Question

in the moghol mughal empire the core contradiction had always been hindu versus muslim. akbar the great had worked out a sort of accommodation, but his great - grandson aurangzeb reversed all his policies, enforcing orthodox islam rigidly, restoring discrimination against hindus, squashing smaller religious groups such as the sikhs, and generally replacing tolerance with repression. and yet, say what you will about the man’s narrow - minded zealotry fanaticism, aurangzeb was a titanic talent, so he not only held his empire together but extended it. the whole time, however, he was sowing the discord division and tension that would erupt to ruin the empire as soon as a less capable ruler took charge....
this glimpse into the ottoman social clockwork does not begin to exhaust its fractal intricacy complexity: look closer and deeper into ottoman society and you’ll see the same order of complexity at every level. everything was connected to everything else and connected in many ways, which was fine when all the connections balanced out and all of the parts were working. centuries later, when the empire entered its decrepitude decaying state, all the intertwining parts and intermeshing connecting institutions became a peculiarly ottoman liability: their intricacy meant that trouble in one place or sphere translated mysteriously to trouble in a dozen other places or spheres—but that came later. in the sixteenth century, the ottoman empire was an awesomely well - functioning machine....
source: tamim ansary, destiny disrupted: a history of the world through islamic eyes, public affairs
22 based on these passages, what is a primary similarity between the mughal and ottoman empires?
(1) social conflict did not exist in either empire.
(2) each empire experienced a period of success.
(3) each empire lasted less than a century.
(4) hinduism had little influence in the development of either empire.
23 which statement best explains a reason the mughal empire declined and a reason the ottoman empire declined?
(1) mughal leaders were ineffective; ottoman society was too interconnected.
(2) mughal society was too secular; policies of ottoman sultans were inconsistent.
(3) religious diversity in the mughal empire was lacking; the ottoman empire never worked efficiently.
(4) mughal society paid little attention to the government; ottoman social groups were too isolated.

Explanation:

Question 22

• Option 1: The passages mention religious discrimination (Mughal) and complex social connections (Ottoman), so social conflict existed. Eliminate 1.
• Option 2: The Mughal Empire under Aurangzeb extended its empire, and the Ottoman Empire in the 16th century was a well - functioning machine. Both had periods of success. This is a valid similarity.
• Option 3: Both empires lasted for more than a century (Mughal: 1526 - 1857; Ottoman: 1299 - 1922). Eliminate 3.
• Option 4: The Mughal Empire had Hindu - Muslim dynamics, so Hinduism had influence. Eliminate 4.

• Option 1: For Mughal, after Aurangzeb (a capable ruler), a less capable ruler led to decline (ineffective leadership). For Ottoman, when it decayed, its interconnected parts led to trouble spreading (too interconnected). This matches.
• Option 2: Mughal under Aurangzeb was not too secular (enforced orthodox Islam), and Ottoman in the 16th century had consistent policies (well - functioning). Eliminate 2.
• Option 3: Mughal had religious diversity (Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims), and Ottoman in the 16th century worked efficiently. Eliminate 3.
• Option 4: Mughal society was governed (Aurangzeb's policies), and Ottoman social groups were interconnected, not isolated. Eliminate 4.

Answer:

1. Each empire experienced a period of success.

Question 23