Question

hello! please help me! I can't understand please help me..

plz don't spam otherwise you will be reported so be careful
Best answer will be marked as brainliest answer
(please don't post the answer from google, I need self made answer)

Answer 1

Answer:

04.) In the February 1976 issue, Professor M. N. Pearson attempted an analysis of

the determinants in the decline of the Mughal Empire.1

He attributes the empire's

crisis to two principal factors: (1) the poor and unsatisfactory performance of almost

all the powerful Mughal nobles; (2) Aurangzeb's move south in 1681-82. Though

one may join issue with Professor Pearson in several matters, I shall limit myself

here to the two most crucial points noted above.

Whereas the decadent character of Aurangzeb's umerab is generally accepted,

Pearson does not seem to have taken into account the fact that, of his approximately

14,500 mansabdars in 1695, at least 8,000 existing in 1647 were, together with the

crown, received by Aurangzeb as a legacy of the House in 1658. By about the

middle of Emperor Akbar's reign (1556-1605), the Mughal mansabdars had succeeded in arrogating to themselves the right of decision-making on vital issues of the

empire. In the nineteenth regnal year, Akbar replaced land assignment with cash

salaries to imperial officers,2

but such was the pressure from his nobles that, within a

few years, he restored status quo ante.3

The imperial mansabdars, already enjoying

almost all the military and executive powers in the realm, were henceforth in addition enabled to acquire more or less complete rights over the land revenue of the

non-khalisa areas—a circumstance that over the decades rendered the mansabdar

community virtually supreme in the empire. It is well known that Emperors Jahangir

(1605-27) and Shah Jahan (1627-58), leaning heavily on the mansabdars, had elevated and expanded their ranks. Aurangzeb's maintaining and further expanding the

community was merely to honor the dynasty's commitment to them. Pearson would

perhaps have done better if he had criticized Aurangzeb for so stubbornly and unimaginatively hanging on to the tradition, since the approximately 7,000 new mansabdars he enlisted over the last five decades were no improvement upon the older

set of umerah.

Pearson puts Aurangzeb in the dock once again when he contends that what

sounded the death knell of the Great Mughals was the emergence of Shivaji and his

Marhattas as a parallel powerful body. Worse still, while Aurangzeb generally blundered in his dealings with the Marhattas, on four specific occasions—according to

Pearson's assessment—his unwise and tactless handling of the rebels was decisive: in

1657, when, dissubedar of the Deccan, he failed to avail himself of the opportunity of

crushing Shivaji, who had not yet grown too powerful; in 1659, when Shaista Khan's

debacle occurred; in 1664, when Shivaji sacked Surat with impunity; and finally in

1666, when the arch-rebel was presented to the Emperor at Agra

Explanation:

Answer 2

Answer:

$<font color="purple">$Are you need this code ??

if yes I can provide you

please Mark as brainliest