The British officials in the nineteenth century saw the village during the Mughal period as a little republic because:
Answer & explanation
Correct answer: option 3
The correct answer is Option (3) → it was made up of fraternal partners sharing resources and labour in a collective.
Option (1) it had a group of powerful individuals to decide about the village affairs. — Incorrect. The rule of a few powerful individuals, who exploited the weaker sections, is what shows that the village was not egalitarian; it argues against the “little republic” picture.
Option (2) it was based on caste and gender distinctions. — Incorrect. Deep inequities based on caste and gender are given as a reason why the village was not a community of equals.
Option (3) it was made up of fraternal partners sharing resources and labour in a collective. — Correct. Some British officials saw the village as a “little republic” made up of fraternal partners sharing resources and labour in a collective.
Option (4) it had individual ownership of assets. — Incorrect. Individual ownership of assets is another sign that the village was not egalitarian, so it cannot be the reason for calling it a republic of partners.
NCERT (2026-27): “2.4 A ‘little republic’? … How does one understand the significance of the village community? Some British officials in the nineteenth century saw the village as a ‘little republic’ made up of fraternal partners sharing resources and labour in a collective. However, this was not a sign of rural egalitarianism. There was individual ownership of assets and deep inequities based on caste and gender distinctions. A group of powerful individuals decided the affairs of the village, exploited the weaker sections and had the authority to dispense justice.…” |