History 2021 Paper I 50 marks Discuss

Q8

(a) "The Chola rulers were not only mighty conquerors, efficient administrators but also builders of fine temples." Comment. (15 marks) (b) Discuss with relevant illustrations the relations between Akbar and the Rajput states. (15 marks) (c) How far is it justified to consider the states like Bengal, Awadh and Hyderabad as 'successor states' of the Mughal state? (20 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) "चोल शासक न केवल प्रबल विजेता, कुशल प्रशासक थे बल्कि उत्कृष्ट मंदिरों के निर्माता भी थे।" टिप्पणी कीजिए। (15 अंक) (b) अकबर और राजपूत राज्यों के बीच संबंधों की प्रासंगिक दृष्टांतों के साथ चर्चा कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) बंगाल, अवध और हैदराबाद जैसे राज्यों को मुगल राज्य के 'उत्तराधिकारी राज्य' मानना कहाँ तक उचित है? (20 अंक)

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

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. 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 'discuss' for part (b) and 'comment' for part (a) require balanced exposition with critical evaluation; part (c) demands analytical judgment on the 'successor state' concept. Allocate approximately 25-30% time/words to part (a) (15 marks), 25-30% to part (b) (15 marks), and 40-45% to part (c) (20 marks) given its higher weightage and historiographical complexity. Structure: brief integrated introduction on state formation in medieval India; three distinct sections with sub-headings for each part; conclusion synthesizing how regional powers emerged from imperial frameworks across Chola, Mughal, and post-Mughal contexts.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Chola military expansion under Rajaraja I and Rajendra I (naval expeditions to Southeast Asia, conquest of Sri Lanka); administrative innovations (ur, sabha, nagaram assemblies; brahmadeya and devadana inscriptions; land revenue system; standing army and kaditram); temple architecture (Brihadeeswarar/Tanjore, Gangaikondacholapuram, Airavatesvara/Darasuram as UNESCO sites; Dravidian style features; bronze iconography like Nataraja)
  • Part (b): Akbar's Rajput policy evolution from conflict (siege of Chittor 1567, Merta) to integration (1562-1590s); specific illustrations: matrimonial alliances (Jodha Bai/Harkha Bai, marriages into Kachhwaha, Rathore, Sisodia houses); mansabdari incorporation (Raja Bharmal, Raja Bhagwant Das, Man Singh I, Todar Mal); religious accommodation (abolition of jizya 1564, pilgrimage tax; Rajput influence on Mughal painting, architecture, literature); comparative mention of Jahangir-Shah Jahan period deterioration
  • Part (c): Definition of 'successor state' (formal recognition of Mughal sovereignty vs. de facto autonomy); Bengal under Murshid Quli Khan, Alivardi Khan, Siraj-ud-daulah (diwani rights, semi-independent coinage, tribute to Delhi); Awadh under Saadat Khan Burhan-ul-Mulk, Safdar Jung, Shuja-ud-daulah (wazir title, military expansion, cultural patronage); Hyderabad under Nizam-ul-Mulk Asaf Jah (first to declare independence 1724, Deccan autonomy, subsidiary alliances); historiographical debate: Satish Chandra's 'Mughal successor states' vs. Muzaffar Alam's 'regional polities' thesis; structural continuity (mansabdari, jagirdari, revenue administration) vs. rupture (new regional elite, vernacularization, British intervention)
  • Synthesis: Comparative assessment of how Chola imperial integration, Akbar's Rajput incorporation, and post-Mughal regionalization represent different models of state formation in Indian history; continuity and change in administrative institutions, legitimacy claims, and center-region relations
  • Critical evaluation: Avoid romanticizing Chola 'golden age' or Akbar's 'secularism'; acknowledge historiographical shifts from nationalist to Cambridge School to Subaltern Studies interpretations; gender perspective on Rajput alliances; economic foundations of successor states (iqtadari to zamindari transition)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Chronology accuracy18%9Precise dating for Rajaraja I (985-1014 CE), Rajendra I (1014-1044 CE), Rajaraja II, Kulottunga I; Akbar's reign (1556-1605) with key events (Chittor 1567, marriage alliances 1562-1570s, mansabdari reforms 1570s-1590s); post-Mughal chronology (Aurangzeb's death 1707, Farrukhsiyar's death 1719, Hyderabad 1724, Bengal autonomy c.1717, Awadh 1722); correct sequencing of temple construction phasesBroad century-level accuracy with minor errors (e.g., conflating Rajaraja I and II, vague 'late 16th century' for Akbar's reforms, imprecise dating of successor state emergence); some correct reign periods but missing specific event datesSerious chronological confusion (Cholas as 'ancient' rather than medieval, Akbar-Shah Jahan period mix-up, treating successor states as contemporary with Aurangzeb's peak reign); anachronistic attributions
Source & evidence22%11Primary source citations: Chola copper-plate inscriptions (Anbil, Tiruvalangadu, Leyden grants), Uttaramerur inscription for local administration; Abu'l Fazl's Ain-i-Akbari and Akbarnama for Rajput policy; Persian chronicles (Khafi Khan, Siyar-ul-Mutakherin) for successor states; epigraphic evidence of temple donations; specific architectural/artistic evidence (Tanjore temple inscriptions, Rajput paintings in Mughal albums); quantitative data on mansabdari ranks, revenue figures where relevantGeneral reference to 'inscriptions' or 'Persian sources' without specificity; mentions of Abu'l Fazl or Kalhana without direct evidentiary use; some architectural examples but without connecting to historical argument; secondary textbook references without primary source groundingNo source attribution; reliance on outdated generalizations; factual errors about evidence (e.g., citing Arthashastra for Chola administration, treating Padmavat as historical source for Akbar's period); purely narrative approach without evidentiary anchoring
Multi-perspective analysis22%11Multiple analytical angles: for (a) military, administrative, religious, economic, artistic dimensions with their interconnections; for (b) political (imperial integration), social (kinship networks), cultural (syncretism), gender (Rajput queenly agency) perspectives; for (c) political economy (revenue extraction), military-fiscal (army organization), legitimacy (symbolic sovereignty), diplomatic (British-French rivalry) dimensions; balanced treatment of Mughal center and regional periphery; comparison across three time periodsTwo-dimensional analysis (mainly political-military); some awareness of social/cultural factors but underdeveloped; treats each part separately without cross-referencing; either center-focused or region-focused but not bothSingle-factor explanation (e.g., only military conquest for Cholas, only religious policy for Akbar, only 'weak Mughal emperors' for successor states); no recognition of complexity or contradiction in historical processes
Historiographic framing20%10Explicit historiographical positioning: for Cholas—Nilakanta Sastri's traditional narrative vs. Burton Stein's 'segmentary state' model vs. Noboru Karashima's statistical analysis of inscriptions; for Akbar-Rajput relations—Ashraf Husain's diplomatic history vs. Dirk Kolff's 'Rajput brotherhood' thesis vs. Ruby Lal on gender; for successor states—Satish Chandra's institutional continuity vs. Muzaffar Alam's 'crisis of jagirdari' vs. C.A. Bayly's 'indigenous capital' thesis; awareness of how 'successor state' category itself is historiographically constructedImplicit awareness of debates without naming historians; some mention of 'different views exist' without elaboration; one historiographical reference (typically textbook-level); conflation of primary sources with historiographyWholly presentist or nationalist framing (e.g., 'Akbar was secular', 'Cholas were great patriots'); no recognition that interpretations change over time; treating all sources as equally authoritative; anachronistic value judgments
Conclusion & synthesis18%9Integrated conclusion connecting all three parts: comparative analysis of imperial formation strategies (Chola temple-network state, Akbar's incorporation model, post-Mughal fragmentation); nuanced judgment on 'successor state' concept acknowledging both institutional continuity and transformative rupture; recognition of long-term patterns in Indian state formation; qualified assessment that avoids both excessive continuity and excessive periodization; may suggest relevance for understanding contemporary federalism or regional identitiesSeparate concluding paragraphs for each part without integration; summary restatement of main points; some comparative gesture but superficial; either too decisive ('clearly successor states') or too vague ('it was complex')No conclusion or abrupt ending; introduction repeated as conclusion; contradictory judgments across parts; extreme positions (complete novelty or complete continuity for successor states); irrelevant moralizing

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