History 2023 Paper I 50 marks Discuss

Q7

(a) The Marathas posed a significant threat to the integrity of the Mughal Empire. Discuss. (20 marks) (b) "Haidar Ali was born to build an empire, and Tipu Sultan to lose one." Comment. (15 marks) (c) Analyze the rise of the Sikhs under Ranjit Singh. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) मुगल साम्राज्य की अखंडता के लिए मराठा एक महत्त्वपूर्ण खतरे की तरह खड़े थे। विवेचना कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) "हैदर अली साम्राज्य का निर्माण करने के लिए पैदा हुआ था और टीपू सुल्तान उसे खोने के लिए।" टिप्पणी कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) रंजीत सिंह के नेतृत्व में सिक्खों के उदय का विश्लेषण कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 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 (a) requires balanced argumentation with evidence, while 'comment' for (b) demands critical evaluation of the quotation, and 'analyze' for (c) needs causal explanation of Ranjit Singh's rise. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, three distinct sections with clear sub-headings, and a synthesizing conclusion that draws parallels between these regional powers' relationships with declining Mughal authority.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Maratha threat to Mughal integrity — Shivaji's establishment of swarajya (1674), plunder of Surat (1664, 1670), execution of Afzal Khan (1659); expansion under Peshwas with Baji Rao I's raid on Delhi (1737), defeat of Mughals at Bhopal (1737), and the decisive Battle of Panipat (1761) showing Maratha reach; Treaty of Purandar (1665) and subsequent conflicts demonstrating persistent challenge to Mughal sovereignty
  • Part (a): Structural weakening of Mughal Empire — Maratha chauth and sardeshmukhi claims across Deccan and beyond, penetration into Malwa, Gujarat, Bundelkhand, and Doab; parallel with Mughal nobiliary fragmentation and financial crisis post-Aurangzeb
  • Part (b): Haidar Ali's empire-building — transformation of Mysore from a jagir to independent kingdom through military modernization (French-trained infantry, rocket artillery), administrative centralization, and territorial expansion against Marathas, Nizam, and British (First Anglo-Mysore War 1767-69)
  • Part (b): Critical evaluation of Tipu's characterization — his continuation of father's military reforms, diplomatic overtures to France and Revolutionary allies, Fourth Anglo-Mysore War (1799) and defeat; counter-arguments emphasizing Treaty of Mangalore (1784), economic development, and resistance against colonialism rather than 'losing' narrative
  • Part (c): Ranjit Singh's rise — unification of misls from 1799, capture of Lahore (1799), establishment of Khalsa rule with non-Sikh participation, modernization of Fauj-i-Khas and Fauj-i-Ain, treaty with British (1809), expansion to Peshawar (1834), and creation of secular administration incorporating Hindu and Muslim nobles

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Chronology accuracy20%10Precise dating across all three parts: for (a) correctly sequences Shivaji-Aurangzeb conflicts, Peshwa expansion phases, and Panipat; for (b) accurately places Haidar's reign (1761-1782), Tipu's reign (1782-1799), and all four Anglo-Mysore Wars; for (c) establishes correct timeline of Ranjit Singh's rise (1799-1839) with specific years for Lahore capture, Treaty of Amritsar (1809), and Peshawar annexationBroadly correct periodization with minor errors (e.g., confusing First and Second Anglo-Mysore Wars, approximate dates for Panipat, general 'late 18th century' framing without specificity)Significant chronological confusion such as placing Shivaji after Aurangzeb's death, conflating Haidar and Tipu's reigns, or misdating Ranjit Singh's consolidation by decades
Source & evidence20%10Deploys specific evidence: for (a) cites Sabhasad Bakhar, Chitnis Bakhar, or Grant Duff's History of the Mahrattas on chauth claims; for (b) references Kirkpatrick's letters on Tipu's diplomacy, Wilks' Historical Sketches of South India, or contemporary French accounts; for (c) uses Sohan Lal Suri's Umdat-ut-Tawarikh, Fakir Syed Waheeduddin's The Real Ranjit Singh, or British Resident reportsUses general historical facts without specific source attribution; mentions treaties and battles by name but without documentary grounding or historian citationRelies on textbook generalizations without specific names, dates, or documentary evidence; confuses primary and secondary sources or cites anachronistic materials
Multi-perspective analysis20%10For (a) balances Maratha expansion narrative with Mughal institutional decay perspective; for (b) presents both colonial historiography (Kaye, Malleson) and nationalist revisionism (Mohibbul Hasan) on Tipu; for (c) examines Ranjit Singh from Sikh, British, Afghan, and internal misl perspectives; demonstrates how each regional power simultaneously threatened and replaced Mughal authority differentlyPresents one dominant narrative per part with brief acknowledgment of alternative views; treats Marathas, Mysore, and Sikhs in isolation without comparative framingSingle-perspective treatment: purely nationalist glorification of all three powers, or purely colonial-critique stance; fails to distinguish between the nature of threats posed by each power to Mughal integrity
Historiographic framing20%10Explicitly engages with scholarly debates: for (a) Stewart Gordon's 'Maratha Confederacy' thesis vs. traditional 'Mughal decline' school; for (b) evaluates whether characterization reflects British colonial bias (Brittlebank's Tipu Sultan) or contains analytical validity; for (c) references Khushwant Singh's Ranjit Singh: Maharaja of the Punjab and Jean-Marie Lafont's French connection; situates all three within C.A. Bayly's 'Indian ecumene' or Muzaffar Alam's 'Crisis of Empire' frameworksImplicit awareness of historiographic positions without explicit naming; describes events in ways that suggest familiarity with scholarly debates without direct citationWholly narrative approach without any historiographic consciousness; treats historical interpretation as settled fact or relies exclusively on dated nationalist or colonial frameworks
Conclusion & synthesis20%10Synthesizes three case studies into coherent argument about 18th-century state formation: distinguishes Maratha 'replacement' of Mughal structures from Mysore's 'alternative modernity' and Sikh 'regional confederation'; addresses why all ultimately failed before British expansion (Maratha defeat 1818, Mysore 1799, Punjab 1849); reflects on whether 'threat to Mughal integrity' framework remains valid given these powers' own fragilitySummarizes each part separately with brief connecting statement about Mughal decline; offers general observation about British advantage without analytical depthMerely restates points from each part without synthesis; or provides entirely new, unsupported argument in conclusion; fails to address the comparative dimension implicit in the tripartite structure

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 2023 Paper I