History 2025 Paper I 50 marks Evaluate

Q7

(a) Portuguese maritime power disrupted the character of trade in the Indian Ocean in the 16th century. Review. (15 marks) (b) Akbar's Rajput policy was shaped by considerations of factional politics in the Mughal court. Discuss. (15 marks) (c) Evaluate the impact of Mughal revenue administration on the agrarian structure of North India. To what extent did it bring continuity and change in the rural socio-economic fabric ? (20 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) पुर्तगाली समुद्री शक्ति ने 16वीं सदी में हिंद महासागर में व्यापार के स्वरूप को बाधित किया। समीक्षा कीजिए। (15 अंक) (b) अकबर की राजपूत नीति मुगल दरबार के गुटीय राजनीतिक विचारों द्वारा निर्मित थी। विवेचना कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) उत्तर भारत की कृषि संरचना पर मुगलकालीन राजस्व प्रशासन के प्रभावों का मूल्यांकन कीजिए। इसने ग्रामीण सामाजिक-आर्थिक ताने-बाने को किस हद तक निरंतरित एवं परिवर्तित किया ? (20 अंक)

Directive word: Evaluate

This question asks you to evaluate. 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 question demands evaluation across three distinct themes: Portuguese maritime disruption (review), Akbar's Rajput policy (discuss), and Mughal revenue impact (evaluate). Allocate approximately 25-30% time/words to parts (a) and (b) each (15 marks), and 40-45% to part (c) (20 marks). Structure with a brief thematic introduction, three clearly demarcated sections addressing each sub-part with specific evidence, and a concluding synthesis on state formation and economic transformation in early modern India.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Portuguese cartaz system, Estado da Índia, naval technology (carracks), shift from peaceful trade to armed commerce, impact on Arab and Gujarati merchants, and limited territorial control vs. maritime dominance
  • For (b): Akbar's matrimonial alliances (Hada, Sisodia, Kachhwaha), mansabdari integration of Rajputs, balance against Turani and Irani factions, role of Todar Mal and Birbal, and evolution from conquest (Chittor 1568) to incorporation
  • For (c): Mansabdari-jagirdari system, zabt vs. batai vs. nasaq assessment methods, role of zamindars as intermediaries, cash nexus and commercialization, peasant stratification, and continuity with Delhi Sultanate iqta system
  • For (c): Tension between jagirdar mobility and agrarian stability, impact on village community, rise of new agricultural classes, and regional variations (Punjab vs. Gangetic plains vs. Deccan)
  • Comparative thread: How each policy reflected Mughal adaptive statecraft—maritime exclusion, ethnic incorporation, and revenue extraction—within broader early modern globalization

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Chronology accuracy18%9Precise dating for (a): Vasco da Gama 1498, Afonso de Albuquerque 1510, cartaz system consolidation; for (b): Akbar's reign phases (1556-1605), specific battles (Haldighati 1576), matrimonial alliances chronology; for (c): Sher Shah's reforms (1540-45) as precursor, Akbar's zabt (1573-75), Jahangir-Shah Jahan modificationsBroad century markers with some specific dates; minor confusion between reign periods or conflating Portuguese governorsAnachronistic dating (e.g., Portuguese impact in 14th century), confused timelines between Akbar and Jahangir, or missing the 16th-century specificity of the question
Source & evidence22%11For (a): cites Portuguese chroniclers (Barros, Correa), Arabic sources (Zainuddin); for (b): Akbarnama, Ain-i-Akbari, Rajput chronicles (Merta, Prithviraj Raso); for (c): Abul Fazl, Dastur-ul-Amal, European travelers (Bernier, Tavernier), revenue statistics from Irfan Habib's Agrarian SystemGeneral reference to Ain-i-Akbari or Portuguese sources without specific citation; some use of secondary scholarshipNo primary source engagement; reliance on textbook generalizations or invented source references
Multi-perspective analysis22%11For (a): balances Portuguese military-commercial view with Indian merchant agency and Ottoman-Mamluk responses; for (b): examines Rajput agency, not merely Mughal incorporation; for (c): analyzes from peasant, zamindar, jagirdar, and state perspectives, noting regional and temporal variationSome acknowledgment of multiple viewpoints but dominated by imperial narrative; limited discussion of subaltern experienceSingle-perspective treatment (e.g., only Mughal official view); no recognition of regional diversity or conflicting interests
Historiographic framing20%10For (a): engages with Pearson's 'containment' thesis vs. Subrahmanyam's 'political economy' approach; for (b): contrasts Satish Chandra's factional analysis with Dirk Kolff's 'Rajputization' thesis; for (c): evaluates Habib's 'crisis' thesis against Moosvi's revisionism and Bayly's continuity argumentsMentions major historians without sustained engagement; some awareness of historiographical debatesNo historiographical awareness; presents conclusions as established facts without scholarly grounding
Conclusion & synthesis18%9Synthesizes three sub-parts into coherent argument about Mughal state formation: maritime exclusion, ethnic incorporation, and agrarian extraction as complementary strategies of early modern empire-building; reflects on long-term legacies for Indian Ocean trade, Rajput-Mughal synthesis, and rural structuresBrief summary of each part without genuine synthesis; some attempt at connection but mechanicalMissing conclusion or three isolated conclusions; no thematic integration across Portuguese, Rajput, and revenue themes

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 2025 Paper I