With reference to Indian history, which of the following statements is/are correct? 1. The Nizamat of Arcot emerged out of Hyderabad State. 2. The Mysore Kingdom emerged out of Vijayanagara Empire. 3. Rohilkhand Kingdom was formed out of the territories occupied by Ahmad Shah Durrani. Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Contents15
- A1 and 2
- B2 only
- C2 and 3
- D3 only
Show answer
Answer: (B) 2 only
Statement 1 is wrong:
The Nizamat of Arcot was established by Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb as a dependency of the Nizam of Hyderabad.
It did not 'emerge out of' Hyderabad State — it was a Mughal creation.
Statement 2 is correct:
Mysore was originally a small feudatory state under the Vijayanagara Empire.
After Vijayanagara fell at the Battle of Talikota (1565), the Wodeyar dynasty asserted independence.
Raja Wodeyar ascended the throne in 1578, and the capital shifted to Srirangapatnam in 1610.
Statement 3 is wrong:
Rohilkhand emerged due to Afghan migration in the mid-18th century after Nadir Shah's invasion.
It was not a direct result of the Mughal decline in the usual sense.
Only
Statement 2 is correct.
Answer: (b).
These three 18th-century regional powers represent different pathways of state formation after Mughal decline - administrative delegation (Arcot), imperial succession (Mysore), and foreign settlement (Rohilkhand).
UPSC is testing whether students understand the distinction between states that emerged from empire collapse versus those created through administrative arrangements or foreign migration.
Nizamat of Arcot
Ancient And Medieval History Nizamat of Arcot Hyderabad State
Nizamat of Arcot: Mughal Creation & Administrative Structure
Nizamat of Arcot was established by Aurangzeb as a Mughal administrative unit
It was a dependency of the Nizam of Hyderabad, not an independent emergence
Saadatullah Khan was appointed as the first Nawab of Arcot in 1710
The Nizamat covered parts of modern Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Setup
The Nizamat of Arcot was created by Aurangzeb around 1710 as part of the Mughal administrative reorganization of the Deccan. Unlike independent kingdoms that emerged from the decline of larger empires, Arcot was a deliberate Mughal creation to manage southern territories more effectively.
Key Administrative Details
Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
Established by | Aurangzeb (Mughal Emperor) |
Administrative Status | Dependency of Nizam of Hyderabad |
First Nawab | Saadatullah Khan (1710) |
Territory | Parts of modern Tamil Nadu & Andhra Pradesh |
Capital | Arcot (later shifted to various places) |
Relationship | Subordinate to Hyderabad, not independent |
Trap: Statement 1 suggests Arcot 'emerged out of' Hyderabad — but it was created by Mughals as Hyderabad's dependency
Common confusion: Arcot as an independent emergence vs. deliberate Mughal administrative creation
UPSC often tests: Whether regional powers were breakaways or administrative appointments
Mysore Kingdom Origins
Ancient And Medieval History Mysore Kingdom Vijayanagara Empire
Mysore Kingdom: From Vijayanagara Feudatory to Independent State
Mysore was originally a feudatory state under Vijayanagara Empire
Battle of Talikota (1565) led to Vijayanagara's decline and Mysore's independence
Raja Wodeyar established independent rule in 1578
Capital shifted to Srirangapatnam in 1610
Historical Evolution
Mysore began as a small feudatory state under the mighty Vijayanagara Empire. After Vijayanagara's catastrophic defeat at the Battle of Talikota (1565) against the Deccan Sultanates, the empire fragmented, creating opportunities for former vassals to assert independence.
Mysore's Path to Independence
%%{init: {"flowchart": {"wrappingWidth": 460}}}%%
flowchart TD
s1["`****Pre-1565****
Small feudatory state under **Vijayanagara Empire**`"]
s2["`****1565****
**Battle of Talikota** - Vijayanagara defeated by Deccan Sultanates`"]
s3["`****1565-1578****
Vijayanagara Empire fragments, local chiefs assert autonomy`"]
s4["`****1578****
**Raja Wodeyar** ascends throne, establishes independent Mysore`"]
s5["`****1610****
Capital shifted to **Srirangapatnam** for strategic reasons`"]
s1 --> s2
s2 --> s3
s3 --> s4
s4 --> s5Vijayanagara Territory
Source: Testbook — Battle of Talikota, Year, Background, Timeline, Causes, Aftermath ... · testbook.com
Statement 2 is correct - Mysore genuinely emerged from Vijayanagara's decline
Key distinction: Unlike Arcot (Mughal creation), Mysore was a legitimate succession from a collapsed empire
Remember: 1565 Talikota = end of Vijayanagara = beginning of independent Mysore under Wodeyars
Rohilkhand Kingdom
Ancient And Medieval History Rohilkhand Kingdom Ahmad Shah Durrani
Rohilkhand Kingdom: Afghan Migration & Formation
Rohilkhand was formed by Afghan migration in mid-18th century
Not directly created by Ahmad Shah Durrani - formed due to Afghan settlement patterns
Ali Muhammad Khan was the key founder around 1740s
Located in present-day western Uttar Pradesh
Formation Context
Rohilkhand emerged through Afghan migration and settlement in the mid-18th century, particularly after Nadir Shah's invasion (1739) destabilized the region. While Ahmad Shah Durrani conducted multiple invasions of India, Rohilkhand was not formed from territories he directly occupied.
Rohilkhand vs Durrani Connection
Aspect | Reality | Common Misconception |
|---|---|---|
Formation Cause | Afghan tribal migration after Nadir Shah's invasion | Direct occupation by Ahmad Shah Durrani |
Key Founder | Ali Muhammad Khan (Rohilla chief) | Ahmad Shah Durrani himself |
Timeline | 1740s onwards | After Durrani's invasions (1750s-1760s) |
Territory Source | Mughal weakness + local settlement | Durrani's conquered territories |
Political Nature | Independent Afghan principality | Durrani dependency |
Rohilkhand Formation Process
%%{init: {"flowchart": {"wrappingWidth": 460}}}%%
flowchart TD
s1["`****1739****
**Nadir Shah's invasion** weakens Mughal control in northern India`"]
s2["`****1740s****
**Afghan tribes migrate** southward, settle in western UP region`"]
s3["`****Mid-1740s****
**Ali Muhammad Khan** consolidates Afghan settlements into Rohilkhand`"]
s4["`****1750s-1760s****
**Ahmad Shah Durrani's invasions** - separate events, not Rohilkhand's origin`"]
s1 --> s2
s2 --> s3
s3 --> s4Statement 3 is wrong - Rohilkhand formed through Afghan migration, not Durrani's direct occupation
Chronology trap: Rohilkhand formation (1740s) vs Durrani invasions (1750s-60s)
Causation confusion: Nadir Shah's impact ≠ Ahmad Shah Durrani's territories
18th Century Regional State Formation
Ancient And Medieval History
Patterns of Regional State Formation in 18th Century India
Regional states emerged through three main patterns: Mughal appointments, feudatory independence, and foreign settlements
Mughal decline after Aurangzeb created power vacuums filled differently across regions
Each pattern had distinct legitimacy sources and administrative structures
Formation Patterns
The 18th century witnessed diverse patterns of regional state formation as the Mughal Empire weakened. Understanding these patterns helps distinguish between genuine independence movements and administrative reorganizations.
Three Patterns of Regional State Formation
Pattern | Examples | Legitimacy Source | Relationship to Previous Power |
|---|---|---|---|
Mughal Administrative Creation | Nizamat of Arcot, Bengal Nawabi | Imperial appointment | Dependency of larger Mughal unit |
Feudatory Independence | Mysore Kingdom, Rajput states | Historical vassalage + empire collapse | Succession from collapsed empire |
Foreign Settlement | Rohilkhand, some Afghan principalities | Military conquest + migration | New creation on weakened territory |
Regional Power Emergence
# 18th Century Regional States
## **Mughal Appointments**
- Nizamat of Arcot
- Bengal Nawabi
- Awadh Nawabi
- Hyderabad Nizamat
## **Feudatory Independence**
- Mysore (from Vijayanagara)
- Maratha Confederacy
- Rajput States
- Jat Kingdoms
## **Foreign Settlements**
- Rohilkhand (Afghans)
- Various Afghan Chiefs
- Some Sikh MislsUPSC loves testing: Whether a state emerged from vs. was created by a larger power
Pattern recognition: Administrative creation ≠ genuine independence movement
Chronology matters: When formation happened relative to invasions or empire collapse