With reference to Indian history, which of the following statements is/are correct? 1. The Nizamat of Arcot emerged out of Hyderabad State. 2. The Mysore Kingdom emerged out of Vijayanagara Empire. 3. Rohilkhand Kingdom was formed out of the territories occupied by Ahmad Shah Durrani. Select the correct answer using the code given below.

Links a contender for the Nizami of Hyderabad (Muzaffar Jung) with a claimant to the Nawabi of Carnatic (Chanda Sahib) and shows active political interaction between Hyderabad claimants and Arcot.

A student could check timelines and biographies (who backed whom) and regional maps to see if authority for Arcot was created by or spun off from Hyderabad politics.

Notes direct diplomatic/territorial dealings of the Nizam of Hyderabad with British and mentions Haidar Ali's disputes with the Nawab of Arcot, indicating Hyderabad's political involvement in the region around Arcot.

Compare treaties and territorial control maps (Northern Circars, Deccan, Carnatic) to judge whether Arcot's Nizamat originated as part of Hyderabad or remained distinct.

Describes Hyderabad's geographic position relative to the Coromandel coast and the south (where Arcot/Carnatic lay) and implies Hyderabad's decline affected southern power balances.

Use a map to place Hyderabad and Arcot spatially and examine whether political control radiated from Hyderabad into Arcot during the relevant period.

Defines the foundation of the Hyderabad state under Nizam-ul-Mulk in 1724, establishing Hyderabad as an autonomous Deccan polity during the 18th century.

Overlay the 1724+ chronology of Hyderabad with the emergence dates of the Nawabi of Arcot to see if Arcot developed before, after, or as a product of Hyderabad's rise.

Lists Hyderabad as an example of an autonomous polity created from Mughal decentralisation, implying that regional powers (including Hyderabad) and separate local states like Carnatic co-existed.

Use the general pattern (governors becoming independent rulers) to test whether the Nawab/Nizamat of Arcot was a separate Mughal-era creation rather than a direct offshoot of Hyderabad.

States that Rohilakhand and the Bangash Pathan kingdom were a fallout of mid-18th century Afghan migration and that Ali Muhammad Khan set up a petty kingdom (Rohilakhand) in the Himalayan foothills.

Compare the geography/timeline of Afghan migration and settlements with maps of Ahmad Shah Durrani's campaigns to see if Rohilkhand territory corresponds to areas he occupied or simply to Afghan migrant settlements.

Records that Ahmad Shah Abdali (Durrani) formed an alliance with Najib-ud-daulah of Rohilkhand, indicating political interaction between Abdali and Rohilkhand leaders rather than necessarily direct occupation.

Use this to test whether Abdali's link to Rohilkhand was military/allied influence rather than territorial control by checking primary accounts of his campaigns and alliance arrangements.

Notes Ahmad Shah Abdali invaded India repeatedly (1748–1767) and harassed the Mughals, acquiring territory west of the Indus and prompting cessions like Punjab, showing his capacity to occupy/hold regions.

Map Abdali's documented occupations (e.g., Punjab, west of the Indus) against Rohilkhand's location (Himalayan foothills between Kumaon and the Ganga) to judge overlap or separation.

Explains that after Nadir Shah's assassination Ahmad Shah Abdali became independent and started expeditions, and that Mughals ceded Multan and Punjab to him — exemplifying the kind of territorial gains he secured in the northwest.

Extend by checking whether Abdali's territorial gains in northwest India extended eastward into the Rohilkhand area or remained mainly in Punjab and west of the Indus.

Says that in the wake of invasions by Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Abdali the Sikhs reasserted authority and organised misls, showing Abdali's invasions had regional political effects but not necessarily direct long-term occupation of all affected areas.

Use this pattern (invasions causing regional political reorganisation) to investigate whether Rohilkhand's formation was a direct result of Abdali's occupation or of broader Afghan migration and local power vacuums.