NCERT Solutions Poorvi Chapter 1 Wisdom Paves the Way (play) — Let us think and reflect (II)

Book page 39 Updated on2026-09-05

Q1.

1. What does the dusty road leading to Ujjain tell us about the challenges of the young men’s journey?

Answer

It tells us the journey has been long, hot and uncertain — and the play establishes this before a single word is spoken.

The opening stage direction sets it: the four are “walking along a dusty road”, they “appear travel-worn but resolute”, and “the sun is high”. The dialogue then supplies the measure — ten days from their village, with Ram Datt admitting that “every day feels longer than the last”. Dust, midday sun and worn clothes together say what none of the men says aloud: this has been hard, and they are near the end of their patience.

Why the playwright chose a dusty road: Two reasons, and the second is the better one.

It contrasts with what comes next. Scene II opens in a hall “adorned with rich draperies, tall columns, and a golden canopy”. The dust makes the throne room brighter.
The dust is also the evidence. A paved road keeps no footprints. It is precisely because the road is dusty that a camel’s limp, its blindness and its pain can be read there at all. The setting that looks like the men’s hardship turns out to be the instrument of their success.

Q2.

2. Why did the merchant become suspicious of the four men? What does this tell us about him?

Answer

Why he grew suspicious: because four complete strangers described his camel exactly — lame in one leg, blind in the right eye, a short tail, and suffering from a stomach pain for two weeks — and then told him they had never seen the animal. To him the two facts could not both be true. As he put it to the King, “These men know every detail of my missing camel, yet they insist they have never seen it. They are undoubtedly the thieves. How else could they know so much about it?”

What it tells us about him:

He is anxious, and anxiety makes him hasty. He arrives “panting and distressed”, having lost something valuable. He is not a wicked man; he is a frightened one.
He cannot imagine knowledge arrived at by reasoning. His first guess is magic — “Surely you are a healer!” — and his second is theft. The idea that a road could be read never occurs to him.
He accuses without proof. His whole case is a rhetorical question, “How else could they know?”, which is a confession that he cannot think of another explanation, not evidence that none exists.
He does trust the law. He takes the matter to the King instead of raising a mob — which is why the play can end with his education rather than his punishment.

The reasoning error he makes: He assumes that because he can think of only one explanation, only one explanation exists. The four men do the opposite throughout — they look for the explanation that fits the evidence, however unlikely. That contrast is the argument of the play.

Q3.

3. How do the four young men’s observations about the camel serve as a turning point in the play?

Answer

They turn the men’s greatest danger into the opportunity they had been unable to arrange for themselves.

At the start of Scene I the problem is stated plainly: Ram Datt wishes for an audience with the King, and Har Datt replies that “gaining an audience with the King is no simple task. We need to devise a strategy.” They never do devise one. The camel does it for them.

The same four observations work twice, in opposite directions:

Unexplained, they are evidence of guilt. Knowing so much about a camel you have not seen looks like the knowledge of a thief. That is what drags the four to the palace under accusation.
Explained, they are evidence of genius. Once each man shows the sign he read and the conclusion he drew, the very same knowledge becomes proof of “remarkable intelligence and the ability to see beyond the obvious.”

Why this is a genuine turning point and not merely a lucky escape: The men are never passive. They could have protested their innocence, argued, or begged; instead each answers the King’s “how did you deduce this?” with a chain of reasoning. Fortune brought them to the throne room; it was their own method that got them a post when they arrived.

Q4.

4. Why did the King believe the four young men and not the merchant?

Answer

Because the four gave him reasons and the merchant gave him only a suspicion.

Man	The claim	The evidence offered
Ram Datt	the camel is lame	“only three feet left distinct impressions. The fourth was faint, indicating a limp.”
Shiv Datt	blind in the right eye	“It had nibbled only on the foliage to the left of the road… The leaves on the right hung undisturbed.”
Har Datt	the tail is short	“small droplets of blood along the track, likely from mosquito bites. A camel with a long tail would have fended off these pests with ease.”
Dev Datt	a pain in the belly	“the prints of the camel’s forefeet were deep and clear, while those of the sound hind foot were faint… it was drawing up its hind legs.”
The Merchant	they are thieves	“How else could they know so much about it?” — a question, not a proof.

The principle the King is applying: an explanation that can be checked beats one that cannot. Every statement the four make can be tested by walking back down the road and looking; the merchant’s cannot be tested at all, because it rests on what he was unable to imagine. The King says so in his own words — “Your reasoning is flawless and speaks of wisdom that goes beyond mere sight.” Note also that he does not decide until he has heard all four; he asks each man separately, and each answer stands up.

Q5.

5. How does the capability of the four young men make them suitable to become advisors?

Answer

Because the work of an adviser is precisely the work they have just been doing in front of him: reading a situation others cannot read, and saying what follows from it.

They observe what everyone else walks past. The King himself makes the comparison: “Such detail is not easily noticed by a casual traveller.” A ruler is surrounded by people who report only the obvious.
They reason from evidence to conclusion, not from feeling to conclusion. Each explanation moves in the same disciplined order — sign first, inference second. That is how a good decision is made about a harvest, a border or a tax.
They work as four without repeating each other. Dev Datt notices this on the road: “each of us has learnt something unique.” A council of advisers who all see the same thing is useless.
They stay calm under pressure. Facing a capital accusation, they “bow respectfully… maintaining calm despite the accusations against them.” An adviser who panics in an emergency is worse than none.
They are honest even when honesty is dangerous. They could have invented a story about the camel to escape suspicion. Instead: “We regret to inform you that we do not know where it is.”

What the King is really hiring: not knowledge about camels — that is of no use in a palace — but a method. He says as much: “Your counsel shall guide my decisions.” He wants the habit of mind, and the habit of mind transfers to any subject at all.

Q6.

6. Why does the merchant feel ashamed for accusing the four young men of stealing his camel? Explain in your own words.

Answer

Because his certainty collapses in public, and what replaces it is worse than being proved wrong — it is being shown that he was unjust.

He had come to the King with no doubts at all: the men were “undoubtedly the thieves”. Then, one after another, in front of the whole court, they explained the road to him. Three faint prints and one deep. Leaves eaten on the left. Specks of blood in the dust. Nothing magical, nothing criminal — only looking, which he could have done himself and did not.

Two further things sharpen the shame. First, these were the men who had stopped to help him when he came running and breathless; he repaid their help with a charge of theft. Second, the King makes the lesson public rather than private: “Your accusations are baseless and misguided. These are men of wisdom, not thieves. Go, and continue your search for your camel, and be mindful of whom you accuse in the future.” The stage direction completes it — he “bows deeply and exits, his face red with shame.”

What the play does with him: He is not punished, imprisoned or mocked; he is simply corrected and sent back to his search. That restraint is deliberate. The merchant’s fault — deciding first and thinking afterwards — is an ordinary human one, and the play treats it as a mistake to be learnt from rather than a crime to be paid for.

Was this helpful? Report an error