1.2.3 - Modern Indian History Notes 01

Elaborate Notes

The Decline of the Mughal Empire and Rise of Regional Powers

The 18th century in India was marked by a significant political transformation: the disintegration of the Mughal Empire and the subsequent emergence of various regional powers. This period of transition laid the groundwork for the eventual British colonization of the subcontinent.

Decline of the Mughal Empire: The process of decline, which began during the later years of Aurangzeb’s reign (1658-1707), was multifaceted.
- Aurangzeb’s Policies: Historians like Sir Jadunath Sarkar (History of Aurangzib, 1912-24) argued that Aurangzeb’s religious orthodoxy (re-imposition of Jizya, destruction of temples) and his prolonged, resource-draining Deccan campaigns against the Marathas fatally weakened the empire’s financial and military foundations.
- Structural Crisis (Jagirdari Crisis): A more structural explanation was offered by Satish Chandra (Parties and Politics at the Mughal Court, 1707-1740, 1959) and Irfan Habib (The Agrarian System of Mughal India, 1963). They posited a “Jagirdari Crisis,” where the number of nobles (Mansabdars) and their salary demands outstripped the available land (jagirs) to be assigned. This led to a scramble for the best jagirs, intense factionalism at the court (e.g., between Irani and Turani groups), and exploitation of the peasantry by jagirdars trying to extract maximum revenue in a short time. This agrarian crisis fueled peasant revolts (Jats, Sikhs, Satnamis), further destabilizing the empire.
- Weak Successors and Wars of Succession: Aurangzeb’s successors, known as the “Later Mughals,” were generally inept and became pawns in the hands of powerful nobles. Frequent and bloody wars of succession after 1707 drained the treasury and eroded the military’s strength.
- Foreign Invasions: The weakened empire became easy prey for foreign invaders. The invasion of Nadir Shah of Persia in 1739, culminating in the sack of Delhi, exposed the hollowness of Mughal power and dealt a catastrophic blow to its prestige and treasury. This was followed by repeated invasions by Ahmad Shah Abdali of Afghanistan, who decisively defeated the Marathas at the Third Battle of Panipat in 1761.
Rise of Regional Powers: As the central authority in Delhi weakened, provincial governors and local chieftains began to assert their independence, leading to the formation of several regional states. These can be categorized as:
- Successor States: These were provinces of the Mughal Empire that broke away and became semi-independent kingdoms. Their rulers continued to acknowledge the nominal suzerainty of the Mughal emperor but were de facto independent.
  - Hyderabad: Founded by Nizam-ul-Mulk Asaf Jah in 1724. He was a prominent noble at the Mughal court who, frustrated with the politics in Delhi, consolidated his hold over the Deccan provinces.
  - Bengal: Murshid Quli Khan, the governor (diwan), effectively made the province independent. He shifted the capital to Murshidabad and established a dynasty of Nawabs.
  - Awadh: Burhan-ul-Mulk Sa’adat Khan, the governor of Awadh appointed in 1722, established a virtually independent state and a hereditary line of succession.
- Rebel States: These states were established by groups that had waged war against Mughal authority.
  - Marathas: Having challenged Aurangzeb, they expanded rapidly under the Peshwas in the 18th century, establishing a vast confederacy. They developed a sophisticated administrative and revenue system, including the collection of Chauth (one-fourth of revenue) and Sardeshmukhi (an additional ten percent) from territories they controlled or raided.
  - Sikhs: After the execution of Guru Gobind Singh’s sons, Banda Bahadur led a fierce peasant uprising against the Mughals. Though his rebellion was crushed, it laid the foundation for the Sikh Misls (confederacies) and eventually, the powerful Sikh Empire under Maharaja Ranjit Singh in the early 19th century.
  - Jats: The Jat peasant-warriors around Delhi, Mathura, and Agra, led by chieftains like Churaman and Badan Singh, carved out the state of Bharatpur.
- Autonomous States: These were principalities that enjoyed significant autonomy and expanded their influence during the decline of the Mughals.
  - Mysore: Initially a small kingdom, it rose to prominence under the military genius of Hyder Ali and his son, Tipu Sultan, in the latter half of the 18th century, becoming a major challenge to the rising British power.
  - Rajputs: While having served as loyal Mansabdars, several Rajput states like Amber (Jaipur) and Marwar (Jodhpur) took advantage of the imperial decline to reassert their independence and expand their territories.
  - Travancore: Located in the far south, this kingdom under rulers like Martanda Varma consolidated its power and remained largely independent of Mughal influence.

The Battles of Panipat

The plains of Panipat, due to their strategic location on the route to Delhi, have been the site of three decisive battles in Indian history.

First Battle of Panipat (1526):
- Context: Zahir-ud-din Muhammad Babur, a Timurid prince who had lost his ancestral kingdom of Ferghana and Samarkand, established himself in Kabul. He was invited to India by disgruntled nobles of the Lodi Sultanate, such as Daulat Khan Lodi, the governor of Punjab, and by Rana Sanga of Mewar, who miscalculated that Babur would raid and leave, weakening the Lodis for him to take over.
- The Battle: Fought between Babur and Ibrahim Lodi, the last Sultan of the Delhi Sultanate. Babur’s army was numerically inferior but had two crucial advantages: gunpowder firearms, including matchlocks and small bronze cannons (field artillery), and superior tactics. He employed the Tulughma system (dividing the army into left, right, and centre units and flanking the enemy from both sides) and the Araba device (using carts tied together with animal hides as a defensive fortification for his cannons and musketeers).
- Outcome: Ibrahim Lodi was defeated and killed. The battle marked the end of the Delhi Sultanate and the beginning of the Mughal Empire in India. Babur’s memoirs, the Baburnama, provide a first-hand account of the battle and his military strategies.
Second Battle of Panipat (1556):
- Context: Following Babur’s death, his son Humayun was driven out of India by the Afghan leader Sher Shah Suri in 1540. Humayun managed to reconquer Delhi in 1555 but died in a tragic accident shortly after in 1556. This created a power vacuum. Hemchandra Vikramaditya, or Hemu, the brilliant Hindu general and chief minister of Adil Shah Suri (a successor of Sher Shah), seized this opportunity. He captured Agra and Delhi and declared himself the ruler, assuming the title of ‘Vikramaditya’.
- The Battle: The Mughal forces, nominally led by the 13-year-old Akbar, were commanded by his regent and guardian, Bairam Khan. The Mughal army was demoralized, but Bairam Khan decided to face Hemu’s much larger army at Panipat. Hemu had early success, scattering the Mughal wings, but a chance arrow struck him in the eye, rendering him unconscious. His leaderless army panicked and fled.
- Outcome: The unconscious Hemu was captured and executed. The victory was decisive for the Mughals, crushing the resurgent Afghan power and firmly re-establishing the Mughal Empire under Akbar.

Mughal Emperor Chronology

Great Mughals:

Babur (1526-1530)
Humayun (1530-1540 & 1555-1556)
Akbar (1556-1605)
Jahangir (1605-1627)
Shah Jahan (1628-1658)
Aurangzeb (Alamgir I) (1658-1707)

Later Mughals: 7. Bahadur Shah I (1707-1712) 8. Jahandar Shah (1712-1713) 9. Farrukhsiyar (1713-1719) 10. Muhammad Shah ‘Rangila’ (1719-1748) 11. Ahmad Shah Bahadur (1748-1754) 12. Alamgir II (1754-1759) 13. Shah Alam II (1759-1806) 14. Akbar II (1806-1837) 15. Bahadur Shah Zafar (II) (1837-1857)

The Mansabdari System

The Mansabdari system was the administrative and military framework of the Mughal Empire, institutionalized by Akbar. It was a unique system that did not have an exact parallel outside India.

Core Concept: Every official in the Mughal government was enrolled in the Mansabdari system. The term ‘Mansab’ means a rank or position. The holder of the rank was a ‘Mansabdar’. This single service governed both the civil and military aspects of the state. Lineage and personal favour of the emperor were key criteria for appointment.
Dual Ranks: Zat and Sawar:
- Zat: This was the personal rank of the Mansabdar. It determined his status in the court hierarchy and his personal salary (talab-i-khassa).
- Sawar: This rank indicated the number of cavalrymen (troopers) and horses a Mansabdar was required to maintain for the service of the state. His allowance for maintaining this contingent was separately calculated.
- According to the historian Athar Ali (The Mughal Nobility Under Aurangzeb, 1966), there were three categories of Mansabdars within a rank: first class (Sawar rank equal to Zat rank), second class (Sawar rank more than half of Zat rank), and third class (Sawar rank less than half of Zat rank).
Mode of Payment:
- Naqdi: Mansabdars who were paid their salary in cash from the central treasury.
- Jagirdari: Mansabdars who were assigned a piece of land, called a ‘Jagir’, in lieu of their salary. The right of the Jagirdar was not to the land itself, but to the authorized revenue from it, which was supposed to be equal to his salary claim. The officials who collected the revenue were appointed by the state, not the Jagirdar.
Types of Jagirs:
- Tankha Jagirs: These were transferable assignments of land, given in lieu of salary. A Mansabdar would hold a jagir for a few years before being transferred to another, to prevent him from developing local roots and power. This was a central tenet of Mughal administration.
- Vatan Jagirs: These were hereditary land assignments given to local chieftains and rajas who were absorbed into the Mansabdari system. The Vatan Jagir typically corresponded to the ancestral domain of the chieftain. While it was hereditary and non-transferable, the holder was still a Mughal Mansabdar. As a mark of fealty, the Vatan Jagirdar had to pay a tribute, known as Peshkash, to the emperor. This was a key tool of Akbar’s policy of integrating local elites into the imperial framework.
Systemic Importance and Weaknesses:
- Strength: The system created a centralized bureaucratic and military structure, loyal directly to the emperor. It successfully integrated diverse ethnic and religious groups (Turanis, Iranis, Afghans, Rajputs, Indian Muslims) into a common nobility.
- Weakness: The system’s effectiveness was based on a personal give-and-take relationship between the emperor and the Mansabdar. The emperor provided rank (Mansab) and remuneration (Jagir), and the Mansabdar provided loyalty and military service. A weak emperor or a scarcity of profitable jagirs (the Jagirdari crisis) could break this relationship, leading to disloyalty, corruption (e.g., not maintaining the required Sawar contingent), and rebellion.

Prelims Pointers

First Battle of Panipat (1526): Fought between Babur and Ibrahim Lodi.
Key technology in 1st Panipat: Babur used gunpowder firearms and field artillery.
Key tactics in 1st Panipat: Tulughma (flanking tactic) and Araba (cart-fortification).
Outcome of 1st Panipat: End of Delhi Sultanate, foundation of Mughal Empire.
Second Battle of Panipat (1556): Fought between Akbar (led by Bairam Khan) and Hemu.
Hemu’s Title: Hemchandra Vikramaditya.
Outcome of 2nd Panipat: Re-establishment of the Mughal Empire under Akbar.
Mansab: A rank or position in the Mughal administration.
Mansabdar: Holder of a Mansab.
Zat Rank: Determined personal status and salary of a Mansabdar.
Sawar Rank: Indicated the number of horsemen a Mansabdar had to maintain.
Jagir: A territory assigned to a Mansabdar in lieu of cash salary.
Naqdi: Mansabdars paid in cash.
Jagirdar: Mansabdars paid through assignment of jagirs.
Tankha Jagir: A transferable land assignment.
Vatan Jagir: A hereditary and non-transferable land assignment, usually given to local chieftains.
Peshkash: A tribute paid by Vatan Jagirdars to the Mughal emperor.
Successor States: Hyderabad (Nizam-ul-Mulk), Bengal (Murshid Quli Khan), Awadh (Saadat Khan).
Nadir Shah’s Invasion: 1739.
Third Battle of Panipat: 1761, between Ahmad Shah Abdali and the Marathas.

Mains Insights

Historiography of Mughal Decline:
1. Religious/Personal-centric View (Jadunath Sarkar): Argues that Aurangzeb’s orthodox religious policies (Jizya, temple destruction) and Deccan obsession alienated key allies like Rajputs and Marathas, leading to rebellions that exhausted the empire’s resources. The weak character of his successors compounded the problem.
2. Structural/Institutional Crisis View (Satish Chandra, Irfan Habib): Focuses on impersonal economic and administrative factors. The “Jagirdari Crisis” is central, where a shortage of viable jagirs compared to the number of nobles created instability, factionalism, and agrarian exploitation, leading to systemic collapse. This is considered a more comprehensive explanation by many modern historians.
3. Regional-centric View (Muzaffar Alam): Argues that the 18th century was not just about decline but also about the rise of dynamic regional polities. The successor states (Awadh, Bengal) showed significant economic growth and administrative innovation. The decline of the centre was paralleled by the dynamism of the periphery.
Mansabdari System: A Tool of Consolidation and a Cause of Disintegration:
- As an “Iron Frame”: The system was the backbone of Mughal power. It created a loyal, centralized nobility and an effective military machine. By incorporating diverse elites like Rajputs into the administrative structure through Vatan Jagirs, Akbar used it as a tool for political consolidation and syncretism.
- As a Source of Weakness: Its dependence on the emperor’s ability to dispense patronage (jagirs) made it vulnerable. The “Jagirdari Crisis” of the late 17th and 18th centuries transformed it from a tool of strength into a source of intense conflict among nobles, which weakened the central authority and accelerated the empire’s downfall. The personal loyalty it fostered meant that with a weak emperor, nobles pursued their own interests, leading to the formation of independent states.
Failure of Marathas to Establish a Pan-Indian Empire:
- Lack of a Cohesive Vision: The Maratha Confederacy was a loose association of powerful chieftains (Scindia, Holkar, Gaekwad, Bhonsle) who often pursued their own interests, leading to internal conflicts. There was no unified vision for an alternative pan-Indian political structure to replace the Mughals.
- Nature of Rule and Alienation: Their primary sources of revenue, Chauth and Sardeshmukhi, were essentially tributary demands enforced by plunder and raids. This alienated other regional powers, including Rajputs and Jats, who saw them as mere marauders rather than empire-builders. Consequently, they found few allies in crucial moments like the Third Battle of Panipat.
- Military and Diplomatic Shortcomings: While formidable in guerilla warfare, they struggled to adapt to conventional set-piece battles. Their defeat at Panipat (1761) by Ahmad Shah Abdali was a devastating blow to their imperial ambitions, from which they never fully recovered.

Previous Year Questions

Prelims

Who of the following Mughal emperors shifted emphasis from illustrated manuscripts to album and individual portrait? (UPSC CSE 2019) (a) Humayun (b) Akbar (c) Jahangir (d) Shah Jahan

Answer: (c) Jahangir. Explanation: While painting started under Humayun and flourished under Akbar, Jahangir was a great connoisseur of art and preferred more naturalistic themes, individual portraits, and studies of birds, animals, and flowers, which were often collected in albums (muraqqas).
With reference to the Mansabdari system, which of the following statements is/are correct? (Based on similar questions)
1. The system was introduced by Akbar.
2. The Mansabdars were hereditary officials.
3. The rank was divided into Zat and Sawar.
Select the correct answer using the code given below: (a) 1 only (b) 1 and 3 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3

Answer: (b) 1 and 3 only. Explanation: The Mansabdari system was institutionalized by Akbar. The rank was indeed divided into Zat and Sawar. However, the posts were not hereditary; they were appointed, promoted, and dismissed by the emperor. Only Vatan Jagirs, held by chieftains, had a hereditary component.
Consider the following statements about the First Battle of Panipat: (Based on similar questions)
1. It was the first time gunpowder was used on the Indian subcontinent.
2. Babur employed the Tulughma system of warfare.
3. The battle led to the establishment of the Lodi dynasty.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 2 only (b) 1 and 2 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3

Answer: (a) 2 only. Explanation: Gunpowder was known in India before Babur, but he used it effectively on a large scale with field artillery. Babur did employ the Tulughma tactic. The battle led to the end, not the establishment, of the Lodi dynasty and the beginning of the Mughal Empire.
With reference to Indian history, who of the following were known as “king makers” in the early 18th century? (Based on similar questions) (a) Sayyid Brothers (b) Nizam-ul-Mulk and Murshid Quli Khan (c) Bairam Khan (d) Zulfiqar Khan

Answer: (a) Sayyid Brothers. Explanation: Sayyid Abdullah Khan and Sayyid Husain Ali Khan Barha were powerful nobles after the death of Aurangzeb. They played a decisive role in enthroning and deposing several Mughal emperors, including Farrukhsiyar, earning them the title of ‘king-makers’.
What was the main reason for the defeat of the Marathas in the Third Battle of Panipat? (Based on similar questions) (a) Lack of support from other regional powers (b) Numerical inferiority of the Maratha army (c) Treachery of their general, Sadashivrao Bhau (d) Superiority of British artillery supporting Abdali

Answer: (a) Lack of support from other regional powers. Explanation: The Marathas’ policy of plunder and interference had alienated potential allies like the Rajputs, Jats, and the Nawab of Awadh (who sided with Abdali). This isolation was a crucial factor in their defeat. Their army was not numerically inferior, and Bhau was not a traitor. The British were not involved in this battle.

Mains

Clarify how mid-eighteenth-century India was beset with the specter of a fragmented polity. (UPSC CSE 2017)

Answer Framework:
- Introduction: Briefly describe the political state of India around 1750 as one of transition, marked by the rapid decline of the central Mughal authority and the simultaneous rise of multiple regional powers.
- Decline of the Mughal Center:
  - Explain the internal weaknesses: weak successors after Aurangzeb, wars of succession, court factionalism (Irani-Turani conflict).
  - Mention the impact of external shocks: Nadir Shah’s invasion (1739) and repeated invasions by Ahmad Shah Abdali, which shattered the prestige and finances of the Mughal court in Delhi.
- Emergence of Fragmented Regional Powers (The Specter):
  - Successor States: Discuss how provinces like Bengal, Awadh, and Hyderabad became de-facto independent kingdoms, paying only nominal allegiance to the Mughal emperor.
  - Rebel States: Explain the rise of powers that directly challenged the Mughals, such as the vast Maratha Confederacy, the Sikh Misls in Punjab, and the Jats near Agra.
  - Foreign Companies: Highlight the growing influence of European trading companies, especially the British and French, who were no longer just merchants but were becoming major political and military players, intervening in the conflicts of Indian states.
- Nature of the Fragmentation:
  - Emphasize the constant warfare and shifting alliances among these regional powers.
  - Conclude that this fragmented polity, with no single dominant power, created a vacuum that the British East India Company strategically exploited to establish its own empire over the next century.
The third battle of Panipat was fought in 1761. Why were so many empire-shaking battles fought at Panipat? (UPSC CSE 2014)

Answer Framework:
- Introduction: Briefly state that Panipat’s strategic location made it a natural battleground for contenders seeking control of Delhi, the political heart of North India.
- Geographical and Strategic Importance:
  - Location on the Grand Trunk Road: Panipat lay on the main route from the northwest (traditional invasion route via Khyber Pass) to Delhi. Any invader aiming for the capital had to pass through this region.
  - Flat Terrain: The vast, flat plains were ideal for the movement and deployment of large cavalry-based armies, which were the mainstay of medieval warfare.
  - Proximity to Delhi: Being close to the capital, it was the perfect place for a defending army to intercept an invader before they reached the city’s gates. A defeat here was often decisive.
  - Short Rainy Season: The relatively short monsoon season in the region provided a long campaign season suitable for warfare.
- Economic and Logistical Factors:
  - The region was fertile and could support large armies for a sustained period.
  - Its proximity to Delhi ensured easy supply lines for the defending army.
- Historical Precedent:
  - Mention the First Battle (1526) and Second Battle (1556) to show how Panipat had historically become the ‘decider’ of India’s fate, creating a psychological importance for the site.
- Conclusion: Conclude by summarizing that the combination of strategic geography, suitable terrain for warfare, and proximity to the imperial capital made Panipat a recurring and decisive battleground in Indian history.
“The Mansabdari system, as institutionalized by Akbar, was the ‘steel frame’ of the Mughal Empire, but it also contained the seeds of its own decay.” Analyze. (Based on similar themes)

Answer Framework:
- Introduction: Define the Mansabdari system as a unified administrative structure for ranking all Mughal state officials, combining civil and military functions. State that it was both a source of immense strength and a potential vulnerability.
- Part 1: The ‘Steel Frame’ - A Source of Strength:
  - Centralization and Loyalty: It created a bureaucracy directly loyal to the emperor, who personally controlled appointments, promotions, and dismissals. This prevented the rise of a hereditary, landed aristocracy.
  - Military Efficiency: It provided a large, standing army for the empire without the cost of direct central maintenance. The Sawar rank ensured military obligations were clearly defined.
  - Political Integration: It was a tool for assimilating diverse and powerful groups, especially Rajput chieftains, into the Mughal nobility, thus ensuring their loyalty and consolidating the empire.
- Part 2: The ‘Seeds of Decay’ - A Source of Weakness:
  - The Jagirdari Crisis: Explain how the system’s health depended on a sufficient supply of productive jagirs. As the nobility expanded, the pressure on land increased, leading to a shortage of jagirs (bejagiri).
  - Corruption and Exploitation: The crisis led to corruption, as nobles bribed officials for better jagirs or failed to maintain their required Sawar contingents to save money. The transferable nature of Tankha jagirs encouraged short-term exploitation of the peasantry.
  - Rise of Factionalism: Scarcity of resources fueled intense rivalry and factionalism among nobles at the court, paralyzing administration and weakening the emperor’s authority, especially under the weak Later Mughals.
- Conclusion: Conclude that while the Mansabdari system was a brilliant innovation that provided the structure for Mughal dominance for over a century, its inherent dependence on territorial expansion and a strong central monarch made it fragile. When these conditions disappeared in the late 17th century, the system’s internal contradictions surfaced, contributing significantly to the empire’s decline.

GS Notes