Mauryan, Gupta empires and the Delhi Sultanate MCQ - Practice Questions with Answers

Samudragupta's achievements are described in the Allahabad Pillar inscription composed by Harisena. It lists defeated rulers, frontier rulers, forest chiefs and distant powers, showing different categories of subordinate rulers. Gupta control was not uniform everywhere; some areas were directly governed, while others accepted Gupta superiority. Therefore the accurate statement is the one about the inscription and subordinate categories, while the claim of uniform direct centralisation is wrong.

One should not treat Gupta rule as a modern state with equal control over every region. Samudragupta expanded influence through campaigns and political arrangements, and the Allahabad Pillar inscription shows this variety. It mentions defeated rulers, frontier rulers, forest chiefs and distant powers. This means some areas were under direct rule, while others accepted Gupta superiority through tribute, submission or political prestige. Therefore, the statement on uneven control and the statement on the inscription's categories are both supported.

There is a direct source-period link. Mauryan history uses Ashokan inscriptions, so Ashokan edicts go with Ashoka. Gupta history uses inscriptions such as the Allahabad Pillar inscription, which presents Samudragupta's achievements. Sultanate history uses chronicles, inscriptions, coins and architecture; Persian chronicles are especially linked with many Sultanate rulers. Therefore the correct matching is Ashokan edicts with Ashoka, Allahabad Pillar inscription with Samudragupta, and Persian chronicles with the Delhi Sultanate.

The incorrect statement is the one that treats iqta as modern private land ownership. The iqta system is defined as the assignment of revenue from a territory to an officer or noble, called a muqti or iqtadar, in return for service and troop maintenance. It was tied to duty and state service. The Sultan as head of state, the wazir in finance, and the ariz-i-mamalik in military organisation are all listed correctly.

The Sultanate administration section defines iqta as a revenue assignment. Revenue from a territory was assigned to an officer or noble, called a muqti or iqtadar, in return for service and maintenance of troops. This was not private land ownership in the modern sense. A royal title without revenue rights misses the fiscal nature of iqta, and a temple grant for Sanskrit culture belongs to the Gupta discussion of land grants, not to the Sultanate's military-administrative structure.