Clarify how mid-eighteenth century India was beset with the spectre of a fragmented polity.
Approach · directive: “clarify”
What it asks · Show how the Mughal centre weakened after 1707 and how a patchwork of successor, rebel and regional powers, none able to command all India, filled the space.
The question has 2 parts — answer each
- Clarify: how the Mughal centre lost real authority after 1707
- Show the patchwork of successor, rebel and regional powers, none able to command all India, and what this fragmentation cost
Open with · By the 1750s the Mughal emperor was a nominal sovereign; real power lay with governors, chieftains and confederacies who fought one another as much as any outside enemy.
Cover
- Mughal decline: weak successors after Aurangzeb, court factions and the invasions of Nadir Shah (1739) and Ahmad Shah Abdali exposed the empire's military and fiscal weakness.
- Successor states: Hyderabad, Bengal and Awadh grew from Mughal provinces whose governors became hereditary and autonomous while still acknowledging the emperor in form.
- Rebel and new states: the Marathas, Sikhs, Jats and Rohillas, and Mysore under Hyder Ali, carved out power at Mughal expense; Rajput states reasserted independence.
- No pan-Indian power: the Maratha confederacy was itself divided among the Peshwa and the Holkar, Scindia, Gaekwad and Bhonsle houses; the defeat at Panipat (1761) ended hopes of a new all-India order.
- Constant rivalry: wars among regional powers and succession disputes, for example in the Carnatic and Hyderabad, produced instability and a market for mercenaries and outside allies.
- Foreign opening: the English and French companies took sides in these quarrels; victories at Plassey (1757) and Buxar (1764) turned a trading company into a territorial power.
Close with · Political fragmentation, rather than lack of resources or cultural unity, made the subcontinent vulnerable to a disciplined, well-financed European power.
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2017, GS Paper I — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 215 words (UPSC limit 150) · Minimalist IAS
By the 1750s the Mughal emperor reigned in name only; real power lay with provincial governors, chieftains and confederacies who fought one another as readily as any outsider.
A hollow centre
- Weak successors after Aurangzeb, factional nobles and the invasions of Nadir Shah (1739) and Ahmad Shah Abdali exposed the empire's military and fiscal collapse.
A patchwork of powers
- Successor states: Hyderabad, Bengal and Awadh grew out of Mughal provinces whose governors became hereditary and autonomous while still acknowledging the emperor in form.
- Rebel and new states: the Marathas, Sikhs, Jats and Rohillas, and Mysore under Hyder Ali, carved out power at Mughal expense; Rajput states reasserted their independence.
- No paramount power: the Maratha confederacy was itself split among the Peshwa and the Holkar, Scindia, Gaekwad and Bhonsle houses, and the defeat at Panipat (1761) ended its hope of an all-India order.
The cost of fragmentation
- Wars among regional powers and succession disputes, as in the Carnatic and Hyderabad, bred instability and a market for mercenaries and outside allies.
- The English and French companies took sides in these quarrels; Plassey (1757) and Buxar (1764) turned a trading company into a territorial power.
It was political fragmentation, not want of resources or cultural unity, that left the subcontinent open to a disciplined and well-financed European power.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.