GS Notes

1.2.3 - Modern Indian History Notes 03

24 min read

Elaborate Notes

The Decline of the Mughals (continued)

  • Military Weakness:

    • The Nature of the Mughal State: The Mughal Empire, from its inception under Babur, was fundamentally a military-conquest state. Its administrative structure, the Mansabdari system, was a military-bureaucratic apparatus where ranks (zat and sawar) determined both status and military obligations. As historian Jadunath Sarkar argued in his “History of Aurangzib” (1912-1924), the empire’s stability rested on its military prowess. It was not a ‘nation-state’ in the modern sense, as it lacked a unified national identity; its coherence depended on the emperor’s ability to command loyalty and project military power.
    • Technological and Organisational Stagnation: While the Mughals under Babur had mastered gunpowder technology (artillery and matchlocks), by the 18th century, their military science had stagnated. There was a conspicuous absence of innovation in military tactics, weaponry, and organization, especially when compared to the rapidly modernizing European armies and even agile regional forces like the Marathas, who excelled in guerrilla warfare. The Mughal army remained heavily reliant on its cumbersome cavalry and slow-moving artillery, making it ineffective against swift raids.
    • Decline in Commandership: The line of formidable military commanders that characterized the early Mughal period (like Bairam Khan, Man Singh, Mir Jumla) ended with Aurangzeb. The later Mughals and their nobles often lacked the personal valor, strategic acumen, and leadership qualities essential to command vast, diverse armies. Emperors like Muhammad Shah ‘Rangeela’ were more interested in courtly pleasures than military campaigns.
    • Corruption and the Jagirdari Crisis: The military’s effectiveness was intrinsically linked to the Jagirdari system. A mansabdar was required to maintain a specified number of troopers (sawar) from the revenue of his assigned jagir. As the Jagirdari crisis intensified (discussed below), many mansabdars failed to maintain their full quota of soldiers and horses. They would often present hired men and horses only at the time of official inspection (dagh system), leading to a ‘paper army’ that was weak on the battlefield. This corruption stemmed from financial insecurity and declining loyalty to a weakening central authority.

  • Factionalism (Group Politics):

    • Origins and Composition of Factions: The Mughal court had always been a composite nobility, but under strong rulers, factional rivalries were kept in check. After Aurangzeb, these factions engaged in zero-sum power struggles.
      • Irani Group: Comprising nobles of Persian origin, they were often Shias. Their influence dated back to Humayun’s return to power in 1555 with the help of the Persian Shah Tahmasp I. They were noted for their administrative skills and included prominent figures like Saadat Khan (founder of the Awadh dynasty).
      • Turani Group: These were nobles of Central Asian (Turan) descent and, like the Mughal emperors themselves, were Sunnis. They were considered old-guard nobility and prided themselves on their military prowess. Key figures included Nizam-ul-Mulk (founder of the Hyderabad state).
      • Hindustani Group: This faction consisted of Indian Muslims, many of whom were converts or belonged to families that had been in India for generations. The most famous proponents of this group were the Sayyid Brothers (Abdullah Khan and Hussain Ali Khan), who became ‘kingmakers’ after Aurangzeb’s death.
      • Deccani Group: A later addition, this group comprised nobles from the annexed Sultanates of Bijapur (1686, not 1685 as in the summary) and Golconda (1687). Aurangzeb co-opted them into the Mughal nobility to pacify the Deccan, but their integration exacerbated the strain on the Jagirdari system.
      • Hindus: This group primarily consisted of Rajput chiefs, such as those from Amber and Marwar, who had been crucial allies of the empire since Akbar’s reign.
    • Impact of Factionalism: The primary goal of these factions was not the welfare of the empire but the consolidation of their own power and the acquisition of lucrative jagirs and offices. This led to a series of succession wars, coups, and assassinations (e.g., the murder of Farrukhsiyar). As argued by Satish Chandra in “Parties and Politics at the Mughal Court, 1707-1740” (1959), this intense factionalism paralysed the central administration and prevented the implementation of any long-term reforms, ultimately encouraging nobles to carve out their own semi-independent principalities.

Jagirdari Crisis of the 18th Century

  • Genesis of the Crisis: The crisis had its roots in the late years of Aurangzeb’s reign.

    • Expansion and Co-option: The annexation of Bijapur (1686) and Golconda (1687) led to a significant influx of Deccani nobles into the Mughal mansabdari system. To secure their loyalty, Aurangzeb had to grant them mansabs and jagirs.
    • Shortage of Jagirs (Be-jagiri): Simultaneously, Aurangzeb, needing direct revenue to fund his protracted and expensive Deccan campaigns against the Marathas, converted a significant portion of the newly conquered, productive lands into Khalisa (crown land), from which revenue went directly to the imperial treasury. This created a severe mismatch: the number of mansabdars (claimants to revenue) increased, while the pool of assignable land (paibaqi) shrank. This condition of jagir-lessness was termed be-jagiri.
    • Inequitable Distribution: The problem was compounded by extreme inequality. As documented by historians like M. Athar Ali in “The Mughal Nobility Under Aurangzeb” (1966), a small clique of high-ranking nobles controlled a disproportionately large share of the jagirs. For instance, data suggests that less than 5% of mansabdars controlled over 60% of the total jama (estimated revenue) from jagirs, leaving smaller mansabdars in a precarious position.
    • Inflation and Economic Pressure: The influx of European silver in the 17th and 18th centuries caused price inflation, particularly for luxury goods that were essential for maintaining a noble’s lifestyle. The official revenue estimates (jama) of jagirs were often outdated and grossly inflated compared to the actual yield (hasil). This discrepancy meant a mansabdar’s real income was much lower than his official salary, making it difficult to maintain his contingent and lifestyle.

  • Impact of the Jagirdari Crisis:

    • Oppression of Peasantry: Faced with income insecurity and frequent transfers of jagirs, a mansabdar had no incentive to invest in agricultural productivity. Instead, the focus shifted to extracting the maximum possible revenue in the shortest time. This led to increased oppression of the peasantry (ryots) and exploitation of the primary zamindars.
    • Rise of the Ijaradari System: To ensure a quick and guaranteed income, jagirdars increasingly farmed out the right to collect revenue to the highest bidder. This system, known as ijaradari or revenue farming, was disastrous for agriculture, as the ijaradar (revenue farmer) had no long-term interest in the land and sought only to maximize profit.
    • Peasant Revolts: The intense economic pressure was a major cause of the widespread peasant rebellions that plagued the empire in the late 17th and 18th centuries. As Irfan Habib argues in “The Agrarian System of Mughal India” (1963), these revolts (by Jats, Sikhs, Satnamis) were a symptom of a deep-seated agrarian crisis triggered by the state’s exploitative revenue demands, which the Jagirdari crisis amplified. These revolts were often led by local zamindars, like Churaman Jat, who channeled peasant grievances to build their own political power, thereby directly challenging Mughal authority.
    • Erosion of Military Strength and Political Stability: The crisis directly fuelled the military weakness mentioned earlier. It intensified factional conflicts as nobles competed fiercely for the best jagirs. This systemic failure crippled the very foundation of the Mughal military-administrative structure and accelerated the process of political disintegration.

The Proof of the Decline of the Mughal Empire

  • The Era of ‘Kingmakers’ (1713-1720):

    • The accession of Farrukhsiyar in 1713 with the help of the Sayyid Brothers (Hussain Ali Khan and Abdullah Khan) of the Hindustani faction marked a new low in imperial prestige. The emperor became a puppet in their hands.
    • When Farrukhsiyar attempted to assert his authority, the Sayyid Brothers, in an unprecedented move, deposed and executed him in 1719. They did so by forging an alliance with the Maratha Peshwa Balaji Vishwanath, demonstrating the complete collapse of Mughal authority even within their own capital. They subsequently placed several puppet emperors on the throne in quick succession, including Muhammad Shah.
    • The eventual overthrow of the Sayyid Brothers in 1720 by a rival coalition of Turani (Nizam-ul-Mulk) and Irani nobles did not restore imperial power; it merely replaced one dominant faction with another.

  • Weak Rulers and Administrative Apathy:

    • The post-Aurangzeb emperors, often referred to as the Later Mughals, were generally weak, indecisive, and hedonistic.
    • Muhammad Shah, who had a long reign (1719-1748), earned the epithet ‘Rangeela’ (the colourful/pleasure-loving) due to his preoccupation with arts, music, and courtly revelries at the expense of administration and military affairs. During his reign, key nobles like Nizam-ul-Mulk, frustrated with court politics, left Delhi to establish independent successor states (e.g., Hyderabad in 1724), symbolising the empire’s fragmentation.

  • The Maratha Ascendancy:

    • The Marathas, once a regional power, grew to become the primary challengers to Mughal dominance.
    • In 1737, Peshwa Baji Rao I, in a daring campaign, marched to the gates of Delhi, plundered its suburbs, and exposed the hollowness of Mughal military might.
    • A large Mughal army, personally led by the veteran commander Nizam-ul-Mulk, was comprehensively defeated by the Marathas near Bhopal in 1738.
    • The subsequent Treaty of Bhopal (signed in early 1739) was a humiliating capitulation. The Mughals ceded the entire province (subah) of Malwa and acknowledged Maratha sovereignty over the vast territories between the Narmada and Chambal rivers. This treaty formally recognised the Marathas as a dominant power in northern India.

  • Invasion of Nadir Shah (1739):

    • Reasons for Invasion:
      • Pretext: The Persian ruler Nadir Shah used the Mughal court’s failure to prevent his Afghan enemies from taking refuge in their territory as a casus belli. His envoy to the Mughal court was also detained and later killed.
      • Real Motive: The primary driver was the immense wealth of India, which Nadir Shah needed to fund his own wars, and the widely known political and military weakness of the Mughal Empire.
    • The Battle of Karnal (February 1739):
      • The Mughal army, though numerically superior, was a disjointed and poorly led force, plagued by internal rivalries.
      • Factionalism played a decisive role. Saadat Khan (Nawab of Awadh), feeling slighted when the post of Mir Bakshi (Paymaster General) was given to Nizam-ul-Mulk instead of him, is said to have treacherously advised Nadir Shah to march on Delhi, promising even greater plunder.
      • Nadir Shah’s smaller, disciplined army, equipped with superior swivel guns mounted on camels, completely routed the Mughal forces in a matter of hours.
    • Aftermath: Nadir Shah entered Delhi with the captive emperor Muhammad Shah. He proclaimed himself sovereign. A rumour of his death led to an uprising in Delhi, which Nadir Shah crushed with a general massacre of the city’s inhabitants. He plundered the city for nearly two months, carrying away immense treasures, including the Peacock Throne and the Koh-i-Noor diamond. The invasion was a death blow to the prestige and power of the Mughal Empire, exposing its utter helplessness and accelerating its disintegration. Saadat Khan, unable to deliver the promised ransom and humiliated by Nadir Shah, committed suicide.

Prelims Pointers

  • Mughal Nobility Factions:
    • Irani: Shia nobles from Persia. Example: Saadat Khan.
    • Turani: Sunni nobles from Central Asia. Example: Nizam-ul-Mulk.
    • Hindustani: Indian Muslims. Example: Sayyid Brothers (Abdullah Khan and Hussain Ali Khan).
    • Deccani: Nobles from annexed states of Bijapur and Golconda.
  • Key Terms:
    • Khalisa: Crown land, revenue collected directly for the imperial treasury.
    • Jagir: A temporary land assignment given to a Mansabdar in lieu of salary.
    • Ijaradari: Revenue farming system where the right to collect revenue was sold to the highest bidder.
    • Mansabdar: Holder of a rank (mansab) in the Mughal administrative system.
    • Sawar: The rank indicating the number of cavalrymen a mansabdar was required to maintain.
  • Important Dates and Events:
    • 1686: Annexation of Bijapur by Aurangzeb.
    • 1687: Annexation of Golconda by Aurangzeb.
    • 1719: Deposition and execution of Emperor Farrukhsiyar by the Sayyid Brothers.
    • 1724: Nizam-ul-Mulk established the autonomous state of Hyderabad.
    • 1737: Peshwa Baji Rao I raided the outskirts of Delhi.
    • 1739: Battle of Karnal between Nadir Shah and Muhammad Shah’s forces.
    • 1739: Treaty of Bhopal signed between the Marathas and the Mughals, ceding Malwa.
  • Key Personalities:
    • Churaman Jat: Zamindar who led a peasant revolt and founded the Jat kingdom of Bharatpur.
    • Sayyid Brothers: Known as “kingmakers” in the post-Aurangzeb era.
    • Nizam-ul-Mulk: Turani noble, served as Wazir, and later founded the state of Hyderabad.
    • Muhammad Shah ‘Rangeela’: Mughal emperor (1719-1748) during whose reign the empire significantly fragmented.
    • Saadat Ali Khan: Irani noble who founded the state of Awadh.
    • Nadir Shah: Persian ruler who invaded India in 1739.

Mains Insights

  • Historiographical Debate on Mughal Decline:

    1. Religious/Personal-Centric View: Early historians like Jadunath Sarkar blamed the decline on Aurangzeb’s religious bigotry (re-imposition of Jizya, temple destruction) and Deccan policy, which alienated Rajputs, Sikhs, and Marathas and exhausted the imperial treasury. This view sees the decline as a consequence of the personal failures of later rulers.
    2. Institutional/Structural Crisis View: Later Marxist historians shifted the focus to deeper structural flaws.
      • Irfan Habib (“The Agrarian System of Mughal India”): Argued that the high rate of Mughal land revenue demand and the exploitative nature of the Jagirdari system led to an agrarian crisis. This crisis manifested in peasant rebellions that destroyed the economic foundation of the empire.
      • Satish Chandra (“Parties and Politics at the Mughal Court”): Focused on the Jagirdari crisis, linking it to a shortage of productive jagirs (be-jagiri) relative to the number of mansabdars. This triggered intense factionalism at the court, paralysed the administration, and led nobles to create independent power bases.
    3. Region-Centric Approach: Scholars like Muzaffar Alam argue that the decline of the central Mughal authority should not be seen as a period of absolute chaos but rather as a period of political readjustment. The rise of “successor states” like Awadh, Bengal, and Hyderabad represented a new phase of regional economic and political vitality, even as the imperial center weakened.

  • Cause and Effect Analysis: Jagirdari Crisis as the Core Problem:

    • Cause: Aurangzeb’s Deccan expansion → Increase in Mansabdars + Scarcity of Jagirs (be-jagiri) → Jagirdari Crisis.
    • Immediate Effects:
      • Administrative: Rise of Ijaradari; frequent transfer of jagirdars.
      • Economic: Oppression of peasantry; decline in agricultural investment and productivity.
      • Military: Mansabdars failed to maintain required contingents, leading to military decay.
    • Long-term Consequences:
      • Social: Widespread peasant revolts (Jats, Sikhs).
      • Political: Intensified factionalism at court; rise of autonomous successor states as powerful nobles secured their own territories.
      • Imperial: Terminal weakening of central authority, making the empire vulnerable to internal and external threats (Marathas, Nadir Shah).

  • Nadir Shah’s Invasion: Symptom or Cause of Decline?

    • The invasion of Nadir Shah was not the cause of Mughal decline but rather a brutal symptom of an already decayed political and military system.
    • It was the empire’s internal weaknesses—factionalism at the Battle of Karnal, a demoralised and corrupt army, and an apathetic central leadership—that ensured Nadir Shah’s success.
    • However, the invasion acted as a powerful accelerator of the decline. It shattered the remaining prestige of the Mughal emperor, drained the treasury of its accumulated wealth, and exposed the empire’s vulnerability to the entire world, emboldening regional powers and European trading companies.

Previous Year Questions

Prelims

  1. With reference to the history of India, consider the following pairs: (UPSC Prelims 2024)

    1. Aurang: In-charge of treasury of the State
    2. Banian: Indian agent of the East India Company
    3. Mirasidar: Designated revenue payer to the State How many of the above pairs are correctly matched? (a) None (b) Only one (c) Only two (d) All three Answer: (c)
    • Explanation: An Aurang was a warehouse or a place where goods were collected before export; it was not related to the treasury. A Banian (or Baniya) was indeed an Indian agent or broker for the East India Company. A Mirasidar was a term used in South India for a person with hereditary rights to land, making them the designated revenue payer. Hence, pairs 2 and 3 are correct.

  2. Consider the following statements in respect of the 32nd ‘Swaraj’ of the Mughal-era Hundi: (UPSC Prelims 2024)

    1. Hundi was a form of bill of exchange.
    2. Swaraj Hundi was one of the types of Hundi.
    3. The holder of Swaraj Hundi could claim the money only from the drawee. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 1 and 2 only (c) 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 Answer: (b)
    • Explanation: Hundi was indeed a bill of exchange used for trade and credit. There were various types, and ‘Swaraj’ (likely a typo in the question for Shah-jog, a common type) was one. A key feature of a Shah-jog hundi was its security; it was payable only to a respectable person (a ‘Shah’), and its value could be transferred, not just claimed from the original drawee. Thus, statement 3 is incorrect. Statements 1 and 2 are correct.

  3. Why is the 18th century in Indian history a period of significant churning? (UPSC Prelims - Question conceptualised based on recent trends)

    1. Decline of the Mughal Empire at the centre.
    2. Rise of independent and semi-independent regional powers.
    3. Entry of European companies into the political vacuum. Select the correct answer using the code given below. (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 Answer: (d)
    • Explanation: The 18th century is defined by all three phenomena. The central Mughal authority crumbled, leading to the emergence of successor states (Awadh, Hyderabad), rebel states (Marathas, Sikhs), and the increasing political ambitions of European trading companies like the British East India Company.

  4. Who among the following rulers of medieval India is credited with the establishment of the ‘Jagirdari’ system? (UPSC Prelims - Question conceptualised based on recent trends) (a) Balban (b) Iltutmish (c) Akbar (d) Sher Shah Suri Answer: (c)

    • Explanation: While the practice of assigning revenue from land (Iqta) existed under the Delhi Sultanate, the systematic and well-defined Jagirdari system, which was an integral part of the Mansabdari system, was established and consolidated during the reign of Emperor Akbar.

  5. The “Sayyid Brothers” played the role of ‘kingmakers’ in the post-Mughal period. Which of the following emperors was NOT put on the throne by them? (UPSC Prelims - Question conceptualised based on recent trends) (a) Farrukhsiyar (b) Rafi-ud-Darajat (c) Muhammad Shah (d) Jahandar Shah Answer: (d)

    • Explanation: Jahandar Shah came to power in 1712 with the help of Zulfiqar Khan. The Sayyid Brothers rose to prominence by helping Farrukhsiyar defeat Jahandar Shah in 1713. They later placed Rafi-ud-Darajat, Rafi-ud-Daulah, and Muhammad Shah on the throne.

Mains

  1. Clarify how mid-eighteenth century India was beset with the spectre of a fragmented polity. (UPSC Mains 2017, GS-I) Answer: The mid-eighteenth century in India was characterized by a profound political fragmentation following the decline of the central Mughal authority.

    • Decline of Imperial Center: The Mughal Empire, after the death of Aurangzeb in 1707 and particularly after Nadir Shah’s invasion in 1739, was reduced to a mere shadow of its former self. The emperor in Delhi commanded little real power, and the administration was crippled by factionalism and bankruptcy.
    • Rise of Successor States: Provincial governors, taking advantage of the centre’s weakness, established hereditary rule, creating autonomous states that paid only nominal allegiance to the Mughal emperor. Examples include Bengal under Murshid Quli Khan, Awadh under Saadat Khan, and Hyderabad under Nizam-ul-Mulk.
    • Emergence of New States: Groups that had rebelled against Mughal rule successfully carved out their own sovereign or semi-sovereign states. The Maratha Confederacy became the most dominant power, controlling vast territories. The Sikhs established their misls in Punjab, and the Jats created a kingdom around Bharatpur.
    • Ascendancy of Foreign Powers: European trading companies, especially the British and French East India Companies, began transforming into political and military entities. They exploited the rivalries among Indian princes, participating in their conflicts to expand their own influence, culminating in battles like Plassey (1757) that marked the beginning of colonial rule. This confluence of a collapsing imperial center, rising regional powers, and assertive foreign companies created a classic “spectre of a fragmented polity” with no single dominant power capable of ensuring stability across the subcontinent.

  2. The 18th century is marked by the decline of the Mughal Empire and the rise of regional powers. In this context, discuss the nature of the successor states that emerged. (UPSC Mains - Question conceptualised based on recent trends) Answer: The successor states that emerged in the 18th century can be broadly categorised into three types, but they shared some common characteristics in their attempt to build stable regional polities on the foundation of Mughal institutions.

    • Nature of Successor States:
      1. Autonomous Kingdoms (Old Mughal Provinces): States like Awadh, Bengal, and Hyderabad were established by former Mughal governors. Their rulers (Nizam-ul-Mulk, Saadat Khan, Murshid Quli Khan) never formally declared independence but acted as de-facto sovereigns. They maintained Mughal administrative structures (Jagirdari, revenue collection systems) but adapted them to regional needs. They managed to check the crisis of the Jagirdari system within their territories for a time and promoted regional economic growth.
      2. Rebel States: These were states created by groups that had waged war against the Mughal Empire. The Maratha Confederacy, the Sikh Misls, and the Jat kingdom are prime examples. Their legitimacy was based on challenging, not inheriting, Mughal authority. However, even they often adopted Mughal administrative and revenue practices once they consolidated power, demonstrating the deep institutional legacy of the empire.
      3. Independent Kingdoms: These were states on the periphery of the Mughal empire that had always maintained a high degree of independence, like the Rajput states of Rajasthan and the kingdom of Mysore in the south, which rose to prominence under Hyder Ali.
    • Common Features: Most of these states continued the Mughal patterns of administration, revenue, and court culture. They represented a shift from a centralised imperial system to a decentralised political order, where regional elites and economic groups gained prominence. This transition was not necessarily one of decay everywhere; some regions experienced economic prosperity and cultural dynamism.

  3. “The Jagirdari crisis of the late 17th and 18th centuries was the principal cause for the collapse of the Mughal Empire.” Critically examine. (UPSC Mains - Question conceptualised based on recent trends) Answer: The statement that the Jagirdari crisis was the principal cause for the Mughal collapse holds significant weight, as argued by historians like Satish Chandra and Irfan Habib, but it should be seen as the core of a multi-faceted decline.

    • Arguments for the Jagirdari Crisis as the Principal Cause:
      1. Eroded Military Power: The crisis directly undermined the Mansabdari system, the military-bureaucratic backbone of the empire. Financially insecure jagirdars could not maintain their required troop contingents, leading to a weaker and corrupt army.
      2. Triggered Agrarian Crisis: It led to intense exploitation of the peasantry and the rise of the ruinous ijaradari system, which in turn caused widespread agrarian revolts (Jats, Sikhs, etc.) that fatally weakened the empire from within.
      3. Fueled Factionalism: The competition for scarce and productive jagirs intensified rivalries among the nobility (Irani, Turani, etc.), paralysing the central government and preventing any meaningful reform.
      4. Promoted Regionalism: Powerful nobles, unable to secure their interests at the court, focused on carving out and consolidating their own provinces where they could control land and revenue, leading to the formation of successor states.
    • Counterarguments/Other Factors:
      1. Role of Aurangzeb’s Policies: Jadunath Sarkar’s argument that Aurangzeb’s prolonged Deccan wars and divisive religious policies alienated key allies and drained the treasury cannot be ignored. These policies created the conditions that exacerbated the Jagirdari crisis.
      2. Weakness of Later Mughals: The lack of capable leadership after Aurangzeb meant there was no political will or administrative genius to manage the crisis. A strong ruler might have been able to reform the system.
      3. External Invasions: While Nadir Shah’s invasion was a symptom of weakness, it delivered a crippling blow by draining the empire’s wealth and destroying its prestige, accelerating the process of collapse.
      4. Rise of Marathas: The relentless military pressure from the Marathas was a constant drain on Mughal resources and a direct challenge to its authority, which the weakened empire could not withstand. In conclusion, while other factors contributed, the Jagirdari crisis was the central systemic failure that connected them all. It was the institutional collapse that translated political mistakes and weak leadership into a terminal decline of the empire’s economic, military, and administrative structures.

  4. Analyze the causes and consequences of Nadir Shah’s invasion of India in 1739. (UPSC Mains - Question conceptualised based on recent trends) Answer: Nadir Shah’s invasion of India in 1739 was a watershed moment in the history of the declining Mughal Empire.

    • Causes of the Invasion:
      1. Mughal Weakness (Primary Cause): The principal reason was the widely perceived political and military decay of the Mughal Empire under Muhammad Shah ‘Rangeela’. The empire was crippled by court factionalism, a weak army, and administrative paralysis.
      2. Immense Wealth of India: Nadir Shah, having recently consolidated his power in Persia, needed funds to finance his army and wars. The legendary wealth of Delhi was an irresistible target.
      3. Immediate Pretext: The Mughals had given shelter to Afghan rebels fleeing from Nadir Shah. Their failure to heed his warnings and the mistreatment of his envoy provided him with a casus belli.
      4. Factionalism in the Mughal Court: Treachery from within the Mughal camp played a role. Saadat Khan, the Nawab of Awadh, after being captured at the Battle of Karnal, reportedly encouraged Nadir Shah to march to Delhi by promising a larger ransom, hoping to undermine his rival, the Nizam.
    • Consequences of the Invasion:
      1. Economic Devastation: Nadir Shah’s plunder systematically drained the Mughal treasury of its accumulated wealth of centuries. He carried away the Peacock Throne, the Koh-i-Noor diamond, and immense treasures, leaving the empire bankrupt.
      2. Irreparable Loss of Prestige: The invasion shattered the remaining aura of Mughal power and prestige. The emperor was taken captive, and Delhi was massacred, proving that the Mughals could not even protect their own capital.
      3. Acceleration of Political Disintegration: The invasion exposed the empire’s hollowness, emboldening regional powers like the Marathas to expand their influence further north. It also hastened the process of Mughal nobles breaking away to form independent states.
      4. Paved the Way for Future Invasions: The success of Nadir Shah created a precedent for subsequent invasions from the northwest, most notably by Ahmad Shah Abdali, who further ravaged the remnants of the empire.

  5. Do you agree that the decline of the Mughal Empire was not a sudden collapse but a long-drawn-out process of disintegration? Substantiate your answer. (UPSC Mains - Question conceptualised based on recent trends) Answer: Yes, the decline of the Mughal Empire was not a sudden event but a protracted process of disintegration that began in the late 17th century and continued through the 18th century. Several long-term and short-term factors contributed to this gradual decay.

    • Long-Term Structural Flaws (Roots of Decline):
      1. Aurangzeb’s Reign (1658-1707): The seeds of decline were sown during the reign of Aurangzeb. His over-extended and costly Deccan campaigns exhausted the treasury. His religious policies alienated important allies like the Rajputs. The expansion of the empire led to the Jagirdari crisis, a structural flaw in its administrative core.
      2. Agrarian Crisis: As argued by Irfan Habib, the Mughal revenue system was inherently exploitative. Over time, this led to peasant resistance and rebellions, eroding the economic base of the empire long before its political collapse.
    • Post-Aurangzeb Disintegration (The Process):
      1. Wars of Succession: The death of Aurangzeb was followed by a debilitating war of succession, a pattern that repeated and weakened the central authority with each new ruler.
      2. Weak Rulers and Factionalism (early 18th century): The first half of the 18th century was dominated by weak emperors (like Jahandar Shah, Farrukhsiyar, Muhammad Shah) who became pawns in the hands of powerful nobles (Zulfiqar Khan, Sayyid Brothers, Nizam-ul-Mulk). This factionalism paralysed governance.
      3. Rise of Regional Powers (1720s-1740s): This period saw the gradual secession of provinces. Governors of Bengal, Awadh, and the Deccan (Hyderabad) became de-facto independent rulers, cutting off the flow of revenue to the center.
      4. External Shocks as “Final Blows” (Post-1739): Invasions by Nadir Shah (1739) and Ahmad Shah Abdali were not the cause of the decline but rather catastrophic events that struck an already moribund body. They destroyed the empire’s remaining wealth and prestige, accelerating a process that was well underway. Therefore, the decline was a century-long process, starting with internal structural crises and culminating in the complete fragmentation of the empire, leaving only a nominal authority in Delhi by the mid-18th century.

Graph View