Consider the following statements: 1. They established settlements in India during the sixteenth century. 2. Mughals refused to grant trading rights to English under their pressure. 3. They had settlements at Daman, Hugli, and Salsette. The above statements are related to which of the following European powers?

Consider the following statements: 1. They established settlements in India during the sixteenth century. 2. Mughals refused to grant trading rights to English under their pressure. 3. They had settlements at Daman, Hugli, and Salsette. The above statements are related to which of the following European powers? Correct Answer Portuguese

The correct answer is Portuguese.

Important Points

  • Portuguese:
    • The Portuguese traveler, Vasco da Gama reached the port of Calicut in 1498 and returned to Portugal in the next year.
    • Pedro Alvarez Cabral arrived in 1500 and Vasco da Gama also made a second trip in 1502.
    • They established trading stations at Calicut, Cannanore, and Cochin.
    • The first Governor of the Portuguese in India was Francis de Almeida.
    • Later in 1509, Albuquerque was made the Governor of the Portuguese territories in India.
    • In 1510, he captured Goa from the ruler of Bijapur.
    • Thereafter, Goa became the capital of the Portuguese settlements in India.
    • Albuquerque captured Malacca and Ceylon.
    • He also built a fort at Calicut.
    • Albuquerque died and his successors established Portuguese settlements at Daman, Salsette, and Bombay on the west coast and at San Thome near Madras and Hugli in Bengal on the east coast.

Additional Information

  • The English East India Company:
    • It was established in 1600.
    • Captain Hawkins arrived at the royal court of Jahangir in 1609 to seek permission to establish an English trading center at Surat but it was refused by the Mughal Emperor due to Portuguese pressure.
    • Later in 1612, when the Portuguese fleet was defeated by the English, Jahangir issued a Farman (permission letter) to the English and they established a trading factory at Surat in 1613.

Related Questions

Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? What wrong with respect to India are the Europeans responsible for?
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? According to the writer the responsibility of explaining the facts about India to Europeans rests with?