Why is it analytically weak to see pastoralist-peasant relations only as conflict?

Correct answer: In many places there was mutual benefit through stubble, manure and field use

The direct answer is A: in many places pastoralists and peasants benefited one another through stubble, manure, and use of fields. Relations were not always peaceful, because animals could damage crops or access could be restricted, but reducing the whole relationship to conflict is analytically weak. Step by step, after harvest, animals could eat leftover stubble; the animals received food and fields were cleared. Their manure could add fertility to the soil. Farmers and pastoralists could also exchange products or negotiate access. Option A is correct because it recognises cooperation and reciprocity alongside possible disputes. Option B is wrong because the two groups often met and interacted. Option C is wrong because animals did not always ruin fields; timing and agreements could make their presence useful. Option D is wrong because agriculture and pastoralism were economically connected. The Dhangars and Konkan peasants illustrate such cooperation. Memory cue: remember both conflict and mutual benefit.