THE DECLINE

OF MUGHALS
Aurangzeb (1658-1707) was the last great mughal emperor

om)
a il.c
gm
y@
h ne
ars
Bahadur Shah (1707-1712): position of state finances ehulv
worsened during his reign y(m
ne
arsh
lV
ehu
o rM
edf
alisn
Jahandar Shah (was overthrown e rso in 1713). Had a powerful
p
wazir, Zulfiqar Khan who established
n t is friendly relations with
me
rajput and maratha’s. oJaziya
cu was abolished by him
is d
Th

Farrukh Siyar- Defeated Jahandar Shah. However, Sayyid

brothers assassinated Farrukh Siyar & installed
Muhammad Shah as the king in 1719.
Chin Qulich Khan, who eventually took the title of Nizam-ul –Mulk
was a powerful noble at the imperial court and was a leader of the
Turani faction.
om)
a il.c
gm
ey@
Nizam-ul-Mulk organized the turani and irani noblemen against the arshn
sayyids & ultimately defeated them and killed them in 1720. The ehulv
Nizam acted as his wazir from 1722 to 1724. y(m
ne
arsh
lV
ehu
rM o
e df
li s
Muhammad Shah (1720-1748): his orule na was the last chance of
rs
saving the empire as there wassno e quick change of authority, but he
t i p
failed. me
n
cu
is do
Th

1738-39: Nadir Shah (persian king) plundered delhi. Caused

immense damage to the prestige of Mughal empire & exposed the
weakness of Mughals to Maratha’s and other trading companies
 CAUSES OF DECLINE OF
MUGHAL EMPIRE om)
a il.c
gm
Mughal empire began to decline rapidly since the reign hn
e of its last great
y@
rs
lva
ruler Aurangzeb (1658-1707). Within fifty years theehusigns of the decline
y( m
of this empire were unmistakably visible. Thershreasons
ne were
l Va
hu
1. Aurangzeb’s expansionist military fcampaigns: Me in western India
or
e d
against the two autonomous states o n alis of Bijapur & Golconda & against
e rs
the Maratha’s are believednt to
is p have sapped the vitality of the empire.
e
cum
o
2. Some historians ascribe
Th is d Aurangzeb’s divisive policies for this rapid
decline, particularly his religious policies which alienated the hindus
who constituted the majority of subject population.
 om)
a il.c
gm
3. Jagirdari Crisis: the mughal state has been described y@ e as
rs hn
a “war state” in its core. It sought to develop lva
e hu a
y(m
centralized administrative system whose rs h ne vitality
l Va
depended upon its military power.Mehu
for
ed
• The Mughals had organized alis the administration through
rs on
e
Mansabdari system, which n t is p meant a military organization
me
of aristocracy, its sbasis
do
cu being personal loyalty to the
i
Th
emperor.
 WHAT WAS MANSABDARI
• Mansabdari system: each mansabdar was given the authority to o m)collect land
. c
revenue from a estate in lieu for the number of horsemen hegmwas ail required to
maintain to be made available to the emperor at his request. ne
y @ The estimated
s h
revenue income from it would cover his personal salary ulv
ar and the maintenance
h
allowances for his soldier and horses. Most of these
y(m
e jagirs were transferable.
e
rshn
Va
hul
Me
• The mansabdari system was based upon e d f a “patron-client” relationship
or
between the emperor and the aristocracy. lis The effectiveness of this
o na
rs
relationship was based upon the t is
p constant expansion of resources which
e
n
explains the constant drivecutowards territorial conquests in mughal india.
me
d o
is
• But there were no moreThconquests since the time of aurangzeb and this was
followed by a period of constant shrinkage of the resources of empire. This
is what ruptured the functional relationship between the emperor and
aristocracy on which depended the efficiency of mughal administration.
3. Jagirdari crisis: Aurangzeb’s conquest of the two deccan kingdoms of
Bijapur(1685) & Golconda (1689), there was an expansion of nobility
)
which accentuated the jagirdari crisis: too many jagirdars ail . c o mchasing too
g m
few jagiris coupled with the hugely unequal sizes ofneyjagirs. @ This led to
s h
intense conflicts within the nobility between the ar
h ulvTurani faction, Irani
e
(m
faction & Hindustani faction. sh
ne
y
r
l Va
4. Weakening of military might: This problem hu multiplied during the reign
Me
f or
d
of Farrukhsiyar (1713-19) & the reign n a lise of Muhammad Shah (1719-1748).
o
ers
It affected the patron-client t relationship. The dissatisfied nobles did
is p
e n
not maintain the required o cumnumber of soldiers & horses and there was
is d
no effective supervision
Th either (corruption in army)
5. No fresh technological inputs: the decline of army became more
palpable as there were no fresh technological inputs.
6. Recurrent peasant revolts: led primarily by zamindars because of
gradually increasing economic pressures, specially in deccan,
towards the last years of Bahadur Shah’s reign (1712). These o m) local
. c
mail
g
peasant revolts were led by the Jat peasant-zamindars n e y@ in north India
rsh
and Maratha Sardars in deccan, the sikhs in punjab hu
lv a and the rajput
e
chief’s withdrew their support in Rajasthan. y(m
h neThus the jagirdari/
ars
intermediary classes constituted a centrifugaleh
u l V force in mughal
M
structure. or
e df
s ali
on
• Nobles thus became more interested p ers
in carving out semi-autonomous
n t is
e
principalities for themselves.
o cum
is d
Th
• 18th century Mughal India was not a dark age, nor an age of overall
decline. The decline of one pan-Indian empire(Mughal), was followed
by the rise of another( British), the intervening period dominated by a
variety of regional entities.
 CHAPTER SUMMARY
om)
Weakening a il.c
Religious gm
of military y@
policies h ne
might ars
h ulv
(me
ney
rsh No fresh
Jagirdari l Va
hu technological
crisis Me
or inputs
df
a lise
on
p ers
n t is
u me
doc
Aurangzeb’s Th
is
Decline Recurrent
expansionist
military of peasant
revolts
campaigns Mughals