Reasons for the Decline of the Mughal Empire

This handout explains why the Mughal Empire, which was at its largest under Aurangzeb, lost its power in the 150 years after his death in 1707. It belongs to Section 1 of the syllabus: the cultural and historical background to the Pakistan Movement.

Key dates

Date	Event
1658	Aurangzeb becomes emperor after a war of succession against his brothers
1679	Aurangzeb brings back the jizya, a tax on non-Muslims
1680s to 1707	Long and costly campaigns against the Marathas and the Deccan states
1707	Death of Aurangzeb; his sons fight for the throne
1739	Nadir Shah of Persia defeats the Mughal army at Karnal and sacks Delhi
1747 onwards	Ahmad Shah Abdali of Afghanistan begins a series of invasions
1757	Battle of Plassey: the East India Company (EIC) gains control of Bengal
1761	Third Battle of Panipat: Abdali defeats the Marathas
1764	Battle of Buxar: the EIC defeats an alliance that includes the Mughal emperor
1803	The British take Delhi; the emperor is now under their protection
1857 to 1858	War of Independence; the last emperor, Bahadur Shah II, is exiled to Rangoon and Mughal rule ends

Background: the empire in 1707

The Mughal Empire was founded by Babur in 1526. Under Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jahan it became rich and strong. Aurangzeb (ruled 1658 to 1707) extended it further south than any earlier emperor, so that it covered almost the whole subcontinent.

Aurangzeb's policies

Historians do not agree about how much Aurangzeb was to blame. He was a hard-working and personally simple ruler, but several of his policies weakened the empire.

1. Religious policy. Aurangzeb was a strict Sunni Muslim. He brought back the jizya in 1679, ordered some Hindu temples to be destroyed and banned practices that he thought were un-Islamic, such as music at court. This lost him the support of many Hindus, Sikhs and Rajputs, whose loyalty earlier emperors had worked to win. Revolts followed, which were expensive to put down.
2. Wars in the Deccan. Aurangzeb spent about the last 25 years of his reign in the south, fighting the Marathas and the Deccan states. The campaigns cost huge sums of money and many lives, and they never fully defeated the Marathas. While the emperor was away, government in the north became weaker.
3. High taxes. To pay for the wars and for buildings such as the Pearl Mosque in Delhi, taxes were raised. This made the emperor unpopular with peasants and traders and still did not fill the treasury.
4. An empire too big to rule. By conquering more land in the south, Aurangzeb created an empire that could not be governed from one centre when messages and armies moved so slowly.

Weak successors and wars of succession

The Mughals had no fixed law of succession. When an emperor died, his sons usually fought each other for the throne. These wars cost money, divided the nobles and the army, and sometimes left the winner in debt to those who had helped him.

After Aurangzeb's death his sons fought, and Prince Muazzam won and ruled as Bahadur Shah I. He died in 1712 and more fighting followed. In the years after that, several emperors came and went quickly, and some were controlled by powerful nobles at court.

Many of the later emperors were also poor rulers. They had grown up in a rich court and preferred comfort and pleasure to the work of government. Muhammad Shah, who ruled from 1719 to 1748, is often given as an example.

Administrative and military weakness

1. The mansabdari system broke down. Under this system, officials called mansabdars were given land revenue in return for providing soldiers. It worked well under strong emperors who checked their officials. Under weak emperors, mansabdars kept the revenue, provided fewer troops and became corrupt.
2. Provinces broke away. As the centre weakened, governors in provinces such as Bengal, Oudh and Hyderabad acted as independent rulers. They stopped sending taxes to Delhi, so the emperor had less money and fewer soldiers.
3. An empty treasury. Wars, an expensive court and falling tax income left the emperors short of money. Without money they could not pay a strong army.
4. An army that had fallen behind. The Mughal army was large and slow. It relied on older weapons and tactics and had no proper navy. It had not kept up with the new weapons, training and discipline used by European armies.

Invasions from Persia and Afghanistan

Nadir Shah. In 1739 the Persian ruler Nadir Shah invaded. He defeated the Mughal army at Karnal and entered Delhi. His soldiers killed thousands of people in the city and carried away enormous wealth, including the Peacock Throne and the Koh-i-Noor diamond. The invasion showed everyone how weak the empire had become and left the treasury empty.

Ahmad Shah Abdali. From 1747 the Afghan ruler Ahmad Shah Abdali (also called Ahmad Shah Durrani) invaded northern India several times. He took control of the Punjab and other areas in the north-west and looted Delhi. In 1761 he defeated the Marathas at the Third Battle of Panipat, but he then returned home. The Mughals gained nothing lasting from his victory.

The rise of the Marathas

The Marathas were a Hindu people from the Deccan. Under Shivaji in the seventeenth century they set up their own state and used fast, light cavalry and guerrilla tactics against the slower Mughal armies. Aurangzeb could not crush them.

After 1707 the Marathas spread across central and northern India. They collected taxes from lands that had once paid the Mughals, and in 1737 they raided the area around Delhi itself. By the middle of the century they were the strongest power in India. Their defeat at Panipat in 1761 stopped their advance, but by then the Mughal emperor was a ruler in name only.

The arrival of the British

The EIC came to India to trade, but it built up its own army to protect its trading posts. As Mughal power fell, the Company used this army, and the rivalries between Indian rulers, to take land for itself.

• At Plassey in 1757 the Company's forces under Robert Clive defeated the Nawab of Bengal, the richest province.
• At Buxar in 1764 the Company defeated the combined forces of Mir Qasim, the Nawab of Oudh and the Mughal emperor Shah Alam II. The emperor then gave the Company the right to collect the revenue of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.
• The British had the benefits of the Industrial Revolution: better weapons, more money and well-trained, regularly paid soldiers.
• In 1803 the British took Delhi. The emperor kept his title but lived on a British pension. In 1858, after the War of Independence, the title was abolished.

How to judge it

The case for Aurangzeb's policies. His religious policies turned the Hindu majority, the Sikhs and the Rajputs against the empire. His Deccan wars emptied the treasury and left a strong Maratha enemy. His successors inherited these problems.

The case for other reasons. The empire survived for 150 years after Aurangzeb, so his policies alone did not destroy it. A strong successor might have repaired the damage, but the wars of succession produced weak and short-lived rulers. The broken mansabdari system and the outdated army meant the empire could not defend itself. Nadir Shah and Abdali took its wealth and showed its weakness. Finally, the British had the modern weapons, money and organisation to replace it.

Judgement. The reasons are linked. Aurangzeb's policies began the decline, but the lack of capable successors turned a difficult situation into a collapse, because nobody at the centre was able to reform the army, control the nobles or resist invaders. Weak leadership after 1707 can therefore be argued to be the most important reason, with the British being the power that brought the empire to its final end.

Key terms and people

• Aurangzeb: Mughal emperor 1658 to 1707; the empire reached its greatest size under him.
• Jizya: a tax on non-Muslims, ended by Akbar and brought back by Aurangzeb in 1679.
• Mansabdari system: the Mughal system of ranked officials who provided troops in return for land revenue.
• Marathas: Hindu power from the Deccan, founded as a state by Shivaji.
• Nadir Shah: Persian ruler who sacked Delhi in 1739.
• Ahmad Shah Abdali: Afghan ruler who invaded repeatedly from 1747 and won at Panipat in 1761.

Exam practice

1. Describe the invasion of Nadir Shah in 1739. [4]
2. Why were the successors of Aurangzeb unable to stop the decline of the Mughal Empire? [7]
3. "The policies of Aurangzeb were the most important reason for the decline of the Mughal Empire." How far do you agree? Explain your answer. [14]

Outline answers

Question 1 (4 marks): Nadir Shah was the ruler of Persia. He defeated the Mughal army at Karnal in 1739. He entered Delhi, where thousands of people were killed. He took away great wealth, including the Peacock Throne and the Koh-i-Noor diamond, which left the empire poorer and exposed its weakness.

Question 2 (7 marks): Three explained reasons. (1) There was no law of succession, so princes fought each other, which wasted money and divided the army and nobles. (2) Many later emperors were weak and pleasure-loving, so ministers and nobles took control and looked after themselves. (3) The mansabdari system and the army had declined, and provinces had broken away, so emperors lacked the money and soldiers to resist the Marathas, the invaders and the British.

Question 3 (14 marks): Agree: religious policy lost the support of non-Muslims and led to revolts; the Deccan wars drained the treasury; the empire became too large to govern. Disagree: weak successors and succession wars; administrative and military decline; invasions by Nadir Shah and Abdali; the rise of the Marathas; the strength of the British. Judgement: Aurangzeb's policies started the decline, but the empire lasted long after him; the absence of strong rulers after 1707 allowed every other problem to grow, so it can be judged the more important reason.