Trade, Commerce & Economic Policies
UGC NET HISTORY – Solved PYQs (UNIT 5)
1. Match List I with List II and select the correct answer from the codes given below. (DEC 2012)
| List I (Name of coin) | List II (Kingdom in which the coin circulated) |
|---|---|
| A. Mahmudi | I. Sur Kingdom |
| B. Rupaiah | II. Delhi Sultanate |
| C. Pagoda | III. Vijayanagara |
| D. Tanka | IV. Gujarat Sultanate |
Codes:
(1) A- I, B – II, C – III, D – IV
(2) A- II, B – I, C – IV, D – III
(3) A – IV, B – I, C – III, D – II
(4) A – IV, B – III, C – III, D – I
Answer: 3
The correct answer is (3) A-IV, B-I, C-III, D-II.
The Mahmudi (A) was a silver coin associated with the Gujarat Sultanate, so it correctly matches with IV. It derived its name from Sultan Mahmud Begarha and became an important regional currency, widely used in western India and even in Indian Ocean trade due to Gujarat’s strong commercial links. The Rupaiah (B) was introduced in a standardized form by Sher Shah Suri of the Sur Kingdom, making B-I correct. This silver coin later became the prototype of the modern rupee and was one of the most significant monetary reforms in Indian history, ensuring uniformity in currency.
The Pagoda (C) was a high-value gold coin used extensively in the Vijayanagara Empire, so it matches with III. These coins, often called “varaha,” were known for their fine gold content and circulated widely in South India and in overseas trade, especially with Southeast Asia and European traders. Finally, the Tanka (D) was the principal silver coin of the Delhi Sultanate, hence D-II is correct. It was introduced during the reign of Iltutmish and became the standard currency of the Sultanate, reflecting the growing monetization of the medieval Indian economy.
This matching highlights the regional diversity yet sophistication of medieval Indian monetary systems. Different kingdoms developed their own coinage standards, but many of these—like the tanka and rupaiah—had long-lasting influence, contributing to the evolution of a more uniform monetary economy in later periods, especially under the Mughals.
2. What was Shahrukhi coin in circulation during the Muslim period? (DEC 2012)
(1) A gold coin
(2) A silver coin
(3) A copper coin
(4) None of these
Answer: 2
The correct answer is (2) A silver coin.
The Shahrukhi coin was a silver coin named after the Timurid ruler Shah Rukh (r. 1405–1447), the son of Timur. This coin circulated widely in Central Asia and also influenced the monetary system of regions connected through trade with the Islamic world, including parts of north-western India during the late medieval period. The Shahrukhi became a recognized silver standard in trans-regional commerce, particularly because the Timurid domains were deeply integrated into long-distance trade networks linking Persia, Central Asia, and India.
In the broader context of the Indian subcontinent during the Muslim period, coinage systems were diverse but often influenced by Persian and Central Asian traditions. Silver coins like the tanka under the Delhi Sultanate and later the rupee standardized by Sher Shah Suri became dominant forms of currency. The Shahrukhi, though not always minted locally in India, was known and sometimes circulated due to cross-border trade and political interactions with Central Asian powers.
The importance of silver coinage in this period reflects the growing monetization of the economy, expansion of markets, and increased volume of trade. Silver coins were particularly suited for medium and large transactions, while gold coins were used for high-value exchanges and copper for everyday transactions. The Shahrukhi thus represents the interconnected monetary culture of the medieval Islamic world, where coins could travel far beyond their place of origin and still retain acceptability due to their metal content and recognized standards.
3. Given below are two statements, one is labelled as Assertion (A) and the other is labelled as Reason (R). (JUNE 2013)
Assertion (A): Many Mughal nobles carried on trade in their own name, or in partnership with merchants.
Reason (R): As Governor of Bengal, Mir Jumla tried to monopolize trade in all important commodities.
In the context of the above two statements, which one of the following is correct?
(1) Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)
(2) Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)
(3) (A) is true, but (R) is false
(4) (A) is false, but (R) is true
Answer: 2
The correct answer is (2) Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A).
Assertion (A) is historically accurate as the Mughal nobility (Mansabdars) were deeply involved in commercial activities. Despite their primary roles as military commanders and administrators, many high-ranking nobles engaged in maritime and inland trade to supplement their income from jagirs. They often owned their own ships—Shaista Khan and Prince Dara Shikoh, for example, had significant interests in shipping—or provided capital to professional merchants in a partnership known as shirkat. This involvement was so widespread that it created a unique nexus between the ruling military elite and the commercial Vaniya or Jain merchant classes, allowing the nobles to convert their agricultural surplus and administrative power into liquid wealth.
Reason (R) is also a true statement. Mir Jumla, during his tenure as the Governor of Bengal under Aurangzeb, was notorious for his attempts to establish a state monopoly over essential trade commodities like saltpetre, rice, and cloth. He used his political authority to force merchants to sell their goods to him at low prices, which he would then resell to European companies at a massive profit. His actions were a prime example of Sauda-i-Khas (private trade of the royalty or high officials), which often hindered the free flow of commerce. However, while Mir Jumla’s actions prove that nobles engaged in trade, his specific attempt to monopolize trade in Bengal does not serve as the general “explanation” for why “many” Mughal nobles across the empire carried on trade. The broad participation of nobles in trade (Assertion A) was driven by general economic incentives and the desire for luxury imports, whereas Mir Jumla’s monopoly (Reason R) was an extreme and specific case of administrative malpractice in one province.
Historically, the Mughal state generally encouraged trade, but the private commercial interests of the governors often led to friction with European trading bodies like the East India Company. For instance, the “Company” often complained to the Mughal Emperor about the “engrossing” of goods by local governors. It is also important to note that the Mughal royalty was not exempt from this; Princess Jahanara and the Queen Mother Mariam-uz-Zamani owned famous merchant ships like the Ganj-i-Sawai and the Rahimi, respectively. This highlights that commercial ventures were a standard pursuit for the Mughal elite, facilitated by the stable currency system (the silver Rupiya) and the vast network of sarai (inns) and roads that connected the empire’s production centers to its ports.
4. Which historian called the Indian merchants engaged in over-seas trade as peddlers? (JUNE 2013)
(1) N Steensgaard
(2) Om Prakash
(3) Van Leur
(4) Ashin Das Gupta
Answer: 3
The correct answer is (3) Van Leur.
J. C. van Leur characterized Indian (and more broadly Asian) merchants engaged in overseas trade as “peddlers”, a term he used to describe what he perceived as the small-scale, itinerant, and non-capital-intensive nature of Asian commerce before the arrival of Europeans. In his influential work on Indonesian and Asian trade, Van Leur argued that trade in the Indian Ocean world was largely conducted by individual merchants carrying relatively small cargoes, lacking the large joint-stock organizations and heavy capital investment that later European trading companies, such as the Dutch East India Company, would introduce.
However, this characterization has been strongly criticized by later historians. Scholars like Ashin Das Gupta and Om Prakash demonstrated that Indian merchants were far from mere peddlers. They operated extensive commercial networks, handled bulk trade in commodities like textiles, spices, and indigo, and used sophisticated financial instruments such as hundis (bills of exchange). Merchant groups from Gujarat, the Coromandel Coast, and Bengal were deeply involved in large-scale maritime trade connecting the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and even East Africa.
Similarly, Niels Steensgaard offered a more nuanced view, focusing on the structural differences between Asian and European trade systems rather than dismissing Asian merchants as small-scale traders. Thus, while Van Leur’s “peddler” thesis was influential in early historiography, it is now widely regarded as an oversimplification that underestimated the complexity and scale of pre-European Indian Ocean commerce.