The first pair is correct as the Battle of Plassey led to Mir Jafar being installed as the Nawab.
• The second pair is correct; the Black Hole incident escalated tensions leading to the British conquest.
• The third pair is also correct, as part of the treaty conditions allowed the British to mint coins.

• The assertion is correct; the Battle of Plassey was indeed pivotal in establishing British dominance.
• The reason accurately identifies key factors contributing to this outcome.

• Statement-I is incorrect because Alivardi Khan did not specifically advise Siraj-ud-Daulah to reduce the power of Europeans; rather, he was warned not to quarrel with them.
• Statement-II is correct as the imperial firman did grant the British significant trade privileges, including the ability to trade without paying customs, which later became a point of contention.

• Statement-I is correct as the Black Hole incident indeed highlighted the need for improved defenses, though it wasn't the sole reason for fortification efforts.
• Statement-II is also correct, showing Mir Jafar's commitments in his bid for power, which included actions against the French.

• Statement-I is correct as the Battle of Plassey did indeed reveal and exacerbate the internal weaknesses of the Nawab's administration.
• Statement-II is correct, establishing British dominance in Bengal and effectively sidelining other European powers, but it isn't a direct explanation of Statement-I.

• The assertion rightly notes the negative impact of Maratha raids on Bengal's economy.
• The reason gives a specific mechanism (diversion of resources), explaining why the assertion holds true.

• Statement-I is correct as the Marathas did indeed occupy Orissa and posed challenges to Alivardi Khan's rule.
• Statement-II is correct, illustrating Siraj-ud-Daulah's initial openness towards the English, which later changed due to political circumstances.

• Statement-I is correct, highlighting a specific grievance between Siraj-ud-Daulah and the British regarding Krishnaballabh.
• Statement-II is correct, detailing the terms of the treaty that underscored the British's secured privileges in the region.

• Murshidabad was indeed established by Murshid Quli Jafar Khan.
• The Treaty of 1757 was signed between Siraj-ud-Daulah and the British.
• Giria was the battlefield where Alivardi Khan defeated Sarfaraz Khan.

• The assertion correctly links Siraj-ud-Daulah's offensive against the British to his eventual defeat.
• The reason accurately provides context for his miscalculation, making it the correct explanation.