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.
It asks 3 things — answer each
- Clarify (part 1): how the Mughal centre lost real authority after 1707
- Clarify (part 2): the patchwork of successor, Rajput and rebel states, none able to command all India
- Clarify (part 3): what this fragmentation cost, ending in the Company's rise
Open with · Aurangzeb's death in 1707 left an emperor who reigned in Delhi but no longer ruled the provinces; by mid-century power had splintered among governors, chieftains and confederacies.
Cover
- Timeline: 1707 Aurangzeb dies, 1739 Nadir Shah sacks Delhi, 1757 Plassey, 1761 Panipat, 1764 Buxar.
- Hollow centre: factional nobles and short reigns; Abdali raided north India five times between 1748 and 1761.
- Successor states: governors and zamindars of Awadh, Bengal and Hyderabad became hereditary while acknowledging the emperor.
- Rajputs of Amber and Jodhpur pushed beyond their watan jagirs.
- Rebel states: Sikh misls, Jats under Churaman, Marathas under the Peshwas, Mysore under Hyder Ali.
- No paramount power: Maratha confederacy divided; Panipat (1761) ended its all-India hope.
- Cost: succession wars invited outside allies; Plassey and Buxar made the Company a territorial power.
Close with · The Khalsa striking its own coin in 1765 shows sovereignty had become regional; fragmentation, not want of wealth, let a company with Bengal's revenue become paramount.
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2017, GS Paper I — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 16 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 220words · Minimalist IAS
Aurangzeb's death in 1707 left an emperor who reigned in Delhi but no longer ruled the provinces. By mid-century power had splintered among regional rulers, none able to command the whole.
- 1707: Aurangzeb dies
- 1739: Nadir Shah sacks Delhi
- 1757: Plassey
- 1761: Panipat
- 1764: Buxar
A hollow Mughal centre
- Weak successors: factional nobles and short reigns drained treasury and army.
- Invasions: Nadir Shah sacked Delhi in 1739; Ahmad Shah Abdali raided north India five times between 1748 and 1761.
A patchwork of powers
- Successor states: governors and great zamindars of Awadh, Bengal and Hyderabad became hereditary rulers while acknowledging the emperor in form.
- Rajputs: Amber and Jodhpur, once loyal Mughal servants, pushed beyond their watan jagirs.
- Rebel states: Sikh misls, Jats under Churaman and Marathas under the Peshwas seized Mughal land; Mysore rose under Hyder Ali.
- No paramount power: the Maratha confederacy was split among Peshwa, Holkar, Scindia, Gaekwad and Bhonsle; Panipat (1761) ended its all-India hope.
What fragmentation cost
- Endless rivalry: succession wars, as in the Carnatic, invited mercenaries and outside allies.
- The Company's opening: English and French companies took sides; Plassey (1757) and Buxar (1764) turned traders into territorial rulers.
When the Khalsa struck its own coin in 1765, sovereignty itself had become regional; fragmentation, not want of wealth, let a disciplined company with Bengal's revenue become paramount.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 16 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
