(a) "Aurangzeb's religious policy was a reflection of the changed political realities of the Mughal Empire." Elucidate. (15 marks)
(b) Define the rise of distinct provincial architectural styles under the Mughal Empire in light of structural diversit

Question

(a) "Aurangzeb's religious policy was a reflection of the changed political realities of the Mughal Empire." Elucidate. (15 marks)
(b) Define the rise of distinct provincial architectural styles under the Mughal Empire in light of structural diversity, cultural interaction and the nature of provincial power dynamics. (15 marks)
(c) Critically examine the political, military and administrative factors that led to the transformation of the Maratha character in the 18th century. How did these changes influence its rise and eventual decline ? (20 marks)

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

Aurangzeb’s policy as statecraft 
Aurangzeb’s religious policy was less a personal crusade than a political instrument responding to changed realities. After Shah Jahan’s death, the Mughal state faced declining jagirdari efficiency, zamindari resistance and the cost of maintaining a large army. The re-imposition of jizya in 1679, and its later use as a source of revenue, reflected fiscal strain and the need to assert authority over non-Muslim subjects; the Deccan wars from the 1680s then intensified military expenditure. The suspension and re-imposition of jizya show that policy was contingent, shaped by court politics and revenue needs, not by a fixed theological programme. Temple destructions in Kuch Behar and Mathura were concentrated in areas of Rajput and regional resistance, not a uniform programme of persecution. Earlier Mughal practice had employed Maratha sardars and tolerated local practices; Aurangzeb’s orthodoxy became a tool to secure Muslim noble loyalty after Rajput defections, including Jaswant Singh’s rebellion and the later rebellion of Prince Akbar. Thus his policy reflected political calculation: piety was mobilised to legitimise central authority, but statecraft, not mere zealotry, shaped its application.

Provincial architecture 
The rise of distinct provincial styles shows structural diversity. In Bengal, Mughal-era buildings adopted do-chala and chauchala roofs, curved eaves and brick construction suited to the monsoon climate and local masons, unlike Delhi’s sandstone congregational mosques. Bengal’s brick and timber forms contrasted with Delhi’s cut sandstone and marble inlays, showing how material availability conditioned imperial aesthetics. In Awadh, Shi’a nawabs patronised imambaras and tombs, creating a public ceremonial architecture that avoided the imperial mosque typology and expressed regional identity. In the Deccan, Mughal-influenced mosques and tombs often simplified or omitted tall minarets, absorbing Adil Shahi and Qutb Shahi traditions while signalling subahdari autonomy. These styles emerged from cultural interaction: local craftsmen, materials and religious communities shaped imperial forms, while subahdars, with limited resources and fading imperial oversight, used architecture to compete for legitimacy. Provincial power dynamics mattered: where nawabs and sardars could command revenue and patronage, they built distinctive monuments; where imperial control weakened, regional elites used architecture to assert sovereignty.

Maratha transformation 
The Maratha character changed from Shivaji’s swarajya, based on a king-in-council ideal and the ashtapradhan, to a Peshwa-dominated confederacy. From Balaji Vishwanath to Baji Rao I, the Peshwa became a hereditary prime minister, centralising decision-making and eroding the earlier council model. Militarily, the Marathas did not abandon light cavalry; the bargir horsemen remained the core of their mobility and raiding power. But they supplemented them with European-style infantry and artillery, especially under Ibrahim Gardi, enabling sieges and pitched battles. Administratively, revenue farming gave way to chauth and sardeshmukhi, which extracted tribute from conquered territories rather than integrating them into a stable territorial state. A Brahminical bureaucracy strengthened Peshwa control but alienated many Maratha chiefs, who expected shared authority. Brahminical centralisation under the Peshwas concentrated authority but narrowed the base of support, contributing to overextension at Panipat.

These changes explain both rise and decline. The Mughal vacuum, fiscal-military innovation and flexible cavalry allowed rapid expansion. Yet extractive revenue, overextension and internal rivalry weakened the confederacy. The defeat at Panipat in 1761 exposed the limits of a plunder-based expansion that could not be converted into durable administration. Subsequent fragmentation among Peshwas and sardars made the Marathas vulnerable to British exploitation of their disunity.

Verdict 
Critically, Aurangzeb’s policy and provincial architectural regionalism were responses to the same decentralising pressures, while the Maratha transformation was both an opportunity and a structural trap. The Peshwa state’s centralisation and extractive finance enabled its rise, but its inability to become a consolidated territorial state, combined with Mughal fragmentation and British intervention, led to decline.

(a) "Aurangzeb's religious policy was a reflection of the changed political realities of the Mughal Empire." Elucidate. (15…

Model answer

What "Critically examine" is asking you to do

Structure that answers it

Where marks are lost

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Practice this exact question

More from History 2025 Paper I