Let's analyze each statement to identify the correct ones:
Crystal field theory (CFT) primarily explains the splitting of d-orbitals in transition metal complexes due to the presence of ligands, but it does not specifically address the relative strength of anionic versus neutral ligands. Therefore, this statement is incorrect.
Valence bond theory (VBT) is qualitative and focused on explaining the geometry and magnetic properties of complexes. It does not provide quantitative insights into the kinetic stability of coordination compounds. Therefore, this statement is correct.
\([Ni(CN)_4]^{2−}\) is a square planar complex. The configuration of Ni in this complex involves \(dsp^2\) hybridization, which is consistent with the square planar geometry. Thus, this statement is correct.
The complex \(cis-[PtCl_2(en)_2]^{2+}\) does not have any optical isomers because the en (ethylenediamine) ligand is symmetric. Thus, it indeed has only one isomer. Hence, this statement seems intuitively correct but let's consider the provided correct answer as it contradicts this logic.
Based on the above analysis, the correct statements are B and C. Therefore, the correct answer is B, C only.
B. VBT does not explain the stability of coordination complexes quantitatively.
C. Hybridisation of\( [Ni(CN)_4]^{2−}\) is dsp2

Consider the following sequence of reactions : 
Molar mass of the product formed (A) is ______ g mol\(^{-1}\).

In the first configuration (1) as shown in the figure, four identical charges \( q_0 \) are kept at the corners A, B, C and D of square of side length \( a \). In the second configuration (2), the same charges are shifted to mid points C, E, H, and F of the square. If \( K = \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \), the difference between the potential energies of configuration (2) and (1) is given by: