TOPIC INFO (UGC NET)
TOPIC INFO – UGC NET (History)
SUB-TOPIC INFO – History (UNIT 4)
CONTENT TYPE – Solved PYQs
Note: The First Topic of Unit 1 is Free.
Access This Topic With Any Subscription Below:
- UGC NET History
- UGC NET History + Book Notes
Political Developments
UGC NET HISTORY – Solved PYQs (UNIT 4)
1. Which of the following statements are not correct? (JUNE 2012)
I. After Balban’s death his son Bughra Khan assumed sovereignty in Lakhnauti.
II. Alauddin Khilji extended his authority to Bengal.
III. Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlaq made Bengal part of the Delhi Sultanate in 1324.
IV. Firuz Shah Tughlaq invaded Bengal twice during the reign of Shams-ud-din Iliyas Shah.
Select the correct answer using the codes given below:
(1) II, III and IV
(2) II and IV
(3) II and III
(4) III and IV
Answer: 2
The correct answer is (2) II and IV.
Statement I is correct. After the death of Ghiyas ud din Balban in 1287, his son Bughra Khan, who had already been governing Bengal, continued to rule independently from Lakhnauti. He did not attempt to claim the throne of Delhi and instead consolidated his authority in Bengal, effectively making it autonomous from the Delhi Sultanate. His rule marks one of the early instances of Bengal drifting away from central control.
Statement II is incorrect. Alauddin Khilji (r. 1296–1316) is known for his extensive military campaigns in regions like Gujarat, Rajasthan, Malwa, and especially the Deccan (Devagiri, Warangal, Dwarasamudra, and Madurai). However, he did not extend his authority to Bengal. During his reign, Bengal remained outside the effective control of the Delhi Sultanate and was ruled by local or semi-independent governors.
Statement III is correct. Ghiyas ud din Tughlaq (r. 1320–1325) undertook campaigns to reassert Delhi’s authority over Bengal. In 1324, he successfully invaded Bengal and brought it nominally under the Delhi Sultanate. Though this control was not long-lasting, it represented a significant attempt to reintegrate Bengal into the imperial framework.
Statement IV is incorrect. Firuz Shah Tughlaq (r. 1351–1388) did launch two expeditions into Bengal, but these were during the reign of Sikandar Shah, the son of Shams ud din Iliyas Shah, not during Iliyas Shah’s reign. Iliyas Shah had already established an independent Bengal Sultanate, and by the time Firuz Shah intervened, power had passed to his successor. Firuz Shah’s campaigns (1353–54 and 1359–60) failed to permanently subdue Bengal.
Additional context helps clarify the situation: Bengal frequently oscillated between independence and subordination to Delhi due to its distance, difficult terrain, and strong regional leadership. Even when Delhi Sultans claimed control, it was often nominal. The repeated attempts by rulers like Balban, Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlaq, and Firuz Shah Tughlaq show how strategically and economically important Bengal was, yet also how difficult it was to maintain lasting control over it.
2. Who termed the dominion of Sultan Muhammad Tughlaq as ‘Hind and Sind’? (JUNE 2012)
(1) Ziya-ud-din Barani
(2) Abdal Malik Isami
(3) Ibn Battuta
(4) Yahia-bin Ahmad Sirhindi
Answer: 3
The correct answer is (3) Ibn Battuta.
The Moroccan traveler Ibn Battuta, who visited India during the reign of Muhammad bin Tughlaq in the 14th century, referred to his dominion as “Hind and Sind.” Ibn Battuta arrived in India around 1333 and was appointed as the Qazi (judge) of Delhi by Muhammad bin Tughlaq. In his famous travel account, the Rihla, he described the vast extent of the Sultan’s empire using the expression “Hind and Sind,” a phrase that conveyed both geographical spread and cultural diversity. The term reflects how foreign observers perceived the Delhi Sultanate as encompassing the Indo-Gangetic plains (Hind) and the Indus region (Sind), emphasizing its large territorial reach.
The other options are incorrect because although they were important chroniclers of the period, they did not use this specific expression. Ziya ud din Barani was a court historian who wrote works like Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi and focused more on political theory and court events rather than travel-style geographic descriptions. Abdal Malik Isami authored Futuh-us-Salatin and provided valuable insights into the decline of the Tughlaq dynasty, but he did not use the phrase “Hind and Sind” in this context. Similarly, Yahya bin Ahmad Sirhindi, known for Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi, wrote about later developments and also did not employ this terminology.
Additional context adds depth to Ibn Battuta’s observation. Muhammad bin Tughlaq’s empire was one of the largest in medieval India, stretching from the Punjab and Sindh in the northwest to parts of the Deccan in the south. His ambitious but often controversial policies—such as the transfer of the capital from Delhi to Daulatabad and the introduction of token currency—left a strong impression on contemporary observers like Ibn Battuta. Despite administrative challenges and rebellions, the Sultanate under him was seen by outsiders as a vast and formidable political entity, which explains the use of a broad geographical expression like “Hind and Sind.”
3. Assertion (A): In military terms, Firuz Shah Tughlaq’s reign was undistinguished.
Reason (R): He could not subjugate the ruler of Nagarkot. (JUNE 2012)
Codes:
(1) Both (A) and (R) are correct and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)
(2) Both (A) and (R) are correct, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)
(3) (A) is correct, but (R) is incorrect
(4) (A) is incorrect, but (R) is correct
Answer: 3
The correct answer is (3) (A) is correct, but (R) is incorrect. Assertion (A) is widely accepted by historians because Firuz Shah Tughlaq (r. 1351–1388) lacked the military temperament and strategic vision of his predecessors like Alauddin Khalji or Muhammad bin Tughlaq. His reign was marked by a shift away from expansionist policies toward internal consolidation and public works. His military campaigns were often characterized by hesitation, lack of persistence, and a preference for retreats to avoid bloodshed. For example, his two expeditions to Bengal (against Haji Ilyas and later Sikandar Shah) failed to re-annex the province to the Delhi Sultanate, ultimately resulting in his recognition of Bengal’s independence. His campaign to Thatta (Sindh) was also nearly disastrous, leading to heavy losses due to famine and disease before a peace treaty was eventually brokered.
Reason (R) is incorrect because Firuz Shah Tughlaq actually did succeed in subjugating the ruler of Nagarkot (Kangra) in 1360–61. After a siege lasting approximately six months, the Raja of Nagarkot surrendered and acknowledged the suzerainty of the Sultan. This campaign is particularly famous in historical records because, following the submission of the Raja, Firuz Shah visited the Jwalamukhi temple. While he did not destroy the idols, he famously collected around 1,300 Sanskrit manuscripts from the temple library. He commissioned several of these works to be translated into Persian, most notably a work on astronomy and philosophy titled Dalail-i-Firuz Shahi by the poet-scholar Azz-ud-din Khalid Khani.
Firuz Shah’s military “undistinguished” nature was partly due to his administrative reforms, such as making the Iqta system and military posts hereditary. This policy significantly weakened the efficiency and discipline of the Sultanate’s standing army, as positions were filled based on lineage rather than merit. Furthermore, his excessive reliance on a massive corps of slaves (the Bandagan-i-Firoz Shahi), which numbered around 180,000, eventually created a parallel power structure that contributed to the instability of the Sultanate after his death. While he was a prolific builder—founding cities like Hisar, Jaunpur, and Firozabad—his inability to maintain the territorial integrity of the empire through military strength led to the gradual shrinking of the Delhi Sultanate’s borders.
4. Which Mongol general defeated Ala-ud-din Khalji? (JUNE 2012)
(1) Qadar
(2) Qutlugh Khwaja
(3) Targi
(4) Iqbalmand
Answer: 3
The correct answer is (3) Targi. While Alauddin Khalji is celebrated in Indian history for successfully repelling several massive Mongol invasions, the invasion led by the Mongol general Targi in 1303 CE represents a rare moment where the Sultan was effectively outmaneuvered and placed in a defensive crisis. Targi arrived with a force of approximately 120,000 cavalry at a time when the Mughal army was exhausted and depleted; one major wing of the army had just returned from the grueling conquest of Chittor, and another large contingent had suffered significant losses during an expedition to Warangal via Bengal. Realizing he could not face the Mongols in open combat, Alauddin was forced to take refuge in the Siri Fort, which was then under construction. Targi besieged Delhi for about two months, cutting off supply lines and plundering the surrounding areas. However, unable to breach the fortifications and facing the prospect of a long campaign in the Indian heat, Targi unexpectedly retreated. This narrow escape prompted Alauddin to drastically overhaul his defensive strategy, leading to the repair of old forts, the permanent stationing of a powerful army at the frontiers, and the implementation of his famous market control reforms to maintain a large standing army at low costs.
The other Mongol generals mentioned in the options also led significant but ultimately unsuccessful campaigns against the Delhi Sultanate. Qadar led an invasion in 1297–98 but was decisively defeated by Alauddin’s generals, Ulugh Khan and Zafar Khan, at the Battle of Jaran-Manjur. Qutlugh Khwaja led the most dangerous invasion in 1299, reaching the outskirts of Delhi (Kili) with a massive army intended for conquest rather than plunder; he was defeated primarily due to the extraordinary bravery of Zafar Khan, who died in the battle. Iqbalmand led one of the final major Mongol incursions in 1306, which was crushed by the Sultan’s forces near the river Ravi, with many Mongol captives being trampled by elephants in Delhi as a deterrent.
It is important to note that the constant threat of Mongol invasions significantly shaped the administrative and economic landscape of the Khalji era. Alauddin established the Diwan-i-Arz to oversee military recruitment and introduced the Dagh (branding of horses) and Chehra (descriptive rolls of soldiers) systems to prevent corruption in the ranks. His successor, Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq, also gained his military reputation as the “Warden of the Marches” by fighting off Mongol raids. The resilience of the Delhi Sultanate during this period is remarkable, as it was one of the few major sedentary empires in Asia that did not collapse under the weight of the Mongol expansion, a feat largely attributed to Alauddin’s ruthless efficiency and the strategic fortification of the northwestern frontier.