History 2021 Paper I 50 marks Examine

Q6

(a) Discuss the transformation of Sikh community from a Nirguna Bhakti sect into a politico-military organization. (15 marks) (b) Give your assessment of Bahlul Lodi's relation with his nobility. (15 marks) (c) Examine the basic features of Mughal tomb architecture with special reference to the Taj Mahal. (20 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) सिख समुदाय के निर्गुण भक्ति संप्रदाय से राजनीतिक-सैन्य संगठन में परिवर्तन की विवेचना कीजिए। (15 अंक) (b) अभिजात-वर्ग के साथ बहलोल लोदी के संबंध पर अपना आकलन प्रस्तुत कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) ताजमहल के विशेष संदर्भ में मुगल मकबरा स्थापत्य की मौलिक विशेषताओं का परीक्षण कीजिए। (20 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 History questions

Directive word: Examine

This question asks you to examine. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'examine' requires critical investigation with evidence-based analysis across all three parts. Allocate approximately 30% time/words to part (a) on Sikh transformation, 30% to part (b) on Bahlul Lodi's nobility relations, and 40% to part (c) on Mughal tomb architecture given its higher weightage. Structure with a brief composite introduction, three distinct sectional bodies addressing each sub-part with internal chronology, and a synthesizing conclusion that draws thematic connections between state-building processes across the three cases.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Traces evolution from Nanak's Nirguna Bhakti (15th c.) through Angad, Amar Das to militarization under Guru Hargobind (miri-piri, 1606) and full politico-military organization under Guru Gobind Singh (Khalsa, 1699); cites Mughal persecution (Jahangir's execution of Arjan, 1606; Aurangzeb's execution of Tegh Bahadur, 1675) as catalyst
  • Part (a): Distinguishes between religious transformation (scriptural compilation, Gurmukhi, langar institutionalization) and political transformation (fortification of Amritsar, Akal Takht, rakhi system, later misl formation)
  • Part (b): Analyzes Bahlul Lodi's (1451-1489) ' Afghan oligarchy' model—distribution of iqta's to Lodi clan members, matrimonial alliances with nobility, avoidance of Delhi court centralization, and the ' council of forty' (Turk Chihalgani contrast)
  • Part (b): Assesses strengths (nobility loyalty, successful Afghan consolidation) versus limitations (regional fragmentation seeds, succession disputes under Sikandar and Ibrahim)
  • Part (c): Identifies Mughal tomb architectural vocabulary— hasht-bihisht plan, charbagh garden setting, pishtaq portal, double dome, jali screens, pietra dura inlay; traces evolution from Humayun's tomb (1565, Persian prototype) through Akbar's Sikandra (1605, synthesis) to Taj Mahal (1632-53, apex)
  • Part (c): Taj Mahal specificities—Yamuna riverfront location, perfect bilateral symmetry, bulbous dome with finial, minaret placement, calligraphic decoration by Amanat Khan, material symbolism (white marble, precious stone inlay), and UNESCO/ASI conservation context

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Chronology accuracy20%10Precise dating for all three parts: for (a) correctly sequences Guru successions and identifies 1606/1699 as turning points; for (b) places Bahlul's reign 1451-1489 with accurate succession chronology; for (c) dates Humayun's tomb 1565, Taj Mahal 1632-1653, and correctly identifies Shah Jahan as patronBroadly correct periodization but with minor errors (e.g., conflating Guru Tegh Bahadur and Guru Gobind Singh's periods, vague Lodi dating, or misattributing tomb chronology)Significant chronological confusion—anachronistic placement of Khalsa formation, Bahlul Lodi in Delhi Sultanate generic treatment, or fundamental errors like attributing Taj Mahal to Aurangzeb
Source & evidence20%10Deploys specific evidentiary anchors: for (a) cites Janamsakhis, Bhai Gurdas's Varan, and Mughal court chronicles (Akbarnama, Dabistan-i-Mazahib); for (b) uses Tarikh-i-Shahi, Afif's Tarikh-i-Firuzshahi; for (c) references Abdul Hamid Lahori's Padshahnama, contemporary European accounts (Tavernier, Bernier), and ASI architectural documentationGeneral reference to 'contemporary sources' or 'archaeological evidence' without specific citation, or reliance on secondary textbook summaries without primary source groundingNo source attribution, factual errors in evidence (invented chronicles, misidentified patrons), or complete absence of documentary/archaeological support for claims
Multi-perspective analysis20%10For (a) balances internal religious evolution with external Mughal pressure; for (b) presents both Afghan tribal solidarity and structural weakness perspectives; for (c) integrates Persian, Central Asian, and indigenous Indian architectural influences while addressing labor historiography (artisan communities, pietra dura craftsmen)Single-factor explanations (e.g., Mughal persecution alone for Sikh militarization, or purely personalist reading of Bahlul's nobility policy) with limited causal complexityWholly descriptive treatment without analytical depth, or reductionist arguments (religious fanaticism, despotism) without structural or contextual analysis
Historiographic framing20%10Demonstrates awareness of scholarly debates: for (a) engages with J.S. Grewal's institutional history versus W.H. McLeod's textual criticism; for (b) references Peter Jackson's Afghan polity analysis or Sunil Kumar's Delhi Sultanate nobility studies; for (c) cites Ebba Koch's authoritative Taj Mahal scholarship and Ram Nath's architectural documentationImplicit awareness of standard interpretations without explicit historiographic naming, or uncritical reproduction of nationalist/ colonial historiographical tropesComplete absence of scholarly context, reliance on outdated or discredited frameworks (e.g., 'Islamic despotism,' 'Hindu reaction' without qualification), or conflation of popular mythology with academic history
Conclusion & synthesis20%10Synthesizes across parts to identify broader patterns: the dialectic between religious movements and state formation (Sikh case), the tension between tribal solidarity and bureaucratic state-building (Lodi-Afghan case), and the use of monumental architecture for legitimacy and memory (Mughal case); may reflect on continuities with contemporary Sikh identity, Afghan political culture, or heritage conservationSeparate conclusions for each part without cross-thematic integration, or generic summation without analytical elevationAbrupt termination without conclusion, or conclusion that merely repeats preceding points without synthesis; failure to address all three parts in concluding remarks

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from History 2021 Paper I