Socio-Economic Reorientation of Imperial Policy

The first and third statements are accurate; the 1813 Act allowed missionaries into India and mandated an annual educational fund of Rs. 1 lakh. The second statement is false because the 1813 Act explicitly abolished the Company's general trade monopoly (except for tea and China trade) rather than extending it, and charter renewals were traditionally for twenty years, not ten.

The Assertion is true, as cultural intervention began with missionaries and educational funding. Reason 1 correctly supports this by noting the legalization of missionary entry. Reason 2 is historically false because the 1813 Act ended the general trade monopoly (breaking the Company's commercial supremacy), rather than extending a complete monopoly.

The second scenario is correct. The 1813 Act broke the Company's general trade monopoly, allowing independent merchants to trade goods like textiles. Simultaneously, it mandated the state to fund education (Rs. 1 lakh annually) and permitted missionary activity. The first scenario is false (monopoly was broken, missionaries allowed).

Only two propositions are sound (Statements 1 and 3). The Act allowed missionaries and funded education. Statement 2 is false; the general trade monopoly was abolished, not extended, and charters were historically renewed in 20-year intervals.