Who among the following foreigners was the first to visit India?a)Hiuen Tsangb)Megasthenesc)I-Tsingd)Fa-HienCorrect answer is option 'B'. 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 > Who among the following foreigners was the f...

Who among the following foreigners was the first to visit India?

a)
Hiuen Tsang
b)
Megasthenes
c)
I-Tsing
d)
Fa-Hien

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

Who among the following foreigners was the first to visit India?a)Hiu...

Megasthenes, an ancient Greek historian, was the first foreigner to visit India. He had worked as ambassador of Seleucus I of Syria. He came to the court of Sandrokattes, who was none other than the Great Chandragupta Maurya. Mleccha (and its equivalent Milakkha) is usually translated as a foreigner or barbarian.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

Free Test

FREE

SLAT Mock Test - 1 (New Pattern)
61 Ques | 60 Min

Start Free Test

View all free CLAT tests

Community Answer

Who among the following foreigners was the first to visit India?a)Hiu...

Introduction:
The first foreigner to visit India was Megasthenes, an ancient Greek historian and diplomat who lived during the 4th century BCE. He was sent by the Greek ruler Seleucus Nicator as an ambassador to the court of the Mauryan emperor Chandragupta Maurya.

Megasthenes' Visit to India:
During his time in India, Megasthenes wrote a book called "Indica" which provided valuable insights into the socio-political and cultural aspects of ancient India. His observations and accounts of India are considered important historical sources.

Key Points:
- Background: Megasthenes was a Greek ambassador and historian who was sent by Seleucus Nicator, the Greek ruler of the Seleucid Empire, to establish diplomatic relations with the Mauryan Empire in India.
- Mission: Megasthenes' primary objective was to gather information about the Mauryan Empire, its administration, culture, and society.
- Arrival in India: Megasthenes arrived in India around 302 BCE and was received by Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the Mauryan Empire. He was appointed as the ambassador to the Mauryan court.
- Stay in India: Megasthenes spent several years in India, residing mainly at the capital city of Pataliputra (modern-day Patna). He had the opportunity to observe and interact with the people, gaining valuable insights into their way of life.
- Indica: During his stay in India, Megasthenes wrote a book called "Indica" in which he documented his observations and experiences. The book provided a detailed account of the Mauryan Empire, including its political structure, administration, economy, society, and culture. Unfortunately, the original text of "Indica" is lost, but fragments and references to it survive in the works of later writers.
- Legacy: Megasthenes' writings were highly influential and widely circulated in the ancient world. They played a crucial role in shaping the Greek and Roman understanding of India and its civilization. Even though his work is not entirely free from biases and exaggerations, it remains an important historical source for studying ancient India.

Conclusion:
Megasthenes, an ancient Greek historian and diplomat, was the first foreigner to visit India. His book "Indica" provides valuable insights into the socio-political and cultural aspects of ancient India. Megasthenes' visit and writings have had a lasting impact on our understanding of India's history and civilization.

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Find out the correct chronological sequence of the following persons visit to India at one time or another(1) Fa-Hien(2) I-Tsing (Yijing)(3) Megasthanese(4) Hiuen-Tsang

View answer

In which order did the following come to India?I. Thomas RoeII. Fa-hienIII. Hiuen-Tsang

View answer

Direction: Read the passage carefully and answer the question that follows by choosing the correct alternative out of the given four options.In the earliest Vedic literature are found not only hymns in praise of the accepted Gods, but also doubts in regard to the worth of these Gods, the beginnings of a new religion incorporated into the earliest records of the old. And later, when Megasthenes was in India, the descendants of those first theosophists were still discussing the questions that lay at the root of all religions. And in many things they held the same opinions with the Greeks, saying that the universe was begotten and will be destroyed, and the world is a sphere, that there are different beginnings of all things, but water is the beginning of world-making.India’s literature was pre-eminently priestly and religious. Religion forms either the subject-matter of the most important works, or, as in the case of the epics, the basis of didactic excursions and sectarian interpolations, which impart to worldly themes a tone peculiarly theological. History and oratory are unknown in Indian literature. The early poetry consists of hymns and religious poems; the early prose, of liturgies, linguistics, law, theology, sacred legends and other works, all of which are intended to supplement the knowledge of the Vedas, to explain ceremonies, or to inculcate religious principles. At a later date, formal grammar systems of philosophy, fables, and commentaries are added to the prose; epics, secular lyric drama, the Puranas and such writings to the poetry. But in all this great mass, till after the Hindus came into close contract with foreign nations, notably the Greek, from which has been borrowed, perhaps, the classical Hindu drama, there is no real literature that was not religious originally, or, at least, so apt for priestly use as to become chiefly moral and theosophical; while the most popular works of modern times are sectarian tracts, Puranas, Tantras and remodeled worldly poetry. The sources from which knowledge of Hindu religions is to be drawn are the best possible- the original texts. The information furnished by foreigners, from the times of Ktesias and Megasthenes to that of Mandelslo, is considerable, but one is warranted in assuming that what little in it is novel is inaccurate, since otherwise the information would have been furnished by the Hindus themselves; and that, conversely, an outsider’s statements often may give an inexact impression through lack of completeness. To take an example- Ktesias tells half the truth in regard to ordeals. His account is true, but he gives no notion of the number or elaborate character of these interesting ceremonies.The sources to which we shall refer will be the two most important collections of Vedic hymns- the Rig Veda and the Atharva Veda; the Brahmanic literature, with the supplementary Upanishads, and the Sutras or mnemonic abridgements of religious and ceremonial rules; the legal texts, and the religious and theological portions of the epic; and the later sectarian writings, called the Puranas. The great heresies again have their own special writings. Thus, far we shall draw on the native literature. Only for some of the wild modern sects, and for the religious of the wild tribes which have no literature, shall we have to depend on the accounts of European writers.Q. The author would recommend which of the following for the authentic knowledge of Hindu religion?

View answer

In Kamil Sieczynski v Union of India, a single-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court set aside a “Leave India Notice” [“LIN”] issued by the government to the Petitioner, who was a Polish student studying in India. The ostensible basis of the Notice – issued under Section 3(2)( c) of the Foreigners Act – was that the petitioner, not being a citizen of India, could not have participated in “political rallies'' while in the country. The petitioner impugned the LIN on both procedural and substantive grounds: namely, that he had not been heard, that the LIN was not supported by any reasons, and that it violated his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The State, on the other hand, raised a set of familiar arguments: it relied on its prerogative powers in matters of entry or expulsion into India since a foreigner can’t claim the right to reside in India, submitted materials in a sealed cover, denied any obligation to accord a hearing, and argued that foreigners could not agitate constitutional rights that flowed from Article 19.Justice J found for the Petitioner on all counts. He began by noting that the Petitioner was lawfully in India on a valid student visa. Consequently, the right of the Petitioner to reside in India – flowing from his visa – could not be revoked without a hearing. J then observed that the material in the “sealed cover” was essentially two sheets of paper that referred to the Petitioner’s attendance at an anti-CAA rally, and a decision taken by “higher formations” to expel him from the country. This led him to consider the substantive question at issue.J held that though Article 19 (right free speech and expression) was not available to the Petitioner (as a non-citizen), Article 21 – available to “all persons” – covered his right to participate in protests and rallies. Additionally, J pointed out that the powers under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act were not “unfettered”, but had to be exercised within the constitutional framework and only on acts committed in India. Interestingly, he also held that some of the earlier Supreme Court judgments – that seemed to indicate that no hearing was necessary as a Section 3 order was a “purely executive order” – were not only distinguishable, but had also been overtaken by the progress of Article 14 and 21 jurisprudence, which now required a more “liberal” approach. At all times, J. insisted, the State had to comply with its constitutional obligations: both in terms of respecting individual rights, and in terms of providing reasons for coercive action. Here – as often happens – the slightest scrutiny of the State’s putative “reasons” (even though they were submitted in a sealed cover) resulted in a clear realisation that they were, in essence, no reasons at all because the state failed to enclose evidence that proved potential threat to the public order.Q. The government finds out from confidential sources that a foreigner, who is currently residing in India, praised GISIS, a terrorist organisation and made 3 statements on online platforms that disparaged India while residing in Czechoslovakia. On receiving the news, the government issued her an LIN notice on the grounds of a potential threat of letting her mingle with the Indian citizens and after receiving the notice, she moved to the concerned court challenging the order. Strictly from the legal principles laid down in the paragraph, which of the following would be the likely result of the petition?

View answer

In Kamil Sieczynski v Union of India, a single-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court set aside a “Leave India Notice” [“LIN”] issued by the government to the Petitioner, who was a Polish student studying in India. The ostensible basis of the Notice – issued under Section 3(2)( c) of the Foreigners Act – was that the petitioner, not being a citizen of India, could not have participated in “political rallies'' while in the country. The petitioner impugned the LIN on both procedural and substantive grounds: namely, that he had not been heard, that the LIN was not supported by any reasons, and that it violated his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The State, on the other hand, raised a set of familiar arguments: it relied on its prerogative powers in matters of entry or expulsion into India since a foreigner can’t claim the right to reside in India, submitted materials in a sealed cover, denied any obligation to accord a hearing, and argued that foreigners could not agitate constitutional rights that flowed from Article 19.Justice J found for the Petitioner on all counts. He began by noting that the Petitioner was lawfully in India on a valid student visa. Consequently, the right of the Petitioner to reside in India – flowing from his visa – could not be revoked without a hearing. J then observed that the material in the “sealed cover” was essentially two sheets of paper that referred to the Petitioner’s attendance at an anti-CAA rally, and a decision taken by “higher formations” to expel him from the country. This led him to consider the substantive question at issue.J held that though Article 19 (right free speech and expression) was not available to the Petitioner (as a non-citizen), Article 21 – available to “all persons” – covered his right to participate in protests and rallies. Additionally, J pointed out that the powers under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act were not “unfettered”, but had to be exercised within the constitutional framework and only on acts committed in India. Interestingly, he also held that some of the earlier Supreme Court judgments – that seemed to indicate that no hearing was necessary as a Section 3 order was a “purely executive order” – were not only distinguishable, but had also been overtaken by the progress of Article 14 and 21 jurisprudence, which now required a more “liberal” approach. At all times, J. insisted, the State had to comply with its constitutional obligations: both in terms of respecting individual rights, and in terms of providing reasons for coercive action. Here – as often happens – the slightest scrutiny of the State’s putative “reasons” (even though they were submitted in a sealed cover) resulted in a clear realisation that they were, in essence, no reasons at all because the state failed to enclose evidence that proved potential threat to the public order.Q. The government finds out from confidential sources that a foreigner, who is currently residing in India, praised GISIS, a terrorist organisation and made 3 statements on online platforms that disparaged India while residing in Czechoslovakia. On receiving the news, the government issued her an LIN notice on the grounds of a potential threat of letting her mingle with the Indian citizens and after receiving the notice, she moved to the concerned court challenging the order. Strictly from the legal principles laid down in the paragraph, which of the following would be the likely result of the petition?Q. Which of the following is the author of the given passage most likely to agree with?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026