Topic: Reasons for the decline of the Mughal Empire

Question : Critically explain the reasons for the decline of the Mughal Empire?

Answer: The traditional historiography held the weak successors and incompetent commanders as being responsible for the decline of the Mughal Empire.

Sir J. N. Sarkar understood the revolts by the Marathas, Jats and Sikhs against the background of the religious bigotry of Aurangzeb. However, the reasons are not as simple as the one stated above. While some problems were created under Aurangzeb’s rule, some were inbuilt in the Mughal system of administration and only heightened under Aurangzeb who had to face more than enough share of problems.

1. While Aurangzeb expanded the Mughal Empire to its maximum boundaries, the campaigns greatly strained the financial basis of the Mughal Empire.

2. The Mughal system of governance was dependent on the personality of the Emperor. Strong Emperors like Babur, Humayun, Akbar, Jahangir, Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb could exercise a greater degree of check and balance over the vast aristocracy which was of different ethnic background- Turanis, Iranis, Afghans, Sheikhjadas or the Indian Muslims and the Hindus (the Rajputs and the Marathas). Lineage or the ethnic identity was the most important consideration for alliances. It was further expanded by Aurangzeb’s conquest of the two Deccani kingdoms of Bijapur in 1685 and Golconda in 1689. Their aristocracy, collectively called the Deccani group, was also absorbed in the Mughal ranks Each faction sought to influence the Emperor in order to gain concessions and more importantly mansabs. The later Mughals could not keep a check on the competition between the divergent groups and matters were made more complicated due to the economic crisis of the eighteenth century related with jagirs and mansabs.

3. Mansabdari and jagirdari crisis? The institution of mansabdari was developed by Akbar and referred to the military organization of the aristocracy Due to its nature each aristocrat/mansabdar was personally loyal to the emperor. Each mansabdar had a dual numerical rank- jat that signified his personal rank and sawar, which decided the number of horsemen he was required to maintain. The mansabdar was paid in cash but mostly by grant of landed estate/jagir and out of its revenue, the mansabdar had to maintain his sawar himself. The jagirs were usually non-transferable (tankha jagir) while other were transferable (vatan jagir). Since the appointments, transference, dismissal or promotion of the jagirs was the sole prerogative of the emperor, there existed a “patron-client relationship” between the emperor and the ruling classes. However, beginning with the last years of Aurangzeb’s reign there was a marked shrinkage in the number of jagirs which could not meet the ever growing ranks of mansabdars. And more than often the jagirs that were allotted were not economically viable, especially those in the Deccan were not fertile and not sufficient enough to meet the needs of the mansabdars. This jagirdari crisis is believed to have intensified the court politics with each faction vying for better jagirs. Under the later Mughals, this crisis kept intensifying and weakened the position of the Emperor. The crisis meant that the emperor was not assured of support and loyalty of the ruling class and this in turn destabilized the military base of the Emperor.

4. Militarily, the Mughal army was weak due to lack of technological innovation and organization. There were contingents of soldiers who owed allegiance to their immediate overlords. It lacked a national character.

5. The Deccan campaign of Aurangzeb proved to be suicidal for the Mughal Empire The war with the Marathas preoccupied Aurangzeb keeping him away from Delhi, the center for power, for most part of the last twenty years of his life. His absence from seat of the Mughal Empire meant that the provisional governors/subedars were beyond his reach and could exercise greater authority in their provinces The Deccan campaign also proved to be a drain on the military strength of the army and the Empires treasury.

6. The continuous campaigns also affected the livelihood of the peasantry. Peasants were allowed to retain the bare minimum of the surplus-produce; the rest was collected as the land revenue out of which the governing class derived its wealth. High land revenue, corruption of the revenue farmers, jagirdars, and petty officials led to over exploitation of the peasants many of whom left agriculture altogether trade was also disturbed especially in the Deccan All of this precipitated the gradual collapse of the Mughal Empire. Even in north India, the heart of Mughal India, many zamindars defied the Mughal authority by often withholding the revenues from it. These zamindars due to their closeness with the peasants who had their own grievance, could mobilize them. The Jat peasants in north India, the Sikhs in the Punjab, the Maratha sadars and the Rajputs of Rajasthan who withdrew their allegiance to the Mughal Emperor all rose up in acts of defiance.

7. Matters were worsened by the series of tribal incursions or raids in India from Central Asia, Eurasia and Afghanistan in the eighteenth century. In 1730s, the Marathas under Shivaji gained access to vast tracts of Central India. In 1738, they even plundered the suburbs of Delhi. Nadir Shah from Persia invaded and sacked Delhi in 1738-39 during the reign of Muhammad Shah. In 1748, the first Afghan invasion was repelled but under the leadership of Ahmad Shah Abdali, Punjab was conquered and he then sacked Delhi in 1756-57. Mughals sought help from the Marathas who were led by Sadasiv Rao Bhao but the latter too were defeated by Abdali at the Battle of Panipat in 1761 (1761 is also the time-frame when the East India Company is gaining strength in Bengal). But soon due to an army revolt Abdali was forced to retreat to Afghanistan. However, the damage to Delhi and the Mughal Empire was done.

8. Due to the weakening of the Mughal Empire many Provincial Governors like those of Bengal, Awadh, Hyderabad and Carnatic established independent kingdoms by 1740s. The period of the later Mughals was marked by the use of the regional powers and gradual decline of the Mughal suzerainty. Thus, by the end of the eighteenth century the Mughal Emperor was confined to a narrow stretch around the city of Delhi

Go Back To Main Page