Which of the following was not one of the common failures of the Marathas and the Mughals both?

1. The Twilight of Mughals and Rise of Regional Powers (basic)

To understand the 18th century in India, we must look at it not just as the 'fall' of one empire, but as a complex transition. As the Mughal Empire began to fragment after the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, several regional powers emerged. Interestingly, while the Marathas were the primary challengers to Mughal authority, they actually shared several structural 'genes' with the empire they were replacing. Both systems rested on a decadent social order that failed to evolve with the times. For instance, both empires remained technologically and scientifically stagnant, failing to encourage the kind of innovation that was then transforming Europe Modern India, Indian States and Society in the 18th Century, p.35.

Economically, their revenue systems were remarkably similar. The Mughals used the Jagirdari system, while the Marathas employed the Saraniami system. In both cases, the state granted land revenue rights to military commanders or nobles. This often led to revenue farming, where the primary victim was the helpless peasantry, squeezed by ever-increasing demands to fund the wars and lifestyles of the ruling elite Modern India, Indian States and Society in the 18th Century, p.35. Furthermore, both empires struggled with internal cohesion; just as Mughal nobles carved out private principalities, Maratha chiefs tended to assert their autonomy and form loose unions rather than a disciplined, centralized state when central authority weakened Modern India, The Decline of the Mughal Empire, p.12.

However, there is one crucial area where they initially differed: administrative quality. While the later Mughal period was defined by administrative decay and the 'Jagirdari crisis'—where there were too many nobles and too few lands to satisfy them—the Marathas, particularly under Shivaji, had established a remarkably sound and efficient administrative system. It was only in the later stages of the Maratha Confederacy that this efficiency began to mirror the Mughal decline. To compare the two systems clearly, look at the table below:

Feature	Mughal Empire (Later)	Maratha Empire
Revenue System	Jagirs (Land grants to nobles)	Saraniami (Similar to Jagirs)
Economic Basis	Stagnant; heavily reliant on peasant exploitation	Stagnant; similar reliance on land revenue
Science & Tech	Neglected; inward-looking	Neglected; failed to modernize
Administration	Rapid decay and corruption	Initially very sound (Shivaji); later decentralized

Ultimately, the decline of the Mughals was accelerated by Aurangzeb's policy of over-extension in the Deccan, which drained the empire's resources and spurred regional groups like the Jats, Sikhs, and Marathas to defy central authority Modern India, The Decline of the Mughal Empire, p.8. This defiance, combined with internal rot, paved the way for the 'twilight' of the Great Mughals Spectrum, India on the Eve of British Conquest, p.68.

Sources: Modern India (Old NCERT), Indian States and Society in the 18th Century, p.35; Modern India (Old NCERT), The Decline of the Mughal Empire, p.8, 12; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), India on the Eve of British Conquest, p.68

2. The Maratha State: From Kingdom to Confederacy (intermediate)

The Maratha state underwent a profound transformation from a centralized monarchy under Chhatrapati Shivaji to a decentralized confederacy under the Peshwas. Initially, Shivaji established the Ashta Pradhan (a council of eight ministers) to assist in administration, where the Peshwa served as the prime minister. However, as the authority of the Chhatrapati declined after Shivaji, the office of the Peshwa became hereditary and supreme, starting with the genius of Balaji Vishwanath History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p.235. This shift effectively moved the seat of power from the King to the Prime Minister (Peshwa) based in Poona. To manage the rapid expansion of Maratha power and appease various internal political factions, Bajirao I (1720–40) institutionalized the Maratha Confederacy. Under this arrangement, prominent Maratha families were assigned specific "spheres of influence" to conquer and govern, theoretically in the name of the Maratha King, Shahu Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.101. This system allowed the Marathas to dominate large parts of India, but it also led to centrifugal tendencies. Over time, these regional chiefs acquired immense autonomy, leading to occasional indiscipline and a departure from the strict administrative values established by Shivaji Exploring Society: India and Beyond, The Rise of the Marathas, p.70.

Maratha Family	Seat of Power (Sphere of Influence)
Peshwa	Poona
Gaekwad	Baroda
Bhonsle	Nagpur
Holkar	Indore
Sindhia	Gwalior

Despite their military prowess, the confederacy's fatal flaw was the lack of cooperation among its units. Internal rivalries and hostility between families like the Scindias and Holkars prevented a united front against external threats Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.108. This fragmentation, combined with an inferior military organization compared to the English, eventually led to the dissolution of the confederacy and the abolition of the Peshwaship in 1818 Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.107.

Sources: History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p.235; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.101, 107-108; Exploring Society: India and Beyond, Social Science, Class VIII . NCERT(Revised ed 2025), The Rise of the Marathas, p.70

3. 18th Century Agrarian Crisis and Revenue Systems (intermediate)

In the 18th century, the backbone of Indian empires was the agrarian economy. Land revenue was the primary source of state income, but by this period, the system was reaching a breaking point. The Mughal Empire faced what historians call the Jagirdari Crisis. This wasn't just a political issue; it was a fundamental economic failure where the number of nobles (Mansabdars) demanding land grants (Jagirs) far outstripped the available productive land. This state of 'Be-jagiri' (landlessness among nobles) led to fierce factional infighting and intensified the exploitation of the peasantry, as nobles tried to extract every possible penny from their assigned lands to maintain their status Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, India on the Eve of British Conquest, p.66.

Interestingly, the Marathas, who emerged as the primary challengers to Mughal authority, eventually mirrored many of these structural weaknesses. Under the Peshwas, the Maratha military and revenue systems began to resemble the Mughal model. They utilized the Saranjami system, which was essentially the Maratha version of the Jagirdari system—granting land in lieu of cash salaries to military chiefs. As central authority weakened, these chiefs (like the Scindias or Holkars) became semi-autonomous, much like Mughal provincial governors History class XI (Tamilnadu state board), The Marathas, p.236.

One of the most damaging developments in both empires was the rise of Revenue Farming (Ijara). Instead of the state collecting taxes directly through its officials, the right to collect revenue was auctioned to the highest bidder. This middleman, the revenue farmer, had no long-term interest in the welfare of the land or the peasant; their only goal was to recoup their bid and make a profit. This led to a stagnant economy where no surplus was reinvested into agriculture or technology. While trade continued to flow, the productive base of the country was being hollowed out Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, India on the Eve of British Conquest, p.74.

Feature	Mughal System (Late)	Maratha System (Peshwa Era)
Land Grant Type	Jagir	Saranjam
Revenue Collection	Increasingly shifted to Revenue Farming (Ijara)	Combined direct collection with Revenue Farming
Peasant Status	Highly exploited by competing nobles	Subject to high taxes like Chauth and Sardeshmukhi

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), India on the Eve of British Conquest, p.66, 74; Modern India (Bipin Chandra, Old NCERT), The Decline of the Mughal Empire, p.15; History class XI (Tamilnadu state board), The Marathas, p.236

4. Economic and Scientific Stagnation in Pre-British India (intermediate)

In the 18th century, while Europe was undergoing the Enlightenment and the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, India found itself in a state of relative scientific and economic stagnation. This wasn't due to a lack of talent or resources, but rather a decadent social order and an education system that remained tethered to the past. The regional successor states—like the Marathas, the Nawabs of Bengal, and the Nizam of Hyderabad—were politically vibrant but failed to introduce the structural changes needed to modernize the economy. As noted in Modern India, Bipin Chandra, Indian States and Society in the 18th Century, p.35, India failed to progress at a pace that could have saved it from collapse, leaving it vulnerable to external pressures.

The core of this stagnation lay in the traditional education system. While higher education was widespread and supported by the state, its curriculum was narrow. It focused heavily on literature, law, religion, philosophy, and logic, while almost entirely excluding the study of physical and natural sciences, technology, and geography Modern India, Bipin Chandra, Indian States and Society in the 18th Century, p.37. Without a rational and factual study of society, there was little impetus for the kind of scientific inquiry that was transforming the West. This intellectual isolation meant that even as trade flourished, the underlying productive forces remained stagnant.

Economically, 18th-century India was a land of extreme contrasts. On one hand, Indian artisans produced world-class textiles; on the other, agriculture—the backbone of the economy—remained technically backward. The revenue systems used by both the Mughals and the Marathas (such as the Saranjami or Jagir systems) focused on extracting maximum surplus from a "helpless peasantry" to fund constant warfare and the luxury of the nobility Modern India, Bipin Chandra, Indian States and Society in the 18th Century, p.35. This created a cycle where there was no incentive for the peasant to innovate and no interest from the state to invest in agricultural technology.

Feature	18th Century Indian Reality
Education Focus	Traditional: Law, Religion, and Literature.
Science & Tech	Stagnant; lack of interest in Western physical sciences.
Agriculture	Technically backward; high revenue pressure on peasants.
Social Order	Decadent nobility; extreme gap between rich and poor.

Sources: Modern India, Bipin Chandra (NCERT 1982 ed.), Indian States and Society in the 18th Century, p.35; Modern India, Bipin Chandra (NCERT 1982 ed.), Indian States and Society in the 18th Century, p.37

5. The Decadent Social Order: Nobility and Warlordism (exam-level)

To understand why 18th-century India struggled to resist external challenges, we must look at the social structure of the ruling class. While we often blame 'weak kings' for the decline of the Mughal Empire and the eventual fragmentation of the Maratha power, the deeper rot lay in the deterioration of the nobility. In the 18th century, the Mughal nobility was no longer the loyal, disciplined pillar of the state it once was. As noted in Modern India, The Decline of the Mughal Empire, p.11, the primary weakness was not a sudden drop in the intelligence or ability of these nobles, but rather their extreme selfishness and lack of devotion to the state. This led to a culture of mutual bickering, corruption, and extravagant living that drained the treasury.

This 'decadent social order' was not unique to the Mughals; it was a structural disease that also infected the Marathas. As the Maratha Empire expanded into a Confederacy, the Maratha chiefs began to mirror the later Mughal nobles. They operated under the Saraniami system, which was strikingly similar to the Mughal Jagirdari system, where land grants were given in exchange for military service Modern India, Indian States and Society in the 18th Century, p.35. In both systems, as soon as the central authority (the Emperor or the Peshwa) showed signs of weakness, these local warlords stopped acting as officers of the state and started acting as independent monarchs.

Feature	Mughal Nobility (18th Century)	Maratha Chiefs (Later Period)
Revenue System	Jagirdari (Land assignments)	Saraniami (Similar to Jagirs)
Political Behavior	Intrigue and factionalism at court	Tendency toward autonomy and warlordism
Economic Basis	Revenue farming/Peasant exploitation	Revenue farming/Peasant exploitation

Economically, this social order was stagnant. Both the Mughals and Marathas failed to encourage science, technology, or a new economic model, remaining content to squeeze revenue from a helpless peasantry Modern India, Indian States and Society in the 18th Century, p.35. However, there is a nuance: while they shared these social and economic weaknesses, their administrative legacies differed. The Marathas, especially under Shivaji and the early Peshwas, had established a highly efficient administrative machinery, whereas the later Mughal administration was synonymous with decay.

Sources: Modern India (Old NCERT), The Decline of the Mughal Empire, p.11; Modern India (Old NCERT), Indian States and Society in the 18th Century, p.25, 35

6. Shivaji's Administrative Legacy: The Ashtapradhan (exam-level)

To understand Shivaji's rule, we must look beyond the battlefield. While many contemporary rulers relied on a decaying feudal order, Shivaji instituted a centralized and merit-based administration designed to prevent the rise of autonomous local chiefs. His most famous innovation was the Ashtapradhan, a council of eight ministers who assisted him in the day-to-day governance of the Swarajya. Unlike modern cabinets, these ministers did not form collective policy; they were directly responsible to the King and served at his pleasure History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), p.239.

The brilliance of Shivaji’s system lay in its structural discipline. In an era where military and administrative posts were typically hereditary, Shivaji took the radical step of abolishing hereditary land assignments (Jagirs) for his officials. Instead, he paid them a regular salary in cash from the state treasury Exploring Society: India and Beyond, NCERT (Revised ed 2025), p.72. By periodically transferring officials and ensuring they did not develop deep local roots, he maintained firm control over the bureaucracy, preventing the administrative decay that was beginning to plague the Mughal Empire at the time.

The table below highlights the core roles within the Ashtapradhan:

Minister Title	Primary Responsibility
Peshwa (Mukhya Pradhan)	Prime Minister; general administration and state interests.
Amatya (Majumdar)	Finance Minister; managing accounts and state income.
Senapati (Sari-i-Naubat)	Commander-in-Chief; military recruitment and organization.
Waqenavis (Mantri)	Intelligence, posts, and household affairs.
Sachiv (Shurunavis)	Royal correspondence and drafting edicts.
Sumant (Dabir)	Foreign Affairs and master of ceremonies.
Nyayadhish	Chief Justice; civil and military justice.
Pandit Rao	Religious matters, charities, and public morals.

Shivaji also displayed a unique sense of social responsibility towards his military. He provided pensions to the widows of fallen soldiers and even offered military posts to their sons, ensuring the loyalty and morale of his troops Exploring Society: India and Beyond, NCERT (Revised ed 2025), p.72. This combination of strict bureaucratic control and soldier welfare allowed the Maratha state to survive the immense pressure of Mughal expansionism.

Sources: History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p.239; Exploring Society: India and Beyond, NCERT (Revised ed 2025), The Rise of the Marathas, p.72

7. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

You have just explored the socio-economic landscape of 18th-century India, focusing on the structural decay of the Mughal Empire and the internal contradictions of the Maratha Confederacy. This question serves as the ultimate synthesis of those concepts, testing your ability to distinguish between shared structural weaknesses—such as scientific stagnation and exploitative revenue systems—and specific administrative legacies. It brings together the themes of feudal decadence and the evolution of statecraft during a period of intense political transition.

To arrive at the correct answer, you must identify the "exception" to their shared decline. While both entities suffered from a lack of social discipline among their nobility and a failure to modernize the economy, history distinguishes them on the grounds of administrative efficiency. According to Bipin Chandra's Modern India (Old NCERT), while the Mughals experienced total administrative collapse, the Marathas (particularly under Shivaji) were noted for establishing a remarkably sound administration with effective civil and military coordination. Therefore, stating that both failed to give sound administration is historically inaccurate, making (D) the correct choice.

The common trap UPSC uses here is the "blanket generalization." Options (A), (B), and (C) are historically accurate shared failures; both empires relied on a decedent social order and failed to encourage science and technology, which eventually allowed the British to gain the upper hand. Students often get distracted by these similarities and overlook the specific administrative resilience of the early Maratha state. Always remember: in 18th-century history, while the structural failures were often common, the administrative origins of the regional powers were frequently their greatest strength.