IGNOU MHI-04 Solved Question Paper PDF Download

IGNOU MHI-04 Previous Year Solved Question Paper in Hindi

IGNOU MHI-04 Previous Year Solved Question Paper in English

Q1. Explain the rise of territorial states in the age of Buddha.

Ans. The 6th century BCE, often referred to as the age of Buddha, marks a significant transformation in the political landscape of the Indian subcontinent. This period witnessed the transition from small, tribal polities ( Jana ) to large, well-defined territorial states ( Mahajanapadas ). The rise of these states was facilitated by a combination of several factors. Key Factors: 1. Spread of Iron Technology: The widespread use of iron tools and weapons in the Gangetic plains was a primary catalyst for this change. Iron-tipped ploughs made it possible to clear dense forests and cultivate hard soil, leading to a substantial agricultural surplus . This surplus could support a non-agrarian population, including soldiers, administrators, and artisans, which was essential for state-building. 2. Agricultural Expansion and Economic Growth: The agricultural surplus stimulated trade and commerce. Advanced agricultural techniques like wet paddy transplantation further boosted production. This resulted in the growth of new urban centres that became hubs of trade, craft, and administration. The circulation of coins (notably punch-marked coins) facilitated commercial transactions. 3. Socio-Political Changes: The tribal egalitarianism of the Vedic period was gradually giving way to a more complex, stratified society. The king, who was earlier primarily a tribal chieftain, now derived his power from control over land and resources. The idea of hereditary kingship grew stronger, and elaborate administrative mechanisms began to develop. 4. New Ideologies: New religious and philosophical movements, such as Buddhism and Jainism, challenged the old Vedic Brahmanical norms. They supported the claims of the Kshatriya class and emphasized universal moral principles (Dharma), which were conducive to uniting large states with diverse populations. The Rise of Mahajanapadas: As a result of these factors, Buddhist texts like the Anguttara Nikaya list sixteen great territorial states or Mahajanapadas. These included Kashi, Kosala, Anga, Magadha, Vajji, Malla, Chedi, Vatsa, Kuru, Panchala, Matsya, Shurasena, Assaka, Avanti, Gandhara, and Kamboja. These states were of two types:

• Monarchies: Most Mahajanapadas were monarchies, ruled by hereditary kings, such as Magadha, Kosala, and Avanti. These states possessed a standing army, an elaborate bureaucracy, and a formal system of taxation.
• Republics or Gana-Sanghas: Some states, like Vajji and Malla, were republics, where power was vested in a tribal assembly or a group of oligarchs.

These states were in constant conflict for supremacy, which ultimately led to the rise of

Magadha

as the most powerful state due to its strategic geographical location, access to iron ore, agricultural prosperity, and ambitious rulers like Bimbisara and Ajatashatru. Thus, the age of Buddha marks the laying of the foundation for a centralized state system in India.

Q2. Discuss the salient features of the Kushan state.

Ans. The Kushan Empire, which flourished from approximately the 1st to the 3rd century CE, represents a unique and significant political structure in Indian history. Originating from the Yuezhi tribes of Central Asia, the Kushans established a vast empire that stretched from North India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and parts of Central Asia. The salient features of the Kushan state are as follows: 1. Concept of Divine Kingship: Kushan rulers adopted the theory of divine origin to legitimize and elevate their status. They took titles like ‘Devaputra’ (Son of God), which may have been inspired by the Chinese concept of the ‘Son of Heaven’. Emperors like Kanishka I had their statues installed in temples ( devakulas ), fostering reverence and loyalty towards the ruler. This was a departure from the traditional Brahmanical concepts of kingship. 2. Dual Kingship and Satrap System: The Kushans continued the practice of having two rulers simultaneously, a senior and a junior. To maintain control over their vast and diverse empire, they adopted the Satrapy system , inherited from the Shakas and Parthians. The empire was divided into provinces, which were governed by Satraps (Kshatrapas) and Great Satraps (Mahakshatrapas). This indicates a decentralized administrative structure where local rulers enjoyed considerable autonomy. 3. International Trade and Economic Prosperity: The most significant feature of the Kushan state was its control over a large section of the famous Silk Road . This route connected China with the Roman Empire, and the Kushans reaped immense profits by taxing this trade. They issued a large number of high-quality gold coins, modelled on the Roman denarius. These coins facilitated long-distance trade and are a testament to the empire’s prosperity. 4. Cultural Syncretism: The Kushan empire was a melting pot of different cultures. Their art and coinage show a clear fusion of Graeco-Roman, Iranian, Central Asian, and Indian influences. The rulers personally patronized different religions. While some rulers were devotees of Shaivism, Kanishka I is renowned as a great patron of Buddhism. The Fourth Buddhist Council was held during his reign, and the Gandhara school of art, a fine example of Graeco-Buddhist art, flourished. 5. Military Prowess: Coming from a nomadic background, the Kushans had a strong military tradition. Their army notably included mounted archers, which was a significant innovation in warfare at the time. The use of armour and superior horses made them a formidable military force. In summary, the Kushan state was a complex and multicultural political entity, characterized by divine kingship, a decentralized administration, control over international trade, and a unique cultural syncretism.

Q3. Discuss the nature and social origin of polities in South India between 3rd to 6th century A. D.

Ans. The period between the 3rd and 6th centuries AD was a crucial transitional phase in the history of South India. It lies between the end of the Sangam Age and the rise of the great regional kingdoms. This era saw the emergence of several new polities whose nature and social origins laid the foundation for the medieval political landscape of South India. Nature and Social Origins: 1. Emergence from Chieftaincies: Many dynasties that arose during this period had their roots in local chieftains or tribal heads. For instance, the Kadamba dynasty , founded by Mayurasharman, came from a Brahmin family that adopted Kshatriya roles. Similarly, the Western Ganga dynasty likely originated from local chieftains. These rulers legitimized their new status by adopting Brahmanical rituals and Sanskrit culture. 2. Brahmanical Legitimation and Land Grants: A defining characteristic of the polities of this period was the practice of land grants ( brahmadeya and devadana ) . Rulers made land grants to Brahmins and temples to consolidate their power and legitimacy. These grants, often inscribed on copper plates, were not just acts of piety but also political instruments. Through them, rulers extended agriculture into uncultivated areas, expanded their administrative reach, and gained ideological support for their sovereignty through the Brahmins. 3. Sanskritization and State Formation: This period saw a deep penetration of the Sanskrit language and Brahmanical culture into South India. Rulers adopted grand titles like Maharajadhiraja and performed Vedic sacrifices like the Ashvamedha. This process, which can be termed ‘Sanskritization’, was a means of transforming local tribal structures into a more universal and integrated state model. It helped in the transition from chieftains to kings. 4. The Kalabhra Interregnum: The period between the 3rd and 6th centuries is traditionally seen as the ‘Kalabhra dark age’. The Kalabhras are believed to have been patrons of Buddhism and Jainism and are said to have disrupted the traditional Brahmanical order. Although information about them is scarce, their rule broke the old political structures and paved the way for the rise of new dynasties like the Pallavas, Pandyas, and Chalukyas . The Kalabhra disruption, in effect, heralded a new political era. 5. Rise of the Pallavas: Towards the end of this period, the Pallavas emerged as a major power. Their early charters are in Prakrit and later in Sanskrit, reflecting the transition. They established their capital at Kanchipuram and laid the foundations of a strong, centralized monarchy. The Pallavas adopted the practice of land grants on a large scale and constructed magnificent temples, which later became an integral part of South Indian kingship. In conclusion, the polities in South India between the 3rd and 6th centuries represent a process of transformation from tribal chieftaincies to regional kingdoms. The nature of these polities was defined by Brahmanical legitimation, administrative control through land grants, and the adoption of Sanskrit culture, which set the stage for the classical and medieval kingdoms of South India.

Q4. Analyse the various approaches to the study of early medieval polity.

Ans. The nature of political structures in the early medieval period in India (c. 600-1200 CE) has been a subject of intense debate among historians. Three major approaches or models have been proposed to understand the polity of this period: the Feudalism model, the Segmentary State model, and the Integrative/Processual model. 1. The Indian Feudalism Model: The chief proponent of this approach is Professor R.S. Sharma . Drawing a parallel with European feudalism, this model argues that the early medieval period was marked by a political, social, and economic crisis. According to Sharma, the decline of trade and urban centres in the post-Harsha era led to a monetary crisis. To cope with this, kings started granting land to their officers and to Brahmins instead of paying them in cash.

• Features: This model suggests that these land grants created a hierarchical structure where the land-grantees (samantas) held administrative and judicial authority over the peasants under them. This led to the erosion of the king’s power, political fragmentation, and the subjection of the peasantry to a state of near-serfdom.
• Critique: This model has been criticized for being overly dependent on the European model and for ignoring regional variations, such as in South India. Furthermore, later research has shown that there was no complete collapse of trade and urbanization during this period.

2. The Segmentary State Model:

This model was proposed by

Burton Stein

, primarily for the study of South India, especially the Chola empire. The model is inspired by African studies and argues that real political control in the early medieval state was limited and diminished as one moved away from the centre.

• Features: According to Stein, the state had dual sovereignty: the ritual sovereignty of the king at the centre and the actual political control of local chiefs in their respective localities. The state was composed of numerous segments that were locally autonomous but owed ritual allegiance to the king. The king’s direct control was limited to the core zone.
• Critique: This model has been criticized for underestimating the political power of the king and for neglecting the state’s military and administrative structures. Critics argue that the Cholas did possess a strong bureaucracy and army.

3. The Integrative/Processual Model:

This is the most recent approach, developed by historians like

B.D. Chattopadhyaya

and

Hermann Kulke

. Instead of focusing on decline or fragmentation, this model views the early medieval period as a

process of state formation

.

• Features: This model argues that this was a period not of “decline of states” but of “formation of states”. It involved the integration of local chieftains, tribal heads, and other local powers into a larger political structure through land grants, temple-building, and Brahmanical ideology. It was a bottom-up process, where state society was expanding into peripheral areas. This model accommodates regional variations and sees it as a dynamic process.

In conclusion, each approach highlights a specific aspect of the early medieval polity. While the feudalism model focuses on the economic crisis and the segmentary state model on ritual power, the integrative model offers a more comprehensive and dynamic explanation that helps in understanding the complex processes of state formation.

Q5. Write short notes on any two of the following in about 250 words each : (a) Textual sources on statecraft during the Sultanate period (b) The Portuguese Sea-Borne Empire (c) The colonial military apparatus (d) The nature of post-colonial Indian nation-state

Ans. (a) Textual sources on statecraft during the Sultanate period A variety of literary sources are available for understanding statecraft and political theory during the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526 CE). These can be broadly divided into two categories: Tarikh (histories) and Adab (ideal conduct) literature. Within the Tarikh tradition, Ziauddin Barani’s ‘Tarikh-i-Firuzshahi’ and ‘Fatawa-i-Jahandari’ are the most significant. The ‘Fatawa-i-Jahandari’ is particularly a theoretical treatise on statecraft. In it, Barani outlines the duties of an ideal Muslim ruler. He emphasizes the formulation of state laws (zawabit) to maintain the monarchy, even if they are not in strict conformity with the Sharia. He advises the ruler on the importance of justice, discretion, and nobility. Adab literature, which were essentially didactic texts for rulers and courtiers, also sheds light on statecraft. Fakhr-i-Mudabbir’s ‘Adab-al-harb wa’l-shuja’a’ (The Art of War and Bravery) is a prime example. This text provides detailed information on military strategy, the maintenance of horses and weapons, and the martial qualities of a ruler. It gives practical advice to the ruler on maintaining a strong army and ensuring the security of the state. Besides these texts, works by writers like Amir Khusrau and Isami also indirectly provide information on political ideas and courtly culture. These sources help us understand the ideological and practical challenges faced by the Sultanate rulers, including the attempt to balance Islamic principles with the political realities of India. (c) The colonial military apparatus The colonial military apparatus was central to the establishment and maintenance of British colonial rule in India. It was not merely a war-fighting machine but a crucial instrument of conquest, control, and imperial expansion. It began as the East India Company’s private army to protect its trading interests. By the mid-18th century, especially after the Battle of Plassey (1757), it transformed into a vast, professional army. Its structure was distinctive: it had a large number of Indian soldiers (sepoys) , but the officer corps was exclusively British . This was a system based on racial hierarchy and mistrust. The colonial army had a dual purpose. Its primary function was to expand and secure the British empire by conquering Indian states and suppressing revolts. Secondly, it was also used for the interests of the British empire outside India (e.g., in China, Afghanistan, and Africa). The Revolt of 1857 marked a major turning point in the military apparatus. After the revolt, the army was reorganised. The proportion of British troops was increased, and critical departments like the artillery were placed entirely under British control. The theory of “martial races” was introduced, which prioritized recruitment from certain communities (like Sikhs, Gurkhas, Pathans) who were considered more loyal. This was a military extension of the ‘divide and rule’ policy, which ensured that the army remained a reliable pillar of colonial rule until the 20th century.

Q6. Analyse the nature of Pallavan kingship.

Ans. The Pallavas, who ruled in South India from approximately the 4th to the 9th century CE, developed a nature of kingship that became a model for later South Indian dynasties. Their concept of kingship was a unique blend of indigenous traditions, Brahmanical ideology, and political innovation. The nature of Pallavan kingship can be analysed through the following points: 1. Brahmanical Legitimation and Rituals: Pallava rulers made extensive use of Brahmanical rituals and ideology to legitimize their power. They assumed grand Sanskrit titles like Maharajadhiraja and Dharmamaharajadhiraja . To gain divine sanction for their rule, they performed Vedic sacrifices such as the Ashvamedha and Vajapeya . This was a conscious effort to provide a religious and moral basis for their rule. 2. Role of Land Grants (Brahmadeya): A central element of Pallavan kingship was the practice of making land grants (brahmadeya) to Brahmins. These grants were not merely acts of religious merit but were important political and economic tools.

• Administrative Tool: Through these grants, the Pallava rulers extended agriculture into uncultivated or peripheral areas and expanded their administrative reach. The Brahmin grantees acted as local representatives of the king’s authority.
• Instrument of Integration: Land grants helped in integrating local economies and communities into a larger state structure.

3.

Temple-building and Kingship:

The Pallavas, especially later rulers like Narasimhavarman I and Rajasimha (Narasimhavarman II), are known for making temple construction a major medium for the expression of kingship. The magnificent stone temples, such as the Rathas of Mahabalipuram and the Shore Temple, were not just places of worship but were also

symbols of the king’s power, wealth, and piety

. The construction of temples employed a large number of artisans and labourers and they became centres of economic activity, further enhancing the king’s influence.

4.

Lineage and Genealogy:

To strengthen their legitimacy, the Pallavas claimed descent from mythical lineages. They constructed genealogies that linked them to epic heroes and gods. This was a way of endowing the ruling family with a prestigious and ancient status, thereby increasing their acceptance among their subjects.

5.

King as the Source of Justice:

The Pallava king was considered the supreme judicial authority in the kingdom and the protector of

Dharma (law and order)

. He was expected to settle disputes among his subjects and maintain social harmony.

In conclusion, Pallavan kingship was a multi-faceted concept. It was not based on military power alone but was carefully constructed and legitimized through Brahmanical rituals, the strategic use of land grants, grand temple construction, and mythical genealogies. It established a model where the king was not just a political ruler but also the centre of a socio-religious order.

Q7. Discuss the judicial system prevailing in ancient India.

Ans. The concept of justice in ancient India was rooted in the broader principle of ‘Dharma’ , which meant not only law but also moral order, duty, and social conduct. The ancient Indian judicial system was a complex and evolved structure, information about which is available from the Dharmasutras, Dharmashastras (like Manusmriti , Yajnavalkyasmriti ), the Arthashastra , and other literary sources. Sources of Law: Ancient Indian law, called ‘Vyavahara’, had four main sources: 1. Dharmashastra/Shruti-Smriti: The eternal rules and principles described in the Vedas and Smritis. 2. Achara/Charitra: Established and accepted customs prevailing in a particular region, community, or family. 3. Rajashasana: Edicts or royal decrees issued by the king. 4. Yukti-Tarka: Reason and logic, where the above sources were silent. Structure of Courts: A hierarchical system existed for the administration of justice. At the lowest level, villages had local councils (Kula, Shreni, Puga) to settle local disputes. These councils delivered judgments based on local customs. Above these, there were courts in towns and at the district level, and the highest appellate authority was the king’s court . The king was considered the fountainhead of justice and was expected to rule according to Dharma. The king was assisted in his court by a Chief Judge (Pradvivaka) and other learned Brahmins (Sabhyas). Kautilya’s Arthashastra mentions two types of courts:

• Dharmasthiya: These dealt with civil matters, such as disputes related to property, marriage, inheritance, and contracts.
• Kantakashodhana: These dealt with criminal matters, such as theft, robbery, murder, and crimes against the state.

Judicial Procedure and Punishment:

The trial procedure involved the filing of a complaint by a plaintiff (avedaka), summoning the defendant, presentation of claims by both parties, and the presentation of evidence. Evidence was of three types:

written documents (lekhya), witnesses (sakshi), and possession (bhukti)

. In some cases, when normal evidence was not available, ordeals (divya pariksha) were also resorted to, such as trial by fire or water.

The purpose of punishment was retributive, deterrent, and reformative. The punishment depended on the severity of the crime and the

Varna status

of the offender. Brahmins were generally exempt from corporal punishment, while a Shudra would receive a harsh punishment for the same crime. Punishments included fines, confiscation of property, corporal punishment (mutilation), imprisonment, and the death penalty.

In essence, the judicial system of ancient India was a complex blend of the ideals of Dharma and the realities of social hierarchy. It had a well-developed procedure and institutional framework for resolving disputes, which established the king as the ultimate judge.

Q8. Describe the working of the Mansab system under the Mughals.

Ans. The Mansabdari system was the backbone of the Mughal empire’s administrative and military structure. It was systematically established by Akbar and was a unique way to organize the nobility, determine their rank and salary, and define their military obligations. Structure of the Mansab System: ‘Mansab’ is an Arabic word meaning rank, position, or status. Under the Mansabdari system, every officer was assigned a mansab (rank). This system was based on dual ranks: ‘Zat’ and ‘Sawar’ . 1. Zat: This determined an officer’s personal rank and salary . The higher the Zat rank, the higher the officer’s position in the hierarchy and the higher his salary. It was an indicator of his status and prestige in the imperial court. 2. Sawar: This rank determined the number of horsemen and horses that a mansabdar was required to maintain. Each mansabdar had to maintain a certain number of equipped cavalrymen and horses according to his Sawar rank, which had to be presented for imperial inspection. The mansabdar was responsible for the recruitment, training, and maintenance of these troops. Working and Payment: Appointment and Promotion: The appointment, promotion, and dismissal of mansabdars were entirely at the discretion of the Emperor . Only the Emperor could grant a mansab to any individual. Mansabdars could be promoted or demoted based on their performance and the Emperor’s will. The system was not hereditary; after the death of a mansabdar, his property (including his jagir) reverted to the royal treasury (principle of escheat or zabti). Payment of Salary: Mansabdars were paid their salaries in two ways:

• Naqdi: Some mansabdars were paid their salary in cash from the royal treasury. They were called ‘naqdi’ mansabdars.
• Jagir: Most mansabdars were given revenue assignments of land (jagirs) in lieu of their salary. They were assigned a particular area (jagir) from which they could collect the stipulated revenue to meet their salary, the pay of their troopers, and other administrative expenses. It is important to note that the jagirdar had only the right to collect revenue, not ownership of the land . Jagirs were frequently transferred to prevent any mansabdar from developing roots in a particular area.

Significance and Decline of the System:

The Mansabdari system provided the Mughal empire with a strong and centralized military and administrative framework. It integrated the nobility of various ethnic and religious groups (like Turanis, Iranis, Rajputs, Indian Muslims) into a single imperial service. However, in the later Mughal period, the shortage of jagirs and the excessive increase in the number of mansabdars led to the

Jagirdari crisis

, which weakened the system and contributed to the decline of the empire.

Q9. Discuss the orientalist and evangelical understanding of the Indian socio-political system.

Ans. In the 18th and 19th centuries, with the expansion of British rule in India, British administrators and intellectuals sought to understand Indian society, culture, and political systems. Two major ideological currents shaped this understanding: Orientalism and Evangelicalism . Both approaches played a role in justifying colonial rule, but their arguments and methods were different. Orientalist Understanding: The Orientalists included those British scholars and administrators who showed a deep interest in Indian languages (like Sanskrit and Persian), literature, and philosophy. Figures like Sir William Jones, H.T. Colebrooke, and Nathaniel Halhed were its key proponents.

• Core Beliefs: The Orientalists imagined a glorious past for India. They studied and translated ancient Indian texts and found that Indian civilization had its own great achievements. They believed that Indian society, though currently in a state of decline, was once highly developed.
• View on Political System: They traditionally viewed the Indian political system as an ‘Oriental Despotism’, where the ruler had absolute power. However, they believed this despotism was often benevolent and was limited by religion and customs.
• Colonial Justification: Orientalists argued that the British should respect Indian traditions and laws and govern according to them. They believed that British rule could restore India’s ‘lost glory’. Thus, they justified rule as a project of preservation.

Evangelical Understanding:

The Evangelicals, who believed in the propagation of Christianity, presented a completely opposite view of Indian society and politics. Figures like

Charles Grant and William Wilberforce

were the main representatives of this stream.

• Core Beliefs: Evangelicals viewed Indian society as immoral, superstitious, and degenerate . They strongly criticized Hinduism and its practices (like idol worship, sati, caste system). Charles Grant argued in his book that Indian society was full of ‘falsehood and dishonesty’.
• View on Political System: They also accepted the idea of ‘Oriental Despotism’ but considered it cruel, oppressive, and unjust. According to them, it was the tyranny of Indian rulers that had led to the moral decay of society.
• Colonial Justification: For the Evangelicals, British rule was a blessing for India. They argued that it was the moral and religious duty of the British to spread Christianity and to ‘reform’ and ‘redeem’ Indian society through Western education and laws. They presented British rule as a ‘civilizing mission’.

In conclusion, both Orientalist and Evangelical perspectives judged Indian society by European standards and found it wanting—the Orientalists saw it as a decadent but redeemable past, while the Evangelicals saw it as a fundamentally corrupt present. Both ideologies, through their different arguments, provided an intellectual and moral justification for British political hegemony over India.

Q10. Write short notes on any two of the following in about 250 words each : (a) Colonial land revenue (b) Charter Act of 1833 (c) Indian University Commission, 1902 (d) Chalukyas of Badami

Ans. (a) Colonial land revenue Under British colonial rule, land revenue policies were the most important pillar of their economic policies in India. Their main objective was to ensure maximum and regular revenue for the Company and later the British Crown. These policies had a deep and lasting impact on Indian rural society and economy. There were three major land revenue systems: 1. Permanent Settlement: Introduced by Lord Cornwallis in 1793 in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. Under this system, the Zamindars were made owners of the land and had to pay a fixed, permanent amount to the government. The system aimed to create a loyal landlord class and ensure a stable revenue income. However, it left the peasants at the mercy of the zamindars and led to extreme exploitation. 2. Ryotwari System: This was introduced by Thomas Munro in Madras, Bombay, and parts of Assam. In this system, the government made a settlement directly with the peasants (ryots). The land revenue was collected directly from the peasant and it was not permanent; it was revised every 20 to 30 years. In theory, it was better, but in practice, high revenue rates and harsh collection methods trapped the peasants in a cycle of debt. 3. Mahalwari System: This was implemented in the North-Western Provinces, Central India, and Punjab. In this system, revenue was settled collectively with the entire village or ‘mahal’. The village headman or community was responsible for collecting the revenue and paying it to the government. Here too, the revenue demand was very high, leading to increased rural indebtedness. The net result of all these systems was the commercialization of Indian agriculture, a rise in rural indebtedness, and the large-scale dispossession of peasants. (d) Chalukyas of Badami The Chalukyas of Badami (also known as the Vatapi Chalukyas) were a prominent dynasty that ruled a large part of southern and central India from about 543 AD to 753 AD. Their capital was Vatapi (modern Badami) in the present-day Bagalkot district of Karnataka. Key Rulers and Expansion: The most famous ruler of this dynasty was Pulakeshin II (c. 610-642 AD) . He expanded his empire extensively. His most significant military achievement was defeating the powerful emperor Harsha of Kanauj on the banks of the Narmada River, which halted his southward expansion ambitions. This victory earned him the title ‘Parameshvara’ and made him the undisputed master between north and south India. However, the Chalukyas had a long and destructive conflict with the Pallavas of Kanchi. The Pallava king Narasimhavarman I defeated Pulakeshin II and captured Vatapi for some time. Art and Architecture: The most lasting contribution of the Chalukyas is in the field of architecture. They developed a unique style of temple building, known as the ‘Chalukyan style’ or ‘Vesara style’, which incorporates elements of both the northern (Nagara) and southern (Dravida) styles. Magnificent examples of their architectural innovations can be seen at Aihole, Badami, and Pattadakal . Aihole is called the “cradle of Indian architecture,” with over 100 temples. Badami is famous for its rock-cut cave temples, while at Pattadakal, where the Chalukya kings were coronated, temples in both Nagara and Dravida styles stand side by side. UNESCO has declared Pattadakal a World Heritage Site. In 753 AD, they were overthrown by their feudatories, the Rashtrakutas, under the leadership of Dantidurga, who established their own power in the Deccan.