Factors for the decline of the Mughal Empire | History Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Introduction

The Mughal Empire in India:

• The Mughal Empire ruled a large part of India for nearly three centuries.
• By the 18th century, the Empire experienced a significant decline in power and prestige.
• The Empire's political boundaries shrank, and the administrative structure established by rulers like Akbar and Shah Jahan began to collapse.
• After the decline of Mughal power, numerous independent principalities emerged throughout the former Empire.

Historians Debate on Decline:

• Historians intensely debate the processes of Mughal decline and the emergence of regional polities.
• There is a sharp division of scholarly opinion on this aspect of Mughal history.

Historiographical Perspectives:

• The historiographical perspective on Mughal decline is divided into two main sections:
• Mughal-Centric Approach: Historians focus on identifying the causes of decline within the Empire's structure and functioning.
• Region-Centric Approach: This perspective looks beyond the Empire's boundaries to find causes of turmoil or instability in different regions.

Empire-centric approach

Historians examine the internal factors of the Roman Empire to understand its decline.

• They look at how the Empire's structure and functioning changed over time.
• By analyzing these changes, historians aim to pinpoint the reasons behind the Empire's weakening.

Personality centric view

Historians' Views on the Decline of the Mughal Empire:

• Historians such as Jadunath Sarkar, Stanley Lanepoole, V.A. Smith, and William Irvine attribute the decline of the Mughal Empire to the deterioration in the character of the Emperors and their nobles.
• Jadunath Sarkar and William Irvine believe that the crisis in the Empire was caused by the personal decline of the kings and nobles, influenced by the harem.
• William Irvine argues that the crisis emerged due to the inability of Emperors to select capable nobles.
• Aurangzeb often complained about the lack of able officials and emphasized the importance of wise masters in finding and utilizing capable men.
• Irvine further states that the decline in the character of Emperors was the primary cause of the decline in nobility and the downfall of the Empire.
• According to Irvine, the 18th-century heirs to the throne were helpless and dependent, lacking independence, fearlessness, and capacity to make decisions.
• Sarkar believes that the Mughal Empire fell due to the rottenness at the core of Indian society, characterized by military and political helplessness.
• Sarkar criticizes the ruling class for being selfish, inefficient, and treacherous, leading to the decline of literature, art, and religion.
• Sarkar finds it strange that the blame is placed on women for the deterioration of nobility, as kings and nobles in earlier centuries enjoyed similar luxuries without such deterioration.
• Sarkar holds Aurangzeb responsible for provoking Hindu reactions through his religious policies, leading to the crisis.
• Aurangzeb, described as a religious fanatic, discriminated against certain nobles and officials based on religion, causing resentment among the nobility.
• Aurangzeb's successors were unable to rectify the problems left by his discriminatory measures, such as his treatment of temples, the levy of jizyah, and the annexation of Marwar.

Socio-economic-cultural-administrative centric view

Jagirdari Crisis

Jagirdari System Crisis (17th-18th Century):

• Correlation Between Revenue and Realization: The balance between estimated income (jama) and actual realization (hasil) was crucial for the jagirdari system. This balance depended on the realistic nature of revenue assignments and the jagirdar's ability to enforce land revenue payments from zamindars.
• Role of Faundars: Jagirdars relied on faundars to compel zamindars to pay assessed land revenue. Over time, faundars transitioned into kharaj (land revenue) collecting agents for a fee.
• Increasing Mansabdars: The growing number of mansabdars created an imbalance between available resources and the demand for jagir in terms of salaries. This imbalance was addressed by reducing sawar obligations and salaries.
• Impact of Deccan Policy: The Deccan policy contributed to the crisis. Bhimsen highlighted that provinces assigned to mansabdars were difficult to govern due to insufficient forces. Zamindars grew stronger, aligned with the Marathas, and imposed oppression, making it challenging for jagirdars to collect revenues.
• Decline in Mansabdar Contingents: During Aurangzeb's later years, many mansabdars failed to maintain the required contingents. Bhimsen noted that lawless individuals in districts disregarded faujdars, leading them to seek agreements with enemies like the Marathas.
• Wars in Deccan: Due to wars in the Deccan, the most profitable jagirs were kept in khalisa to fund military expenditures. Jagirdars were assigned jagirs that were difficult to realize (zor-talab).
• Confiscation of Jagirs: When jagirdars failed to meet their obligations, their jagirs were confiscated. The struggle for beneficial jagirs led to corruption opportunities for officials.
• Be-Jagiri Problem: The crisis was worsened by the lack of sufficient jagirs for assignment (be-jagiri). The inadequacy of land meant for assignment (pai-baqi) and the appointment of numerous mansabdars, especially from Deccani and Maratha backgrounds after the annexation of Bijapur and Golconda, created jagir assignment issues.
• Increase in Mansabdars: The number of mansabdars with a zat rank of 1000 and above rose from 486 (1658-78) to 575 (1679-1707), a 31% increase. This was not as significant as the increase between 1595 and 1656-57, where the number of ranks increased by 4.2 times.
• Discontent Among Khanazadas: The delays in jagir assignments left many mansabdars waiting for four to five years, leading to discontent among khanazadas.

Satish Chandra

• The decline of the Mughal Empire can be linked to the failure of the mansabdar-jagirdar system towards the end of Aurangzeb's reign.
• As this system fell into disarray, the stability of the Empire was compromised, leading to its eventual collapse.
• S. Chandra was the first historian to seriously analyze the structure of the Mughal Empire.
• His work shifted the focus from individual rulers and their policies to broader developments that were undermining the foundation of the Mughal Empire.

Athar Ali

• Nobles were in a fierce competition for better jagirs.
• Jagirs were becoming increasingly rare due to the influx of nobles, particularly the Marathas and Deccanis from the south.

Erosion of Political Structure:

• The competition and scarcity of jagirs led to the erosion of the political structure that was largely based on jagirdari.

Nurul Hassan

• In the 18th century, as Mughal authority weakened and pressure on jagirs increased, the agricultural economy began to face a crisis.
• The deteriorating agrarian situation led to heightened conflict between zamindars and the state, as well as among the zamindars themselves.
• This escalating conflict often resulted in significant law and order problems, undermining the authority of the state.

Agrarian Crisis

• Irfan Habib emphasises that the 'agrarian crisis' was a key factor in the decline of the Mughal Empire.
• Peasant protests weakened the political and social fabric of the Empire.
• The Mughal revenue collection system was fundamentally flawed. The policy aimed to set revenue rates as high as possible to ensure military strength, but this led to excessive exploitation of the peasantry.
• Nobles exploited their jagirs to the maximum, often causing long-term damage to the agricultural capacity of the land.
• Since jagirs were frequently transferred, nobles did not invest in long-term agricultural development and instead focused on immediate gains.
• Bhimsen noted that during Aurangzeb’s reign, jagirdars stopped supporting peasant welfare and shifted to maximizing revenue collection.
• Peasants faced extreme burdens, leading them to choose between starvation and armed rebellion.
• Initial acts of defiance by peasants were isolated, but over time, they often united with zamindars, who were local leaders with armed retainers.
• Frequent rebellions such as that of the Jats, Satnami sect, and Sikhs contributed to the agrarian crisis and weakened the Empire.
• Jat Rebellion in the Agra region during Aurangzeb’s reign was led by Gokula Jat, Raja Ram Jat, and Churaman Jat. They resisted paying land revenue, causing significant disruption and financial strain on the Empire.
• Other rebellions, such as those by the Meos, Watt us, Dogas, and Gujars, further eroded the Empire's strength.
• The Maratha movement, which gained power amidst the agrarian crisis, further destabilized the Mughal Empire.
• European trade and urban growth put pressure on the Indian supply market, leading to increased agrarian exploitation.
• The Mughal Empire’s reliance on agricultural surplus and zamindars for revenue made it vulnerable to crisis when agrarian systems faltered.
• The administrative structures like mansabdari and jagirdari weakened, leading to payment issues and corruption, further destabilizing the Empire.
• After Aurangzeb’s death, rapid changes in leadership and a lack of effective governance led to the Empire's decline.

Re-examination of ‘Crisis’

• Mughal rule was indirect, relying on local ties and norms rather than direct state control.
• Nobles were connected to the Empire through patronage, which depended on the Emperor's military success.
• As Mughal patronage weakened due to limited military expansion and a shortage of fertile areas for jagirs, the Empire's bureaucracy began to falter, leading to its decline.

J. F. Richards:

• Challenged the idea that the Deccan wasa deficit area causing bejagiri(absence of Jagir) and contributing to Mughal decline.
• Argued that the jagirdari crisis was administrative, not due to land scarcity.
• Noted that the Empire's revenue resources from the Deccan annexation kept pace with the expanding nobility during Aurangzeb's reign.
• Pointed out that Aurangzeb's decision to keep lucrative Jagirs under khalisa was to support ongoing campaigns, making the crisis administrative, not caused by bejagiri.

Distinction between bejagiri and the crisis in Jagirdari:

• Satish Chandra addressed the issue of bejagiri to some extent.
• The Jagir system faced a crisis not due to the growth of the ruling class and decline in land for Jagir assignment (bejagiri).
• Instead, the crisis was due to the non-functionality of the Jagir system.

Functioning of the Jagirdari system:

• The Jagirdari system was based on a tripolar relationship between peasants, zamindars, and mansabdars/jagirdars.
• The success of the system depended on the mansabdar/jagirdar's ability to collect land revenue from zamindars and keep raiyats engaged in agriculture.
• The jagirdar needed to maintain military strength, which relied on collecting enough revenue and resources from the jagir.
• Any disruption in the balance between jagirdar, zamindar, and peasant would lead to the Empire's decline.

Satish Chandra argues that:

• Early Crisis in the Jagir System: Even in the early days of the Empire, problems within the jagir system were noticeable.
• Expansion Challenges: Under emperors Jahangir and Shah Jahan, as the Empire expanded into less fertile areas beyond the Ganga-Yamuna doab, the jagir system faced significant challenges.
• Jahangir and Shah Jahan's Era: During this period, the gap between jama(assessed revenue) and hasil(actual revenue collected) in jagir lands became pronounced.
• Military and Administrative Changes: To address these issues, the number of sawars (cavalry soldiers) maintained by the emperors had to be reduced, diminishing the influence of jagirdars.
• Collapse of Tripolar Relationship: As the military power of jagirdars weakened, the tripolar relationship that sustained the Empire began to disintegrate.
• Impact of Economic Development: The crisis in the jagirdari system could have been postponed with rapid economic development in both agricultural and non-agricultural sectors, including trade.
• Cultural Failure Theory (By Athar Ali): This theory suggests that the decline of the Mughals was due to the cultural failure of Indian rulers in adopting Western knowledge and learning. Technological backwardness in areas like agriculture, crafts, seafaring, and military contributed to the decline.
• The “Great Firm” Theory (by Karen Leonard): This theory explains the Mughal decline through the role of indigenous banking firms, which were crucial allies of the Mughal State. As these firms shifted their support towards regional politics and rulers, including the English East India Company, it led to the bankruptcy and downfall of the Empire.
• Historiographical Debate: Some historians question the “Great Firm” Theory, arguing that it oversimplifies the Mughal finance system’s dependence on merchants’ credit.

The region-centric approach

• The perspective extends beyond the boundaries of the Empire to explore the reasons behind unrest or instability in various regions within the Empire.
• Scholars Muzaffar Alam and Chetan Singh have employed this approach in their work.

Centre-Region Relationship

• Coordinating Agency: The Mughal Empire acted as a coordinating body between conflicting communities and various indigenous socio-political systems.
• Strength of the Empire: The Empire's strength was rooted in the local communities' inability to mobilize beyond limited boundaries.
• Economic Growth: In the late 17th and early 18th centuries, regions like Awadh and Punjab experienced significant economic growth.
• Wealth Accumulation: Social groups that previously shared Mughal power began to exploit the economic boom, amassing wealth and increasing their power.
• Political Instability: The growing power of these groups led to encroachments on each other's rights, contributing to the Empire's political instability.
• Flawed Political Integration: Political integration was flawed as it relied on local magnates' realization that they needed the Empire for wealth accumulation.
• Checks and Balances: The decline was linked to the Empire's failure to maintain checks and balances between zamindars, jagirdars, madad-i ma'ash holders, and local indigenous elements.
• Tension Among Social Groups: Tensions between these groups were not new but were managed during the Empire's peak through military force or strategic settlements.
• Political Transformation: The decline manifested in political transformation and the emergence of new subadari elements.
• Regional Units: The groundwork for independent regional units was present, with Punjab descending into chaos and Awadh evolving into stable dynastic rule.

Contours of Regional Polities  

1. Introduction by Chetan Singh:

• Chetan Singh, following Muzaffar Alam, examines the decline of the Mughal Empire by focusing on regional developments in the early 18th century.

2. Limitations of Mughal Integration:

• Although the Mughal administrative infrastructure connected regions to its core, this integration had significant limitations.

3. Punjab's Commercial Decline:

• By the late 17th century, the silting of the Indus River negatively impacted riverine traffic in Punjab.
• Political upheavals in Turkey, the fall of Qandahar to Iran, and the Mughal attempts to reclaim it disrupted overland traffic.
• The Yusufzai uprising (1667) and the Afridi rebellion (1678) further exacerbated these issues.

4. Impact on Trade and Economy:

• These disruptions led to a decline in trade, gradually eroding Punjab's commercialized agrarian economy.
• The loosening of Punjab’s socio-economic structure resulted in social unrest.
• Areas most affected by economic regression were closely associated with the Sikh rebellion.

5. Long-Term Processes of Dissociation:

• Singh concludes that the social unrest leading to Punjab's dissociation from the Mughal Empire was the result of long-term processes.
• These processes were at work even before the political weakening of the Empire in the 18th century.

6. Regional History Perspective:

• From the perspective of regional history, the disintegration of the Mughal Empire presents a different picture.
• Different subas dissociated for various reasons, often due to developments beyond the Empire's control.

7. Conclusion on Mughal Decline:

• There is no single explanation for the problems of the Mughal Empire across its regions and provinces.
• The Mughal Empire represented a consensus between the center and the peripheries.
• In the 18th century, this consensus was disrupted, leading to different paths of development in the peripheries.

8. Complexity of Mughal Decline:

• Mughal decline was more complex than what a Mughal-centric approach suggests.
• Different regions experienced the decline in various ways, with some severing ties with the Mughal core while others retained them.
• The regional history perspective highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of Mughal decline.