Mughal Decline

HISTORY AND CULTURE OF PAKISTAN

 Reasons for decline of the Mughal empire

Internal factors External factors

1658 1707 1738 1857

Aurangzeb’s reign Aurangzeb’s Foreign invasions

successors British expansion
It took 150 years after Aurangzeb’s death for the
empire to disintegrate completely
Aurangzeb’s reign
Aurangzeb’s reign = 1658 – 1707 (almost 50 years)
 Reasons for decline of the Mughal empire

Internal factors

1658 1707

Aurangzeb’s reign

▪ A. Aurangzeb’s detrimental policies

▪ B. Civil wars
▪ C. Administrative issues
▪ D. State treasury empty
▪ E. Military expertise declining
 1. Fatwa – e – Alamgiri
6. Extravagance on ▪ Ban on acts forbidden in Islam
mosque architecture ▪ controlling diverse population
through Sharia law

5. Increase in taxes 2. Intolerance towards

Hindus

4. Intolerance towards 3. Intolerance towards

Shias / Pashtuns Sikhs
A. Aurangzeb’s detrimental
policies

B. Civil Wars
 A. Aurangzeb’s detrimental policies
Causes Effects
1. Fatwa – e – Alamgiri It created frustration among
 It was Aurangzeb’s code of law based on masses and hatred towards
Sharia to control public’s moral behavior Aurangzeb’s rule
 He tried to organize empire in accordance
to Islamic laws
 He appointed (censors of public
moral) to keep check on enforcement of
Sharia law
 Ban on drinking and gambling
 Ban on singing an dancing in court
 Ban on Hindu practice of suttee (burning
the widow alive at her husband’s death)
 A. Aurangzeb’s detrimental policies
Causes
2. Intolerance towards Hindus
 Demolition of Hindu temples and Hindus
were not given high positions
 Trade custom fee greater on non - Muslims
─ 2.5% : Muslims
─ 5 % : non – Muslims
 tax | Levied in 1679
─ Imposed on non-Muslim males only
─ Abolished during Akbar’s reign but it
was reimposed by Aurangzeb
─ It was an alternated to join Muslim army
─ Used as a state’s obligation to protect
the non-Muslim life, property and
permission to practice faith
Effects
Cordial ties broke with Rajputs,
who had been crucial to Mughal
stability in the subcontinent since
Akbar’s era
Non-Muslims saw the taxes as an
attempt for forced conversion to
Islam
Rajput rebellion (1679-1681)
Aurangzeb did not allowed the
young Rajput prince to become
ruler of Jodhpur at his father’s
death and instead took control
himself
 A. Aurangzeb’s detrimental policies
Causes Effects
3. Intolerance towards Sikhs Sikh rebellion (1675)
 1675 | ninth Sikh Guru was beheaded by Sikhs turned from a sufi group into
Aurangzeb for: a combative/ militant group –
─ showing sympathy to the Kashmiri under the tenth Sikh Guru,
Brahmins son of the ninth Sikh Guru
─ denial to forced conversion to Islam
Foundations laid for Sikh empire
 A. Aurangzeb’s detrimental policies
Causes Effects
4. Intolerance towards Shias/ Pashtuns • Shia – Sunni differences
 Destroyed Shia States of Deccan to expand • Deccan buffer states removed
control between Mughals and the
─ Bijapur - 1786 Marathas
─ Golkunda - 1787 • Lost support of Muslims in south
against Marathas
 Executed Bohra Muslim religious leader

 1672 – 1674| Pashtun rebellion due to • Attock–Kabul trade route closed

harassment of tribes women by Mughal • Aurangzeb lost Pashtun
governor tribesmen support against Sikhs
and Persians from Punjab and
Frontier
 A. Aurangzeb’s detrimental policies
Causes Effects
5. Increase in taxes – Land Tax Jats rebellion 1688
 Hindu Jats were mostly landowning
peasants or wealthy zamindars

6. Extravagance on mosque architecture Taxes wasted

 Badshahi mosque Seen as supremacy of Islam
 Pearl mosque for private prayers
 B. Civil wars
Causes Effects
 Rajput rebellion State treasury emptied
 Sikh rebellion
 Jats rebellion Heavy taxes imposed to fulfil
 Pashtun rebellion military and court expenditure
 Annexation of Shia states
Military strength declined
 Expansion towards south – Marathas
─ Shivaji defeated in 1665 Soldier demotivated when not paid
─ Pardoned in 1666 fairly
─ Marathas guerilla campaign
─ Marathas occupied Delhi in 1760 Administrative issues
─ In 100 years Marathas owned more land
than Mughals
 C. Administrative Issues
Causes Effects
 Empire size expands Internally broken empire due to unpopular rule
─ north south
Kashmir to Karnataka Aurangzeb absence from central courts (Delhi, Lahore
and Agra) – shifts capital twice
─ east west
Chittagong to Ghazni
Aurangzeb tried to control empire through
instead of nobles/ princes since he did not trusted
them.

Decisions had to be relayed over thousands of miles

taking months before emperor could take decision
 C. Administrative Issues
Causes Effects
 Empire size expands Civil service corrupted
─ north south local officials ineffective and unconcerned with public
Kashmir to Karnataka matters
─ east west
Revenue from tax collection decreased due to dishonest
Chittagong to Ghazni
officials

Wealth made officials indulge in luxury, comfort and

pleasure seeking

Officials became less tolerant of difficult campaigns

Mansabdari system
• a military grading system
• During Akbar’s reign: 1,800 approx.
• During Aurangzeb’s reign:14,500 approx
 E. Military
D. State treasury B. Civil expertise
getting empty Wars declining

Size of empire Emperor’s long

increasing absence from
Tax collectors central courts Mansabdari system
stopped sending not properly
revenue supervised

C. Administrative issues Rise of courtiers

Decision relayed over
thousands of miles before
emperor could take action Aurangzeb’s concentration of power – not trusting
princes and nobles
Civil service
corrupted Aurangzeb’s successors lacked experience
Aurangzeb’s
successors
 Reasons for decline of the Mughal empire

Internal factors

1707 1738

Aurangzeb’s
successors
▪ Problems in Delhi
─ C. Administrative issues
Inherited problems ─ D. State treasury empty
from Aurangzeb’s reign ─ E. Military expertise declining
─ F. Pleasure seeking Mughal nobility
▪ Empire disintegrates/ Rebellion
▪ Wars of succession & rise of Courtiers
 Aurangzeb’s successors lacked experience

Weak control of Aurangzeb’s successors

D. State treasury
getting empty Rise of Pleasure-seeking and
courtiers lazy Mughal nobility
E. Military
expertise declining
Wars of succession

Empire disintegrates into Puppet rulers – 13 Mughal

small independent states emperors in 150 years

Princely nawabs - provincial zamindars Marathas

states governors declared challenged replacing
rebelled independence Mughal power Mughals
Empire disintegrates/ Rebellions
India c. 1730
 Wars of Succession & rise of Courtiers

1738
Foreign
Jahandar Mirza invasions
War of Shah Rafi-ud-Darajat Akbar II
succession strangled • dies due to Alamgir II Only controlled
with Kam in Delhi lung issue Muhammad assassinated by royal establishment
Baksh fort • puppet ruler Shah chief minister in Red fort Delhi
1708 1712 1719 - Feb 1719 Jun - Sept 1754 1806

1707 1713 1719 Feb - Jun 1748 1759 1838

Azam Shah Farrukhsiyar Mirza Ahmed Shah Shah Alam II to
Bahadur Shah I/ blinded and Rafi-ud-Daulah imprisoned placed under 1857
Shah Alam I murdered by • dies due to and blinded British protection Bahadur
becomes king at age courtiers lung issue in his own after Battle of Shah II
63 by defeating Azam • puppet ruler court Buxar in 1764 exiled to
Shah Rangoon,
Burma
External Factors
Reasons for decline of the Mughal empire

External factors

1738 1857

Foreign invasions
British expansion
 Problems in Delhi
Weak and corrupt control
Military expertise weakened

Rebellions
Wars of succession Aurangzeb’s successors empire disintegrated

Empire vulnerable to invasions

Foreign invasions Reasons of British expansion

Nadir Shah Ahmed Shah

Regional Political
1738 -39 Abdali/ Durrani
Supremacy Reasons
1747-69 Economic
Reasons
Foreign invasions
 Empire vulnerable to invasions
Foreign invasions
Nadir Shah
▪ Persian leader
▪ Invaded India in 1738-39
▪ 1738 - captured Ghazni, Kabul and
Peshawar
▪ 1739 - Defeated Mughal emperor
Muhammad Shah at Karnal
▪ 1739 - captured Lahore and Delhi
Successful looting expedition – took
gold, jewels and Peacock throne
British expansion
Ahmed Shah Abdali/ Durrani
▪ Afghan military genius
▪ Led ten invasions from 1747 - 1769
▪ 1748 - captured Kabul and Peshawar
▪ 1749 - annexed Punjab
▪ 1756 - seized Kashmir and Multan
▪ 1761 – Battle of Panipat – drove Marathas
out of Delhi and broke their power
▪ Returned to Kabul since his army
demanded two years arrears of pay and
forced him to give up
Marathas
▪ Devoted Hindu guerilla fighters from Deccan/ South India
▪ Led by Shivaji, who was defeated in 1665 but pardoned in 1666
▪ Aurangzeb fought them for 25 years without success
▪ 1737 defeated Mughal army and annexed Malwa in 1738
▪ In 100 years Marathas owned more land than Mughals
▪ Occupied Delhi in 1760
▪ Defeated by Ahmed Shah Abdali at Battle of Panipat in 1761

Battle of Panipat - 1761

▪ Ahmed Shah defeated Marathas
▪ Afghan army – 41,800 cavalry
38,000 infantry
▪ Maratha army – 55,000 cavalry
15,000 infantry
▪ Heir of Maratha’s peshwa was killed and peshwa later died due to shock
 British expansion
Why EIC/ British took interest in India?
 Empire vulnerable to invasions
Foreign invasions
Regional Supremacy
▪ Dutch and Portuguese already controlled
spice trade in East Indies.
▪ Other European nation drove British out
of East Indies
▪ Due to the Industrial Revolution, demand
for cotton, tin, and oil encouraged
colonization of resource-rich areas in East
▪ Britain could control sea routes of East
and make British Royal Navy strongest in
the region
British expansion
Why EIC/ British took interest in India?
Economic Reasons
▪ India considered as a golden sparrow
▪ Rich fertile land
▪ Raw material availability: cotton, silk,
yarn, opium, gold, silver, Indigo blue
dye, spices, Indian metal work,
soldiers to fight in war etc.
 British expansion
Why EIC/ British took interest in India?

Political Reasons
The weak rule of Mughals and foreign invasion provided British the opportunity to control
the resource rich land of South Asia

Robert Clive Battle of Plassey Battle of Buxar

• Who was Clive? • When?

• Why he came to India?
• What did he do?
• Why was that considered
as an achievement?
• How was he rewarded?
• Who were the opposing forces?
• Why did it took place?
• Who won?
• How did they won?
• What was the impact?

Exploitation of Bengal leading to Pitt’s India Act 1784

▪ Robert Clive came to India as a clerk and later joined army.
▪ He became a general in EIC armed forces in India and defeated the French, and Nawab of
Bengal Siraj-ud-Daulah in Battle of Plassey 1757.

▪ After winning the Battle of Plassey, he was made governor of Bengal and enabled British
supremacy there.

▪ He increased the power of merchants and established

Oudh as a buffer state between Bengal and the Marathas.

▪ He introduced a number of reforms, such as dual system

government, civil reforms, abolition of private trade system
Society of Trade, military reforms etc.

▪ However, in Britain he was accused of plundering India' but

was found not guilty. This disgrace made him addicted to
opium, which caused him to take his own life in 1773.
 BLACK HOLE INCIDENT
Background:
▪ In the mid-1700s, the British East India Company (EIC) was seeking to expand its control of
trade and territory in India. The rich region of Bengal was an obvious target, and Calcutta
(Kolkata) became a major trading port for the company.

▪ The French were also present in the region at Chandernagore.

▪ In 1756 EIC started to strengthen the fortification of Fort William, fearing an aggression
from the French. They also started to increase their army and mounted guns on the walls
of the fort against the permission of Nawab of Bengal, , Siraj ud-Daulah.

▪ On encouragement by the French, the Nawab of Bengal, marched on the city in June 1756.
A short siege followed, and the city was invaded. (Kolkata was founded by the British EIC)
 BLACK HOLE INCIDENT
▪ The English prisoners, which included some women
and children too, were locked in the prison room of
Fort William for a night.

▪ The prison room was 18 feet long and 14 feet wide.

The number of prisoners is told to be 146 and clearly
the room was too small to hold such a large number
of people. Yet Nawab's army shut up these many
prisoners in the room. They cramped for space.

▪ In the scorching heat of June, excessive perspiration

and suffocation took a heavy toll. Many died in the
night itself. The next morning, when the prison
window was opened, the suffocating prisoners were
trampled one over another to get near the window.
 BATTLE OF PLASSEY
▪ The battle took place at Plassey on the banks of the Bhagirathi River, north of Calcutta
between Siraj-ud-Daulah, Nawab of Bengal, and the British East India Company in 1757.

▪ The battle was in retaliation for the Black Hole incident at Fort William. The British sent
reinforcements under Robert Clive who bribed Mir Jafar, one of Siraj's key men.

▪ Siraj-ud-Daulah's army with 50,000 soldiers, 40 canons and 10 war elephants was defeated
by 3,000 soldiers of Robert Clive in 1757. Siraj-ud-Daulah was killed in the battle and his
body was found in a river after battle.

▪ As a result of battle, EIC controlled trade in Bengal and Robert Clive was made Governor of
Bengal.

▪ EIC exercised enormous influence over the new Nawab Mir Jaffar and acquired significant
concessions for previous losses and revenue from trade and used this revenue to increase
their military might.
 BATTLE OF BUXAR
▪ The Battle of Buxar was fought in 1764 between East India company led by Hector Munro
and the combined army of Mir Qasim, the Nawab of Bengal; Shuja-ud-Daula the Nawab of
Oudh and the Mughal King Shah Alam II.

▪ The battle was fought at Buxar, a town of Bengal, located on the bank of the Ganges River.

▪ It was a decisive victory for the British East India Company. The EIC then became the
supreme authority in Bengal and its prestige was greatly enhanced.

▪ The prime victim, Shah Alam II, signed the Treaty of Allahabad that secured Diwani Rights
for the company to collect and manage the revenues (taxes), of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa.

▪ The company thus became the de facto ruler of the areas.

British control after
Pitt’s India Act 1784
 WARREN HASTINGS
Refer to Nigel Smith – page no. 25
Q. How far was Indian resistance to British expansion in the subcontinent
successful before 1850? (14)

GUIDELINES:
Explains Indian successes AND later / eventual British success

The Indians fought back as the British expanded their control in the subcontinent. Initially each one
of them had some success against British EIC, however, they lost eventually against the might of the
British.

Under this question we will discuss the following:

1. Aurangzeb’s initial success against EIC
2. EIC got control of Bengal (Battle of Buxar and Plassey) – already done
3. Tipu Sultan
4. Anglo-Maratha Wars
5. Annexation of Sindh
6. Anglo-Sikh Wars and annexation of Punjab
7. Titu Mir
8. Subsidiary Alliance and Doctrine of Lapse
Q. How far was Indian resistance to British expansion in the subcontinent
successful before 1850? (14)

Source - CAIE Marking Scheme

FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
May agree that several rulers were able to limit British expansion:
• Haidar Ali was undefeated against the British army (defeated the British Bombay army in
1767, broke the siege of Bangalore in 1768, captured Arcot in 1780)
• Haidar Ali signed a treaty with the British to end the war in 1769
• Tipu Sultan defeated a British army at Kollidam in 1782
• In 1784 Tipu Sultan made peace with the British and became the Sultan of Mysore
• Tipu Sultan invaded Travancore in 1789 which was a British ally
• Ranjit Singh signed agreements with the British in 1806 and 1838
• Titu Mir recruited 500 local militiamen to harass the zamindars and the British forces
supporting them
• Titu Mir built a fort at Narkelbaria to protect himself and his forces against British reprisals
Counter-arguments:
• Tipu Sultan was defeated by the British at Seringapatam in 1799
• resistance to the British from the Marathas disappeared after 1818
• Titu Mir was killed in battle in 1831 when his forces were attacked
• Titu Mir's fort was destroyed by British cannons
• the death of Ranjit Singh marked the end of effective resistance
• the British had a strong and well-trained army
• the British had a good administrative system
• the British conquests had seized vast resources, especially in Bengal, battle of Plassey and battle
of Buxar etc.
• the British got control of vast areas through subsidiary alliance
Aurangzeb’s initial success against EIC
EIC went to war with Aurangzeb in 1686 when they refused to pay taxes and started
to issue their own coins. They were defeated in 1691 and had to pay a heavy fine to
restore trade in India. (success)

Battle of Buxar
The first opportunity came in 1757 when battle of Plassey took place. EIC under
Robert Clive met the army of Siraj-ud-Daulah, the Nawabs of Bengal. Though Siraj’s
army consisted of 50,000 men and heavy artillery, the treachery of Siraj’s general
Mir Jafar, who was bribed by Clive, led to the defeat of the Nawab. This marked the
first major military success for the British. (failure)

Battle of Plassey
The success was followed by the battle of Buxar when the combined forces of Mir
Qasim, Shah Alam II, and Nawab of Oudh were defeated in 1764. This gave the
British control of revenue collection of Bengal province, the richest province of the
subcontinent. (failure)
 Tipu Sultan
Anglo-Mysore wars
The Anglo-Mysore Wars were a series of wars fought over the last three decades of
the 18th century between the Kingdom of Mysore and the British East India
Company.

Hyder Ali and his successor Tipu Sultan fought a war on four fronts: with the British
attacking from the west, south and east, while the Marathas and the Nizam's forces
attacked from the north.
(success)
The First Anglo-Mysore War (1767-69)
saw Hyder Ali gained some measure of
success against the British, almost
capturing Madras.

In the Second Anglo-Mysore War

(1780-84), Hyder Ali captured Arcot in
1780. Later Tipu Sultan defeated the
British forces in 1782. The war ended in
1784 with a peace treaty and Tipu
Sultan became the Sultan of Mysore
after his father. Hyder Ali’s death.
What can we learn
from Source B
about Tipu Sultan,
ruler of Mysore?
What can we learn from Source B about Tipu Sultan, ruler of Mysore?
Contextual knowledge Valid inference
• Tipu Sultan was known as the • Tipu Sultan looks brave/courageous
‘Tiger/Sultan/Lion of Mysore’ • he looks like a warrior/ready for war
Valid
• there were legends about Tipu Sultan • he looks strong/powerful
inferences
killing a tiger with his bare hands • its looks like he was important
and
• he had a reputation of being able to • he looks confident
contextual dominate/control tigers • he looks wealthy
knowledge • regarded as a fearless warrior/enemy • he looks a proud man
(recall and • he may have kept tigers as pets
connect) • his palace was decorated with tiger
accessories and skins were used as
soft furnishings
Surface feature
• Tipu Sultan is well dressed/groomed/he has a moustache
• his face shows no expression of fear
Surface
• he has a sword
features
• he is fighting a tiger
(what do • there is blood
you see?) • it is taking place outdoors/in the countryside
• he is opening the tiger’s mouth
• they are standing up to each other
(failure)
• In the Third Anglo-Mysore War (1790-92), Tipu Sultan, invaded Travancore in
1789, which was a British ally.
• The resultant war lasted three years.
• The war ended after the 1792 siege of Seringapatam.
• A Treaty of Seringapatam was signed, according to which Tipu had to surrender
half of his kingdom to the British East India company and its allies.
Source B
What can we learn from Source B about the treatment of Indian
hostages during the Mysore Wars?

(Four marks for one supported valid inference, five marks for two or more
supported valid inferences)

(Two marks for one unsupported inference, three marks for two or more
unsupported inferences)

(One mark for any identified surface feature)

Lieutenant-General Lord Cornwallis receiving the Mysorean Hostage Princes
after the Third War at Seringapatam in 1792
 Valid inferences
and contextual
1 knowledge
(recall and
connect)

Unsupported
inferences
2
(what does it
mean?)

Surface features
3 (what do you
see?)
(failure)
• The Fourth Anglo-Mysore War (1799) saw the death of Tipu Sultan.
• Mysore was attacked from all four sides and Tipu's army were outnumbered in
this war.
• Mysore had 35,000 soldiers, whereas the British commanded 60,000 troops.
• The Nizam of Hyderabad and the Marathas launched an invasion from the north.
The British won a decisive victory at the Siege of Seringapatam (1799).
• Tipu was killed during the defense of the city.
• Tipu’s chief minister, Mir Sadiq was bribed by Governor-General Lord Wellesley.
• Mir Sadiq withdrew his troops during the siege.
Anglo-Maratha wars
The Anglo-Maratha Wars were three wars fought in the Indian sub-continent
between Maratha Empire and the British East India Company.

(success)
The First Anglo-Maratha War was fought from 1775-1782 between the British East
India company and Maratha Empire in India. The war ended with the Treaty of
Salbai and both parties did not fought for the next 20 years.
(failure)
The Anglo-Maratha War in (1803-1805)
was the second conflict between the
British East India company and the
Maratha Empire in India.

(failure)
The Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817-
1818) was the final and decisive conflict
between the British East India company
(EIC) and the Maratha Empire in India.
The British won the war and got control
of most of India.
Sindh annexed
Why did the British annexed Sindh?
The annexation of Sindh - A shameful British act? – Source: Nigel Kelly
By the early nineteenth century the British were becoming increasingly concerned about
Russian expansion. The British wanted to make sure that Afghanistan did not fall into Russian
hands. The British agreed with the Sikh ruler of the Punjab, Ranjit Singh, that Afghanistan
should remain independent. They hoped that Ranjit Singh would help them install a pro-
British ruler in Kabul. He did not support them, so the British went ahead on their own.
However, a rebellion in Afghanistan in 1841 led to all British troops in the country being killed.

The British felt that their pride had been hurt by this loss in Afghanistan and decided to turn
on Sindh. This territory was ruled by a collection of Amirs who had signed a treaty of
friendship with Britain in 1809. However, the British wanted to regain their prestige and also
to make sure that Sindh could not be a target for Sikh expansion. Ranjit Singh had been
following a policy of extending his kingdom and this had worried the British, so they decided
to annex Sindh. All they needed was an excuse. The British general, Sir Charles Napier
provoked the Amirs of Sindh so much that they attacked the British Residency in 1843. He now
had his excuse for war.
Punjab annexed
Anglo-Sikh wars
Why were the British able to annex Punjab?
Annexation of the Punjab and the North West Frontier
Shortly afterwards the Punjab also fell into British hands. Ranjit Singh had signed a treaty of
'perpetual friendship' in 1809 but, after his death in 1839, rival chiefs argued amongst
themselves over who should be king. The army attacked British possessions south of the River
Sutlej and provoked the British to invade the Punjab.

Following the Treaty of Lahore of 1846 the Sikhs paid a huge indemnity and Gulab Singh
Dogra, a Hindu chief who had helped the British, was given Kashmir as a reward. Finally in
1849, after a revolt against the British, the Punjab and the North Western Frontier were
annexed and became part of the British empire on 30 March 1849.
Titu Mir
Syed Mir Nisar Ali commonly known as Titu Mir was a great Bengali freedom fighter and
a peasant leader who resisted the oppression of the local zamindars and European indigo
planters.

WORK:
In 1827 Titu Mir returned to Bengal and preached pure Islam amongst the Muslims and
advised them to refrain from practicing non-Islamic rituals. He had great influence on
weavers and peasants but came in conflict with oppressing zamindars, who had imposed
an annual tax on all bearded Muslim to isolate Titu Mir of their support.

To overcome the force of the zamindars Titu Mir organized a Mujahid force and trained
local people with lathi (bamboo stick). With an army of 5000 men, he had built a
bamboo fort at Narkelbaria in October 1831. He proclaimed himself the ruler and
initiated jihad. He soon established his control over the local districts including Faridpur.
Titu Mir demanded tax from the zamindars who asked the European indigo planters for
protection. A British force was sent from Calcutta. But the combined forces of the
British and Zamindars met humiliating defeat at the hands of the mujahids in the first
battle.
WORK:
Afterwards the British sent a regular army against Titu Mir under consisting of 100
cavalry, 300 native infantry and artillery with two cannons. The British attacked the
mujahids on 14 November 1831 under Major Scott and Major Sutherland.

The mujahids failed to resist the British army outfitted with modern arms and took
shelter inside the bamboo fort. The British opened fire and totally destroyed the fort
causing heavy casualties on the side of the mujahids. Titu Mir along with many of his
followers died on 19 November 1831.

350 mujahids including their commander Ghulam Masum were captured. Ghulam
Masum was sentenced to death penalty and other 140 captives were punished on
different charges.

Aid to Learning
How did Titu Mir protected the interests of Muslim farmers in the
subcontinent?
Subsidiary Alliance
Doctrine of Lapse
How did subsidiary alliance and Doctrine of Lapse help British expand their
control in subcontinent?
Subsidiary Alliance
Local rulers were persuaded to sign
subsidiary alliances by Lord Wellesley
who became Governor General in
1798. The local ruler continued to run
their affairs while British soldiers
offered protection against external
threats. In return for this protection
the ruler paid for the cost of the
soldiers and accepted a British
Resident adviser, who oversaw all the
political and legal matters of that
princely state. This consolidated
Britain’s power in India at little cost and
extended British control.
The Doctrine of Lapse
In 1852 Governor-General Dalhousie extended
British control even further by applying the
Doctrine of Lapse. When a ruler died without a
natural heir the British would annex his lands. So
Satara, Nagpur and Jhansi soon fell into British
hands. Not surprisingly, this was an unpopular
policy and caused much resentment, especially
when it was used just as an excuse to take land.
For example, in 1856 the Nawab of Oudh died,
and although he had several legal heirs, Dalhousie
declared that the Nawab had governed his people
badly and took Oudh under British control. More
than anything, this act showed how Britain was
now dominant in India.
 Source A
sample questions
According to Source A, Mir Jafar was unpopular as Nawab of Bengal. Identify three ways
he was unpopular.
According to Source A, Mir Jafar was unpopular as Nawab of Bengal. Identify three ways
he was unpopular.
Target: AO4
▪ Mir Jafar allowed the British 'to take important lands around Calcutta’
▪ he made 'regular payments of huge sums of money to the British’
▪ ‘Mir Jafar's actions allowed the British to strengthen their trading position‘
▪ he ‘almost brought about Bengal's economic collapse‘
▪ Mir Jafar 'was accused of betraying his country and his people’
▪ 'Mir Jafar made an agreement with the British'
▪ 'his relationship with the British
One mark for each relevant statement correctly identified from the source.

Note: candidates may paraphrase but content must be derived from the bullet point statements
above.
According to Source A, which policies do some historians claim contributed to the
increasing instability of the Mughal Empire by the time of Aurangzeb’s death?
According to Source A, which policies do some historians claim contributed to the
increasing instability of the Mughal Empire by the time of Aurangzeb’s death?
Target: AO4
▪ Aurangzeb introduced ‘restrictions on personal behavior’ [1]
▪ he banned ‘outdoor singing’ [1], ‘dancing’ [1]
▪ he ‘made a declaration on the length of beards’ [1]
▪ he ‘increased taxes’ [1] ‘to pay for many expensive wars’ [1]
▪ he ‘used large amounts of money’ [1] ‘to pay for luxurious buildings’ [1]

One mark for each relevant statement correctly identified from the source.

Note: candidates may paraphrase but content must be derived from the bullet point statements
above.