Which of the following dynasties conquered Sri Lanka and South East Asian countries?a)The Pandyasb)The Chalukyasc)The Cholasd)The RashtrakutasCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Which of the following dynasties conquered Sr...

Join the Discussion on the App

Which of the following dynasties conquered Sri Lanka and South East Asian countries?

a)
The Pandyas
b)
The Chalukyas
c)
The Cholas
d)
The Rashtrakutas

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

Test: History - 1

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

Which of the following dynasties conquered Sri Lanka and South East As...

The Chola navy played a vital role in the expan of the Chola Empire, including the conquest of the Ceylon islands and Sri Vijaya (present day Indonsia), the spread of Hinduism, Dravidian architecture and Dravidian culture to Southeast Asia and in curbing the piracy in Southeast Asia in the 900 CE. Inscriptions and historical sources assert that the Medieval Chola king Rajendra Chola I sent a naval expetion to Indo-China, the Malay peninsula and the Indonesian archipelago in 1025 in order to subdue the Srivijaya Empire.

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

Which of the following dynasties conquered Sri Lanka and South East As...

The Cholas Dynasty conquered Sri Lanka and South East Asian countries.

Overview of the Cholas Dynasty
The Cholas were a Tamil dynasty that ruled a large part of South India and parts of Sri Lanka from the 9th to the 13th century. They were known for their military prowess, naval power, and cultural achievements.

Conquest of Sri Lanka
During the reign of Rajendra Chola I (1012-1044 CE), the Cholas invaded Sri Lanka and conquered it. They established a strong presence on the island and ruled it for several decades.

Conquest of South East Asian Countries
The Cholas were also known for their extensive maritime trade and naval power. They established a strong naval presence in the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean, which allowed them to expand their influence to South East Asian countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, and Cambodia. The Cholas also established diplomatic relations with China and sent several embassies to the Chinese court.

Legacy of the Cholas
The Cholas left a lasting legacy in South India and South East Asia. They are known for their architectural achievements such as the Brihadeeswara Temple in Thanjavur and their contributions to literature, art, and music. The Cholas also played a significant role in spreading Indian culture and religion to South East Asian countries.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the Cholas Dynasty conquered Sri Lanka and South East Asian countries. They were known for their military prowess, naval power, and cultural achievements, and left a lasting legacy in South India and South East Asia.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

Attention CLAT Students!

To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.All empires involve one set of people dominating another set of people; all empires are violent; all empires tend to be extractive. The story of the East India Company shows that when the British first came to India, it didnt come as a conquering state. They came in this very unexpected form of a trading company, which then militarizes. But the Company, from the point it begins to conquer Indian territory, has no motive other than profit. The idea that the British came here to bestow railways, the English language, cricket and tea is a later Victorian spin, that bears no historical reality at all.The Company made good profit trading Mughal textiles, and it found that it could make even more by conquering Indian territory, taxing Indians and not having to spend any money to buy the goods it was then selling. Which is not to say that there were not, obviously, benefits [for the colonised]. Roman rule was just as extractive of Britain in the early centuries BCE, but we gained ideas of law, the Latin language and so on. At the same time, the Roman Empire in Britain was incredibly brutal, involved massacres of the native people and existed for the benefit of the empire. So you can gain things, in a sense, accidentally, from being conquered by an empire, but thats never the motive of the conqueror.The East India Company was in many ways a disaster for Bengal, which moved from being the premier economy in the world to being asset-stripped, plundered and looted. That said, by 1947, India did have the best communications, education and health care in Asia. When the British first came to India, they controlled three per cent of the world GDP, while India controlled 37 per cent—that figure was more or less reversed by the time the British left. So, theres no question about who gained more. Whatever India gained, we gained much more.The East India Company, while being extractive and plundering, was also collaborative. From the very beginning it was in business with Indian businessmen; it almost never operated on its own. It gained an enormous amount from its business with Indian partners. And almost every stage, from the moment it arrives as a trading party to the moment that it begins to militarize and is used by the Jagat Seths to topple Siraj-ud-Daula, through to the 1803 war—the final war when they defeat the Marathas, when the banking dynasties of Benares are competing to fund the East India Companys armies—at every stage, the East India Company is working in collaboration with various Indian bankers and financiers, who support the Company as the least worst option in this time of anarchy.Q.Which of the following is a situation similar to the one described by the author in the text when Indian bankers and financiers support the Company?

View answer

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.All empires involve one set of people dominating another set of people; all empires are violent; all empires tend to be extractive. The story of the East India Company shows that when the British first came to India, it didnt come as a conquering state. They came in this very unexpected form of a trading company, which then militarizes. But the Company, from the point it begins to conquer Indian territory, has no motive other than profit. The idea that the British came here to bestow railways, the English language, cricket and tea is a later Victorian spin, that bears no historical reality at all.The Company made good profit trading Mughal textiles, and it found that it could make even more by conquering Indian territory, taxing Indians and not having to spend any money to buy the goods it was then selling. Which is not to say that there were not, obviously, benefits [for the colonised]. Roman rule was just as extractive of Britain in the early centuries BCE, but we gained ideas of law, the Latin language and so on. At the same time, the Roman Empire in Britain was incredibly brutal, involved massacres of the native people and existed for the benefit of the empire. So you can gain things, in a sense, accidentally, from being conquered by an empire, but thats never the motive of the conqueror.The East India Company was in many ways a disaster for Bengal, which moved from being the premier economy in the world to being asset-stripped, plundered and looted. That said, by 1947, India did have the best communications, education and health care in Asia. When the British first came to India, they controlled three per cent of the world GDP, while India controlled 37 per cent—that figure was more or less reversed by the time the British left. So, theres no question about who gained more. Whatever India gained, we gained much more.The East India Company, while being extractive and plundering, was also collaborative. From the very beginning it was in business with Indian businessmen; it almost never operated on its own. It gained an enormous amount from its business with Indian partners. And almost every stage, from the moment it arrives as a trading party to the moment that it begins to militarize and is used by the Jagat Seths to topple Siraj-ud-Daula, through to the 1803 war—the final war when they defeat the Marathas, when the banking dynasties of Benares are competing to fund the East India Companys armies—at every stage, the East India Company is working in collaboration with various Indian bankers and financiers, who support the Company as the least worst option in this time of anarchy.Q.According to the author, which of the following are often suggested as gained from being conquered?

View answer

At the summit held in Wuhan, India and China, for the first time have proposed to work on a joint project in which of the following countries ?

View answer

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.All empires involve one set of people dominating another set of people; all empires are violent; all empires tend to be extractive. The story of the East India Company shows that when the British first came to India, it didnt come as a conquering state. They came in this very unexpected form of a trading company, which then militarizes. But the Company, from the point it begins to conquer Indian territory, has no motive other than profit. The idea that the British came here to bestow railways, the English language, cricket and tea is a later Victorian spin, that bears no historical reality at all.The Company made good profit trading Mughal textiles, and it found that it could make even more by conquering Indian territory, taxing Indians and not having to spend any money to buy the goods it was then selling. Which is not to say that there were not, obviously, benefits [for the colonised]. Roman rule was just as extractive of Britain in the early centuries BCE, but we gained ideas of law, the Latin language and so on. At the same time, the Roman Empire in Britain was incredibly brutal, involved massacres of the native people and existed for the benefit of the empire. So you can gain things, in a sense, accidentally, from being conquered by an empire, but thats never the motive of the conqueror.The East India Company was in many ways a disaster for Bengal, which moved from being the premier economy in the world to being asset-stripped, plundered and looted. That said, by 1947, India did have the best communications, education and health care in Asia. When the British first came to India, they controlled three per cent of the world GDP, while India controlled 37 per cent—that figure was more or less reversed by the time the British left. So, theres no question about who gained more. Whatever India gained, we gained much more.The East India Company, while being extractive and plundering, was also collaborative. From the very beginning it was in business with Indian businessmen; it almost never operated on its own. It gained an enormous amount from its business with Indian partners. And almost every stage, from the moment it arrives as a trading party to the moment that it begins to militarize and is used by the Jagat Seths to topple Siraj-ud-Daula, through to the 1803 war—the final war when they defeat the Marathas, when the banking dynasties of Benares are competing to fund the East India Companys armies—at every stage, the East India Company is working in collaboration with various Indian bankers and financiers, who support the Company as the least worst option in this time of anarchy.Q.What does the word anarchy as used in the passage mean?

View answer

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.All empires involve one set of people dominating another set of people; all empires are violent; all empires tend to be extractive. The story of the East India Company shows that when the British first came to India, it didnt come as a conquering state. They came in this very unexpected form of a trading company, which then militarizes. But the Company, from the point it begins to conquer Indian territory, has no motive other than profit. The idea that the British came here to bestow railways, the English language, cricket and tea is a later Victorian spin, that bears no historical reality at all.The Company made good profit trading Mughal textiles, and it found that it could make even more by conquering Indian territory, taxing Indians and not having to spend any money to buy the goods it was then selling. Which is not to say that there were not, obviously, benefits [for the colonised]. Roman rule was just as extractive of Britain in the early centuries BCE, but we gained ideas of law, the Latin language and so on. At the same time, the Roman Empire in Britain was incredibly brutal, involved massacres of the native people and existed for the benefit of the empire. So you can gain things, in a sense, accidentally, from being conquered by an empire, but thats never the motive of the conqueror.The East India Company was in many ways a disaster for Bengal, which moved from being the premier economy in the world to being asset-stripped, plundered and looted. That said, by 1947, India did have the best communications, education and health care in Asia. When the British first came to India, they controlled three per cent of the world GDP, while India controlled 37 per cent—that figure was more or less reversed by the time the British left. So, theres no question about who gained more. Whatever India gained, we gained much more.The East India Company, while being extractive and plundering, was also collaborative. From the very beginning it was in business with Indian businessmen; it almost never operated on its own. It gained an enormous amount from its business with Indian partners. And almost every stage, from the moment it arrives as a trading party to the moment that it begins to militarize and is used by the Jagat Seths to topple Siraj-ud-Daula, through to the 1803 war—the final war when they defeat the Marathas, when the banking dynasties of Benares are competing to fund the East India Companys armies—at every stage, the East India Company is working in collaboration with various Indian bankers and financiers, who support the Company as the least worst option in this time of anarchy.Q.What does the author suggest as the initial reason for the British conquest of India?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT