Which one among the following was not a possible reason for ‘the success of Nadir Shah’s military campaign in Delhi ?

1. The Post-Aurangzeb Era and Institutional Decay (basic)

Hello! To understand the birth of Modern India, we must first look at the crumbling of the old order. For nearly two centuries, the Mughal Empire was the envy of its contemporaries, but the first half of the 18th century witnessed its dramatic disintegration Bipin Chandra, The Decline of the Mughal Empire, p.1. While the empire’s stability began to wobble during the long reign of Aurangzeb, the real collapse happened after his death in 1707. This wasn't just a military defeat; it was a total institutional decay where the very pillars of the state—the treasury, the nobility, and the administration—began to fail.

The roots of this decay can be traced back to Aurangzeb’s own policies. He spent the last 25 years of his life in the Deccan, fighting expensive wars against the Marathas and the Shia kingdoms of Bijapur and Golkonda History XI (Tamilnadu State Board), The Mughal Empire, p.211. This "Deccan Ulcer" drained the empire’s treasury and overstretched the military. Furthermore, his reimposition of the jizya tax and other religious policies created internal friction that his successors could not manage Exploring Society: India and Beyond, Reshaping India’s Political Map, p.43. After 1707, a series of weak and incompetent emperors followed, leading to a state of political paralysis where the nobility split into warring factions, prioritizing personal gain over the defense of the realm Bipin Chandra, The Decline of the Mughal Empire, p.15.

The ultimate "stress test" for this decaying system came in 1739 with the invasion of the Persian ruler Nadir Shah. Many people assume the Mughals lost because of inferior technology, but historical records suggest otherwise. The defeat was primarily a political and administrative failure. The Mughal administration under Muhammad Shah had completely neglected the strategic North-West Frontier, leaving the empire's gates wide open. Because of the internal bickering among the nobles, the defense of Delhi was hurried and disorganized, only being organized after the enemy had already reached Lahore. It was a classic case of an empire that had lost its will to govern before it lost its power to fight.

Sources: Modern India, Bipin Chandra (NCERT 1982 ed.), The Decline of the Mughal Empire, p.1, 8, 15; History, Class XI (Tamilnadu State Board 2024 ed.), The Mughal Empire, p.211; Exploring Society: India and Beyond, Class VIII NCERT (2025 ed.), Reshaping India’s Political Map, p.43

2. Crisis of the Nobility: Factionalism and Power Struggles (intermediate)

To understand why the mighty Mughal Empire crumbled, we must look beyond the personality of the Emperor and focus on the Crisis of the Nobility. In a centralized autocracy, the nobility (the Amirs) are the pillars of the state. However, during the 18th century, these pillars began to pull in different directions, leading to a structural collapse. The root of this crisis lay in the absence of a definite law of succession. Unlike systems where the eldest son automatically inherits the throne, every Mughal vacancy triggered a bloody war among princes. This forced the nobles to form factions, choosing sides not based on merit or patriotism, but on personal survival and the hope of future rewards Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, India on the Eve of British Conquest, p.68.

As the central authority weakened under rulers like Muhammad Shah 'Rangeela', the nobility split into powerful rival pressure groups based on ethnicity and region. These factions were primarily divided into:

• The Turanis: Nobles hailing from Central Asia.
• The Iranis: Nobles of Persian descent.
• The Hindustanis: Indian-born Muslims and their allies.

These groups were locked in a zero-sum game for the best Jagirs (land grants) and high offices like the Wazir (Prime Minister). This selfishness reached its peak with the Sayyid Brothers, who became known as 'King-makers' because they had the power to install and remove Emperors at will Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, India on the Eve of British Conquest, p.63. When the leadership is busy fighting internal battles, the borders are left undefended. This administrative paralysis is exactly what allowed external invaders like Nadir Shah to find the North-West frontier completely neglected Modern India, Bipin Chandra (Old NCERT), The Decline of the Mughal Empire, p.7.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), India on the Eve of British Conquest, p.68; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), India on the Eve of British Conquest, p.63; Modern India, Bipin Chandra (Old NCERT), The Decline of the Mughal Empire, p.7

3. Muhammad Shah 'Rangeela' and the Breakdown of Authority (intermediate)

Following the era of short-lived puppet emperors like Rafi-ud-Darajat and Rafi-ud-Daula, the throne passed to Raushan Akhtar, who took the title Muhammad Shah (1719–1748). History remembers him as 'Rangeela' (the colorful/pleasure-seeker) because of his addiction to luxury and his neglect of state affairs Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, India on the Eve of British Conquest, p.63. While he managed a significant political victory early in his reign by eliminating the powerful Sayyid Brothers (the 'King Makers') with the help of Nizam-ul-Mulk, he lacked the vision to reconstruct the central authority that had been crumbling since the death of Aurangzeb.

The reign of Muhammad Shah is a critical study in administrative fragmentation. Rather than a sudden collapse, the empire underwent a process of 'internal secession.' Disillusioned by the Emperor's lack of focus and the constant factionalism at court, the most capable nobles began carving out their own spheres of influence. In 1724, the Wazir Nizam-ul-Mulk abandoned the Delhi court to found the independent state of Hyderabad Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, India on the Eve of British Conquest, p.63. This set off a domino effect; soon, Bengal (under Alivardi Khan), Awadh (under Saadat Khan), and the Punjab became virtually independent, leaving the Mughal Emperor as a ruler of a rapidly shrinking domain Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, India on the Eve of British Conquest, p.59.

The ultimate breakdown of authority was exposed not by internal rebellion, but by external humiliation. For years, the Mughals had neglected the strategic defense of the North-West Frontier, failing to pay guards or maintain outposts. This negligence allowed the Persian ruler Nadir Shah to invade India in 1739. The Mughal response was disorganized and delayed; they only realized the gravity of the situation after Lahore had fallen Modern India, Bipin Chandra, The Decline of the Mughal Empire, p.7. Nadir Shah's subsequent sack of Delhi and the looting of the Peacock Throne proved that the Mughal Empire was now a hollow shell, unable to protect even its own capital.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India, India on the Eve of British Conquest, p.59, 62-64; Modern India (Old NCERT), The Decline of the Mughal Empire, p.1, 7

4. Connected Concept: Rise of Autonomous Regional States (intermediate)

The 18th century in India was not merely a period of 'darkness' or 'anarchy' following the decline of the Mughal Empire; rather, it was a period of political transformation. As the central authority in Delhi weakened under later Mughals like Muhammad Shah, the 'periphery' (the provinces) began to assert itself. This led to the rise of autonomous regional states. These states were not necessarily trying to destroy the Mughal Empire initially; instead, powerful governors simply stopped following central orders, diverted local revenues to their own treasuries, and turned their offices into hereditary positions Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., India on the Eve of British Conquest, p.70.

Historians generally categorize these emerging powers into three distinct groups based on how they originated:

Category	Origin	Key Examples
Succession States	Former Mughal provinces where governors broke away but often kept nominal ties to the Emperor.	Hyderabad, Bengal, Awadh
Independent Kingdoms	States that emerged due to the loss of Mughal administrative control over frontier or interior regions.	Mysore, Rajput States
New States (Insurgent)	States formed by groups rebelling against Mughal imperial authority.	Marathas, Sikhs, Jats

A classic example of a 'Succession State' is Hyderabad. It was founded by Kilich Khan (popularly known as Nizam-ul-Mulk) in 1724. After playing a pivotal role in the politics of the Delhi court—including the overthrow of the powerful Sayyid brothers—he grew disgusted with the court's corruption and moved to the Deccan Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT], Indian States and Society in the 18th Century, p.17. He secured his control by defeating the Mughal-appointed viceroy, Mubariz Khan, at the Battle of Shakr-Kheda in 1724, eventually assuming the title of Asaf-Jah Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., India on the Eve of British Conquest, p.70. While these rulers acted as independent sovereigns, they often continued to use the Mughal Emperor’s name in Friday prayers (Khutba) and on coins to maintain a sense of traditional legitimacy.

Sources: Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT], Indian States and Society in the 18th Century, p.17; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., India on the Eve of British Conquest, p.70

5. Connected Concept: The Maratha Expansionist Challenge (exam-level)

After the era of Chhatrapati Shivaji, the Maratha movement underwent a fundamental transformation from a regional resistance force to a pan-Indian expansionist power. This shift was spearheaded by Peshwa Baji Rao I (1720–1740), often considered the greatest exponent of guerrilla tactics after Shivaji. Baji Rao I moved away from the defensive posture of the past, famously advocating for striking at the "trunk" of the wilting Mughal tree so the branches would fall on their own. Under his leadership, the Marathas moved northward, defeating the Nizam of Hyderabad and securing control over fertile regions like Malwa and Gujarat History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Chapter 15: The Marathas, p. 231. To manage this vast expansion, Baji Rao I institutionalized the Maratha Confederacy. Instead of direct centralized rule from Pune, he empowered great military families—the Scindias (Gwalior), Holkars (Indore), Gaekwads (Baroda), and Bhonsles (Nagpur)—to administer and expand specific territories History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Chapter 15: The Marathas, p. 235. While this allowed for rapid territorial growth and the collection of Chauth (one-fourth of revenue) and Sardeshmukhi (an additional 10% levy) across India, it also sowed the seeds of future fragmentation, as these chiefs often acted as independent monarchs History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Chapter 15: The Marathas, p. 230. By the mid-18th century, the Marathas had effectively become the primary challengers to Mughal authority, intervening in North Indian politics and even freeing regions like Bundelkhand from Mughal control History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Chapter 15: The Marathas, p. 231. However, this expansion was not without internal friction. The death of strong leaders like Madhav Rao in 1772 led to a vacuum and succession struggles between figures like Raghunath Rao and Narayan Rao, which eventually provided an opening for British intervention Modern India, Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.), Indian States and Society in the 18th Century, p. 34.

Sources: History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Chapter 15: The Marathas, p.230, 231, 235; Modern India, Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.), Indian States and Society in the 18th Century, p.34

6. Connected Concept: The Afghan Successor (Ahmad Shah Abdali) (exam-level)

When Nadir Shah was assassinated in 1747, the mantle of Afghan leadership fell to his capable military general, Ahmad Shah Abdali. Far from being a mere successor, Abdali consolidated his power to become the independent ruler of Afghanistan, founding the Durrani Empire History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p.232. Between 1748 and 1767, he led eight invasions into India, which acted as the "final blow" to an already tottering Mughal Empire. These invasions were not just raids for plunder; they were geopolitical maneuvers that fundamentally altered the course of Indian history by draining the Mughal treasury and destroying its remaining military prestige Modern India, Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.), The Decline of the Mughal Empire, p.15.

Abdali’s influence in Delhi was so profound that in 1757, he captured the city and practically dictated the Mughal hierarchy. He recognized Alamgir II as the Emperor but ensured his own interests were protected by appointing the Rohilla chief, Najib-ud-Daula, as the Mir Bakhshi (Head of the Military Department) and his personal agent Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM, India on the Eve of British Conquest, p.60. This set the stage for a massive confrontation with the Marathas, who were then the primary power-brokers in North India. When the Maratha chief Raghunath Rao expelled Najib-ud-Daula and occupied Punjab in 1758, Abdali returned to India to seek revenge and re-establish his dominance.

The climax of this rivalry was the Third Battle of Panipat on January 14, 1761. In one of the most decisive battles in Indian history, Abdali’s forces completely routed the Maratha army. The Marathas lost their top leadership, including the Peshwa’s son Vishwas Rao and the commander Sadashiv Rao Bhau History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p.233. While Abdali eventually recognized Shah Alam II as the Emperor before departing, the vacuum left by the weakened Mughals and the defeated Marathas provided the perfect opportunity for a new player—the British East India Company—to eventually assert control over India.

Sources: History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p.232-233; Modern India, Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.), The Decline of the Mughal Empire, p.15; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM, India on the Eve of British Conquest, p.60

7. Strategic Neglect of the North-West Frontier (NWF) (exam-level)

Historically, the North-West Frontier (NWF) has been the traditional gateway for almost every major invasion into the Indian subcontinent. A fundamental principle of Indian statecraft, followed by the Mauryas and the Great Mughals alike, was that the security of Delhi was inextricably linked to the control of the passes in the Hindu Kush mountains. However, by the early 18th century, this strategic axiom was ignored by the Later Mughals. The defense of the frontier was not just a military task but a political one, and the crumbling Mughal center was no longer up to the challenge Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, India on the Eve of British Conquest, p.59.

The strategic neglect of this region during the reign of Muhammad Shah was a direct result of internal administrative rot. The Mughal court was paralyzed by factionalism among the nobles (Irani, Turani, and Hindustani groups), who were more interested in personal gain and court intrigues than national security. This led to a complete breakdown in communication and logistics; for years, the frontier outposts were starved of funds, and the governors of provinces like Kabul and Ghazni were left without reinforcements. When Nadir Shah of Persia began his advance in 1738, he found the gates of India virtually unguarded. He entered Indian territory without meeting any significant initial opposition because the strategic "buffer" had been allowed to wither away Bipin Chandra, Modern India (NCERT 1982), The Decline of the Mughal Empire, p.7.

This neglect was characterized by a delayed recognition of danger. The Mughal administration remained in a state of denial, only scrambling to organize a defense once Nadir Shah had already occupied Lahore. The subsequent hurried preparations were chaotic and ineffective, as the faction-ridden nobles refused to unite even with the enemy at their doorstep. The invasion was not merely a military defeat; it was a psychological blow that exposed the "hidden weakness" of the empire to domestic rivals like the Marathas and foreign entities like the East India Company Bipin Chandra, Modern India (NCERT 1982), The Decline of the Mughal Empire, p.7.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), India on the Eve of British Conquest, p.59; Modern India (Old NCERT 1982), The Decline of the Mughal Empire, p.7

8. The Invasion of Nadir Shah and the Battle of Karnal (exam-level)

To understand the fall of the Mughal Empire, we must look at the Invasion of Nadir Shah (1739) as the moment the "myth of Mughal invincibility" was shattered. By the mid-18th century, the empire under Muhammad Shah was a shadow of its former self. The primary reason for the disaster wasn't just Nadir Shah's military genius, but the internal decay of the Mughal administration. For years, the Mughals had neglected the strategic defense of the North-West Frontier, leaving the traditional gateway to India unguarded Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, p.63. Furthermore, the Mughal court was paralyzed by factionalism; nobles were more interested in sabotaging each other than in defending the state.

The Battle of Karnal (February 1739) was the decisive encounter. Despite having a numerically superior force, the Mughals were defeated in just three hours. This defeat highlighted a critical failure in political unity: the Mughal commanders were disorganized, and their preparations were so delayed that they only recognized the threat after the enemy had already occupied Lahore Tamilnadu State Board, History Class XI, p.232. Nadir Shah didn't just win a battle; he captured the Emperor himself, marched into Delhi, and orchestrated a horrific massacre and systematic loot of the city.

The aftermath changed Indian history forever. Nadir Shah carried away the Peacock Throne (Takht-i-Taus) and the Kohinoor diamond, but the financial blow was even worse: an estimated 70 crore rupees were drained from the treasury and the safes of the rich nobles Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, p.60. Strategically, the Mughals ceded all territories west of the Indus (including Kabul) to the Persian Empire. This left India perpetually vulnerable, paving the way for the future invasions of Nadir Shah’s successor, Ahmad Shah Abdali, who would further destabilize the subcontinent before the British rise to power.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), India on the Eve of British Conquest, p.60, 63; History Class XI (Tamilnadu State Board), The Marathas, p.232

9. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

You have just completed the modules on the decline of the Mughal Empire, where we focused on the transition from a centralized power to a fractured state. This question is the perfect application of those building blocks. To solve it, you must connect the concepts of administrative paralysis and geopolitical neglect to the specific event of 1739. As noted in Modern India by Bipin Chandra, the invasion by Nadir Shah was not an isolated military event but a symptom of the internal decay that had been brewing for decades under weak rulers like Muhammad Shah. When you see a "NOT" question in UPSC, you are being asked to identify the outlier among historical realities.

Walking through the reasoning, we can validate the first three options as classic symptoms of Mughal collapse. (A) Weak Mughal Emperor is a core concept; Muhammad Shah’s incompetence led to a breakdown in central command. (B) Lack of strong defence in the North-West Frontier was a direct result of the Mughals neglecting the strategic passes and failing to pay frontier guards. (C) Late preparation for the defence of Delhi is historically accurate, as the Mughal court ignored warnings until the invaders had already reached Lahore. By process of elimination, we arrive at (D) Use of superior military technology by the invading army as the correct answer. While Nadir Shah was a brilliant strategist, the primary reason for his success was the political and factional weakness of the Mughals rather than a significant gap in weaponry or technology at that time.

A common UPSC trap is to assume that every major conquest in Indian history was due to superior technology (like the English East India Company’s muskets later on). However, in the mid-18th century, the military technology of the Persians and the Mughals was largely comparable. The "trap" here is distracting you from the structural failures of the state. As highlighted in the Tamilnadu State Board History Class XI, the success of the invasion was facilitated by the lack of unity among Mughal nobles and the disorganized state of the defense, proving that administrative incompetence is often more fatal than an enemy's fire-power.