(a) "Instead of bringing credit, the Ibadat Khana brought growing discredit to Akbar." Comment. (20 marks) (b) How did the Maratha guerrilla warfare tactics contribute to their military successes against larger and more established armies? (15 marks)

Question

(a) "Instead of bringing credit, the Ibadat Khana brought growing discredit to Akbar." Comment. (20 marks) (b) How did the Maratha guerrilla warfare tactics contribute to their military successes against larger and more established armies? (15 marks) (c) Examine the role of Asaf Jahi Dynasty in the political transformation of the State of Hyderabad. (15 marks)

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

The directive 'comment' for part (a) requires a balanced critical assessment rather than mere description, while parts (b) and (c) demand explanatory and analytical treatment respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget (~400-450 words) to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each (~300-350 words) to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief contextual introduction → body addressing each part sequentially with clear sub-headings → synthesizing conclusion that connects Akbar's religious experiments, Maratha military innovations, and Deccan political transformations as part of broader Mughal decline and regional state formation.
- Part (a): Ibadat Khana's establishment (1575), shift from Sunni orthodoxy to open debates, reasons for discredit—alienation of ulema, rebellion of 1580-81, perception of apostasy, yet also acknowledge continued state functionality and Akbar's political consolidation through other means
- Part (a): Distinction between initial credit (intellectual openness, Sulh-i-Kul foundation) versus growing discredit (Mahzar 1579, Din-i-Ilahi 1582, Badauni's hostility, orthodox backlash)
- Part (b): Specific guerrilla tactics—Ganimi Kawa (hit-and-run), use of terrain (Sahyadris, forts like Raigad, Sinhagad), light cavalry (Bargirs), night attacks, avoidance of pitched battles, logistic superiority in own territory
- Part (b): Military successes against specific opponents—Afzal Khan (1659), Shaista Khan (1663), Aurangzeb's Deccan campaigns (1681-1707), and how these compensated for numerical inferiority
- Part (c): Asaf Jahi transition from Mughal subahdari (1724) to independent state, Nizam-ul-Mulk's 1724 defiance of Mughal authority, establishment of hereditary rule, administrative continuity with Mughal institutions, subsidiary alliance with British (1798, 1800), and Hyderabad's survival as princely state till 1948

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Chronology accuracy	20%	10	Precise dating for Ibadat Khana debates (1575-1582), Mahzar (1579), Din-i-Ilahi (1582), Maratha campaigns (Afzal Khan 1659, Purandar treaty 1665, coronation 1674, Aurangzeb's death 1707), and Asaf Jahi chronology (Chin Qilich Khan's appointment 1713, Hyderabad foundation 1724, death 1748, British treaties 1798/1800); no conflation of phases	Broadly correct period placement (16th century for Akbar, 17th for Marathas, 18th for Asaf Jahis) but imprecise on key events; minor anachronisms like treating Ibadat Khana and Din-i-Ilahi as simultaneous without temporal nuance	Serious chronological errors—placing Ibadat Khana in Jahangir's reign, confusing Shivaji with Sambhaji or Rajaram in campaigns, treating Asaf Jahi independence as 1757 Battle of Plassey consequence; timeline collapses into vague 'Mughal period'
Source & evidence	20%	10	Deploys primary sources effectively: Abu'l Fazl's Akbarnama/Ain-i-Akbari for Ibadat Khana's purpose, Badauni's Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh for orthodox critique, Sabhasad Bakhar and Chitnis Bakhar for Maratha tactics, Nizam-ul-Mulk's own writings and contemporary Persian chronicles for Asaf Jahi transition; uses archaeological evidence (fort locations) where relevant	Mentions some sources by name but without specific extraction; general reference to 'contemporary Persian chronicles' or 'Maratha records' without naming; relies on secondary textbook summaries without primary source anchoring	No source citation or entirely fabricated sources; confuses modern historiography with contemporary evidence; cites irrelevant sources (e.g., using Al-Biruni for Akbar's reign)
Multi-perspective analysis	20%	10	For (a): balances Akbar's perspective (political unification) against ulema opposition and modern historiographical debates (Iqtidar Alam Khan vs. Athar Ali); for (b): analyzes from both Maratha tactical innovation and Mughal/Deccani Sultanate strategic failures; for (c): examines Asaf Jahi rule from Mughal center, Hyderabad regional elite, and British imperial perspectives	Presents multiple viewpoints but treats them sequentially rather than in dialogue; acknowledges opposition to Akbar's policies and Mughal difficulties against Marathas without deep structural analysis; one-dimensional treatment of Asaf Jahi 'decline'	Single narrative perspective—uncritical celebration of Akbar as 'great', romanticized Maratha resistance, or teleological account of Asaf Jahi 'corruption'; no recognition of contested interpretations or agency of different social groups
Historiographic framing	20%	10	Demonstrates awareness of major historiographical shifts: for (a) transition from Vincent Smith's 'rational Akbar' to Iqtidar Alam Khan's political reading and Muzaffar Alam's religious politics; for (b) Stewart Gordon's military labor market analysis vs. traditional nationalist narratives; for (c) Karen Leonard's Hyderabad as 'new Mughal' vs. Munis Faruqui's composite culture; situates own argument within these debates	References some historians by name (Sarkar, Richards, Gordon) but without clear articulation of their specific arguments; awareness that interpretations exist but inability to deploy them analytically; mixed pre- and post-revisionist positions without synthesis	No historiographical awareness or reliance on outdated colonial-era frameworks (e.g., 'Hindu reaction to Muslim tyranny' for Marathas, 'Oriental despotism' for all three cases); treats historical interpretation as settled fact
Conclusion & synthesis	20%	10	Synthesizes three seemingly disparate topics into coherent argument about Mughal state formation, adaptation and crisis: Akbar's failed religious experiment as imperial overreach, Maratha innovation as successful regional response to Mughal expansion, Asaf Jahi Hyderabad as post-Mughal successor state—together illustrating themes of military fiscalism, legitimacy crises, and regionalization in early modern India	Brief summary of each part without genuine synthesis; additive rather than integrative conclusion; may gesture toward 'Mughal decline' as common thread without analytical development	Missing conclusion or purely repetitive summary; contradictory final positions (e.g., praising Akbar's tolerance while condemning Ibadat Khana's discredit without resolution); introduces entirely new information in conclusion

Q7

Directive word: Comment

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Practice this exact question

More from History 2024 Paper I