The Mughal Empire, founded by Zahiruddin Babur in 1526 and expanded to its zenith by Emperor Akbar in the second half of the sixteenth century, began to rapidly decline during the reign of its last great ruler, Aurangzeb (1658-1707). The decline of the Mughal Empire was a complex process influenced by various factors, including divisive policies, military weakness, regional revolts, and the rise of new regional elites. The reasons for the fall of the Mughal Empire have been widely discussed by historians.
Causes of Decline of the Mughal Empire
There are two primary perspectives on this:
- One believes the decline was primarily due to the internal issues of the empire.
- The other attributes it to the disturbances in various regions of the empire.
In reality, the decline can be attributed to a combination of both these factors. These factors include
Aurangzeb’s Overreach and Decline
- Alienation of Majority: Under Aurangzeb, the Mughal Empire expanded extensively, but its sheer size made it unwieldy and vulnerable, especially given the limited communication methods of the time.
- Aurangzeb’s endeavors to reintroduce strict Islamic governance alienated many, leading to widespread discontent and rebellions from diverse groups.
- His policies were often compared unfavourably with those of England’s James II.
- Loss of Allies: Aurangzeb’s religious and imperialistic motives turned previous allies, like the Rajputs, into adversaries.
- His aggressive stance towards Deccani kingdoms, driven partly by his Sunni beliefs, led to temporary successes but eventual challenges.
- Stress on Resources: Aurangzeb’s prolonged Deccan campaigns drained the empire’s resources, with the financial strain so severe that he resorted to melting down royal treasures.
- This continuous conflict in the Deccan was as damaging to the Mughal Empire as the ‘Spanish ulcer’ was to Napoleon’s reign.
Ineffectual Reign of Aurangzeb’s Successors
- Ineffective Leadership: The efficiency of the Mughal Empire largely hinged on the emperor’s capabilities. Following Aurangzeb, a series of weak rulers took the throne, exacerbating the empire’s decline. Their ineffective governance, eccentric behaviours, and questionable decisions reflected their incapability.
- For instance, Bahadur Shah I, despite his old age, was known for appeasing all by distributing titles, earning him the moniker “Shah-i-Bekhabar” or “The Heedless King.”
- “Heedless King” and His Reign: Subsequent emperors, including Jahandar Shah and Mohammad Shah, were either indulgent or disinterested in governance. Ahmad Shah’s missteps, like appointing toddlers to significant administrative roles, were particularly glaring during times of external threats.
- Such inept rulers failed to safeguard the empire’s interests or uphold its integrity.
Decline of Mughal Nobility
- Decline of Military Engagement: The Mughal nobility, once recognized for its military prowess and dedication to the empire, underwent significant degeneration.
- Emulating the indulgent lifestyles of their emperors, many nobles abandoned military pursuits in favor of luxury and leisure.
- Shift from Noble Prestige: Renowned for their excessive indulgences in harems, alcohol, and gambling, the nobility of the past, exemplified by figures like Bairam Khan and Asaf Khan, was replaced by mere courtiers skilled in flattery and intrigue.
J.N. Sarkar noted that the commendable achievements of a noble would dwindle with each subsequent generation. This decline in nobility resulted in the empire lacking adept administrators and dynamic military leaders.
Rise of Court Factions
- Political Instability in Aurangzeb’s Empire: By the twilight of Aurangzeb’s rule, influential nobles formed factions, primarily driven by personal interests and affiliations rather than true clan or familial ties. These factions plunged the empire into continuous political instability.
- Turranis: The Turrani faction, with roots in Central Asia, had leaders like Asaf Jah and Zakariya Khan.
- Persians: The Persian faction, led by figures like Amir Khan, frequently clashed with the Turani group.
- Hindustanis: These foreign factions often found themselves at odds with the Hindustani group, which had the support of Hindus.
- Factionalism within the nobility weakened the monarchy, allowed external powers like the Marathas and Jats to interfere in court politics, and prevented the Emperors from following a consistent policy. This factionalism became a significant issue from 1715 onwards.
- To deal with factionalism, Mughal Emperors relied on unworthy favourites, worsening the overall situation.
- Undermining Unity: Each group is against the emperor’s favor, sowing discord and disrupting administrative order.
- In times of external threats, these factions couldn’t unify, sometimes even conspiring with foreign invaders, sacrificing the empire’s interests for personal gains.
Flawed Succession Principle
- Mughals lacked a definitive law of primogeniture, leading to frequent battles of succession among the deceased emperor’s sons.
- While this system sometimes ensured the most capable son ascended the throne, it evolved detrimentally under later Mughals.
- Rather than the strongest, it became the ‘survival of the weakest’ as factions manipulated royal princes as figureheads to further their agendas.
- Powerful nobles, or ‘king-makers’, determined the fate of emperors, prioritizing personal gain.
- For instance, post Bahadur Shah I’s death in 1712, Zulfikar Khan became the influential ‘king-maker’, followed by the Sayyid Brothers between 1713 and 1720. This lack of a clear succession principle weakened the empire, both financially and militarily.
Marathas Ascendancy
- Role of Peshvas: The Marathas’ rise under the Peshwas proved to be a significant external factor causing the Mughal Empire’s downfall.
- As the Peshwas fortified the Maratha hold in Western India, they envisioned a broader Hindu Empire, directly clashing with the Mughal dominion.
- Expansion Approach: Transitioning from a defensive to an offensive stance, the Marathas expanded, even influencing Northern India. At their peak, the Marathas emerged as key players in Indian politics, repelling invasions like that of Ahmad Shah Abdali and influencing the Mughal throne, as evidenced by Sadashiv Rao Bhau in 1759 and Mahadaji Sindhia in 1772.
- Although the Marathas couldn’t establish a lasting empire, they undeniably accelerated the Mughal Empire’s fragmentation.
Mughal Military Failings
- Feudal Structure’s Limitations: The Mughal army had foundational weaknesses stemming from its semi-feudal structure. Soldiers were more loyal to their direct superior (the mansabdar) than to the emperor.
- This led to power struggles, such as those seen during the revolts of Bairam Khan and Mahabat Khan.
- William Irvine observed a decline in the military’s discipline, cohesion, and efficiency, noting their indulgence in luxury and lethargy.
- Loss of Military Spirit: The main problem with the Mughal armies of the 18th century was their inconsistent composition, comprising mercenaries seeking wealth rather than demonstrating loyalty, making them unreliable defenders of the empire.
- Instead of a focused military force, the Mughal army seemed like a mix of soldiers, camp followers, merchants, and various others.
- Effective Opponents: Their military effectiveness was questionable; they struggled against agile opponents like the Marathas. Comparatively, European forces showcased superior tactics and discipline, as seen when a small French detachment defeated a much larger Nawab army.
| The Jagirdari Crisis
The Jagirdari Crisis marked the waning of the Mansabdar-Jagirdari system during the latter part of Aurangzeb’s rule, playing a significant role in the Mughal Empire’s eventual decline. This can be attributed to the incorporation of Golconda and Bijapur into the empire, which expanded the nobility’s ranks and created a scarcity of available jagirs (land grants). Consequently, the nobles found themselves in fierce competition for the increasingly scarce and coveted jagirs, resulting in a gradual erosion of the Mughal political framework. |
Economic Decline
- Raids and Loss of Agriculture: The Mughal Empire’s economic stability began crumbling in the 17th century, intensifying during Aurangzeb’s rule. His prolonged Deccan campaigns drained the treasury and devastated trade and agriculture, with both Imperial forces and Maratha raiders causing widespread destruction.
- Economic distress prompted many peasants to abandon farming, turning to banditry instead.
- Loss of Sources of Revenue: The situation worsened under subsequent emperors. As provinces sought independence and stopped revenue contributions, combined with succession wars, royal extravagances, and mismanagement, the empire’s financial health collapsed.
- Faulty Land Revenue System: Inefficient measures, such as the granting of jagirs (land grants) instead of cash payments, exacerbated the crisis. The jagirdari system broke down, with delays in land possession and increasing debts.
- Mughal nobles were so financially strained that they couldn’t pay their subordinates, highlighting the empire’s steep decline.
Nature of the Mughal State
- Divisive Policies: The Mughal government primarily focused on maintaining internal and external stability and collecting revenue. Efforts by Akbar to integrate Hindus and Muslims into a united nation were undermined by Aurangzeb’s fanaticism.
- Mughals’ divisive policies led to unrest, with several Indian leaders viewing them as foreign oppressors. The empire’s weakening in the 18th century allowed Hindu communities like the Marathas and Rajputs to seek dominance.
Foreign Invasions
- Nadir Shah (1739): Nadir Shah’s invasion in 1739 severely weakened the Mughal Empire both financially and in terms of prestige. The empire’s evident military inadequacy after the invasion led to internal uprisings and diminished authority.
- Ahmad Shah Abdali: Subsequent invasions by Ahmad Shah Abdali resulted in the loss of several frontier provinces. Notably, by 1761, the Mughals were so weakened that Abdali’s Battle of Panipat was against the Marathas, not the huge Mughal empire.
- For a decade, Delhi saw an Afghan rule led by Najib-ud-daula.
European Arrival
- Modernized Opponents: The Mughal Empire’s weakening in the 18th century gave rise to numerous warlords, including European Companies. These companies outperformed Indian leaders in trade, diplomacy, and warfare.
- The static Mughal society faced a challenge from the dynamic and advancing West.
- Progressivev/s Conservative Forces: As European societies embraced the Renaissance, the Mughals remained entrenched in old beliefs. Sir Jadunath Sarkar noted that Europe’s domination over the Mughal Empire was part of a broader trend of progressive societies outpacing conservative ones.
- The Mughal Empire’s eventual decline was not shocking; what was surprising was its prolonged endurance.
Ethnic and Religious Divisions
Mughal nobility was divided into various ethno-religious groups, such as Turanis and Iranis, with Sunnis and Shias among them. This division often led to rivalry and jealousy among the nobles, which further weakened the central authority.
Views on the Decline of the Mughal EmpireThe roots of the disintegration of the Mughal empire may be found in the Medieval Indian economy; the stagnation of trade, industry, and scientific development within the limits of that economy; the growing financial crisis which took the form of a crisis of the jagirdari system and affected every branch of state activity; the inability of the nobility to realize in the circumstances their ambitions in the service of the state and consequently the struggle of factions and the bid of ambitious nobles for independent dominion; the inability of the Mughal emperors to accommodate the Marathas and to adjust their claims within the framework of the Mughal empire, and the consequent breakdown of the attempt to create a composite ruling class in India; and the impact of all these developments on politics at the court and in the country, and upon the security of the north-western passes. Individual failings and faults of character also played their due role but they have necessarily to be seen against the background of these deeper, more impersonal factors. —Satish Chandra, Parties and Politics at the Mughal Court, 1707-40 Various explanations are put forward for the revolts which brought about the collapse of the Mughal Empire… Here our main concern is with what our 17th and early 18th century authorities have to say. And it will be seen that they, at any rate, put the greatest store by the economic and administrative causes of the upheaval and know little of religious reaction or national consciousness… Thus was the Mughal Empire destroyed. No new order was, or could be, created by the forces ranged against it. —Irfan Habib, The Agrarian System of Mughal India The more I study the period, the more I am convinced that military inefficiency was the principal, if not the sole, cause of that empire’s final collapse. All other defects and weaknesses were as nothing in comparison with this…Long before it disappeared, it had lost all military energy at the center and was ready to crumble to pieces at the first touch. The rude hand of no Persian or Afghan conqueror, no Nadir, no Ahmad Abdali, the genius of no European adventure, a Dupleix or a Clive, was needed to precipitate it into the abyss. The empire of the Mughals was already doomed before any of these had appeared on the scene; and had they never been heard of there can be little doubt that some Mahratta bandit or Sikh freebooter would in due time have seated himself on the throne of Akbar and Shahjahan. —William Irvine, Army of the Indian Mughals A common impression is, that the decline and fall of the Mughal Empire were due to the degeneracy of its sovereigns. But…it was irretrievably ruined in the reign of Aurangzeb, a monarch of great ability, energy, and determination, but lacking in political insight, and a bigoted Mussulman. He struck the first mortal blow by reversing Akbar’s wise and generous policy of ignoring distinctions of race and religion, and reimposing the jizya, or poll tax, on his Hindu subjects; whereby he estranged them, and turned the noblest and most warlike of them—the Rajputs, hitherto the staunchest supporters of the throne—into deadly and persistent enemies. Shivaji and his followers not only vindicated their independence but struck a second mortal blow at the integrity of the Empire. They destroyed its military reputation. They exhausted their accumulated treasure. They spread disorder and devastation over the Deccan and beyond it…They established an imperium in imperio. Thus the Empire, though not dissolved, was hopelessly debilitated. The effective authority of the central government was thenceforth in abeyance…Nadir Shah, after inflicting the extremity of humiliation on the Emperor and his capital, annexed the Imperial territory west of the Indus. The dissolution of the Empire was complete. —Sidney Owen, The Fall of the Mughal Empire The Mughal Empire and with it the Maratha overlordship of Hindustan fell because of the rottenness at the core of Indian society. The rottenness showed itself in the form of military and political helplessness. The country could not defend itself; royalty was hopelessly depraved or imbecile; the nobles were selfish and short-sighted; corruption, inefficiency, and treachery disgraced all branches of the public service. Amid this decay and confusion, our literature, art, and even true religion had perished. —J.N. Sarkar, Fall of the Mughal Empire, Vol. IV |
| Must Read | |
| Current Affairs | Editorial Analysis |
| Upsc Notes | Upsc Blogs |
| NCERT Notes | Free Main Answer Writing |
Conclusion
The downfall of the Mughal Empire occurred due to a combination of internal and external influences. Aurangzeb’s aggressive actions and policies that divided the empire led to its weakening, and the ineffectiveness of his successors further worsened the decline. The growth of local authorities such as the Marathas, along with military and economic weaknesses, continued to weaken Mughal authority. Moreover, the empire’s increasing weaknesses were underscored by European interference and foreign attacks. In the end, the extended downfall of the Mughal Empire highlights a general pattern of strong organizations yielding to internal strife and external forces.
| Related Articles | |
| Mughal Emperors List, Names, Timeline, Great and Later Mughal Empire | European Parliament Elections |
| List of Joint Military Exercises of India, Types | THE RISE OF MARATHAS (1674-1818) |
