THE DECLINE

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

om)
a il.c
gm
7 3@
Bahadur Shah (1707-1712): position of state finances jni2
r a
worsened during his reign ( n ara
. i
Rajn
fo r
ed
alis
rson
Jahandar Shah (was overthrown peis in 1713). Had a powerful
e nt
wazir, Zulfiqar Khan who established
oc
um friendly relations with
d
rajput and maratha’s. TJaziya
hi s was abolished by him

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
Nizam-ul-Mulk organized the turani and irani noblemen against the gm
3@
sayyids & ultimately defeated them and killed them in 1720. Therajni27
Nizam acted as his wazir from 1722 to 1724. ara
.(n i
Rajn
fo r
ed
alis
on
rs
Muhammad Shah (1720-1748): his irule s pe was the last chance of
t
saving the empire as there wasmnoen quick change of authority, but he
u
failed. oc
sd
i
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)
il.c
Mughal empire began to decline rapidly since the reign of its last great
gm
a
3@
ruler Aurangzeb (1658-1707). Within fifty years the r a jnisigns
27 of the decline
r a
(na
of this empire were unmistakably visible. Thejni .reasons were
Ra
or
1. df
Aurangzeb’s expansionist military acampaigns: in western India
lise
o n
against the two autonomous states p ers of Bijapur & Golconda & against
t is
n
the Maratha’s are believedocuto
me have sapped the vitality of the empire.
is d
Th
2. Some historians ascribe Aurangzeb’s divisive policies for this rapid
decline, particularly his religious policies which alienated the hindus
who constituted the majority of subject population.
 om)
il.c
3. Jagirdari Crisis: the mughal state has been described as gm
a
3@ 7
a “war state” in its core. It sought to develop r a jni2 a
ara
centralized administrative system whose jni
. ( n vitality
Ra
depended upon its military power. e d for
nalis
• The Mughals had organizedis pthe rso e administration through
n t
Mansabdari system, which u me meant a military organization
c
i s do
of aristocracy, its basis
Th being personal loyalty to the
emperor.
 WHAT WAS MANSABDARI
• Mansabdari system: each mansabdar was given the authority to collect land
revenue from a estate in lieu for the number of horsemen heomwas ) required to
l . c
maintain to be made available to the emperor at his request. gm
a i The estimated
revenue income from it would cover his personal salary i2 73 and the maintenance
@
n
allowances for his soldier and horses. Most of theseraj jagirs were transferable.
ara
i .(n
Rajn
r o
e df
• The mansabdari system was based upon lis
o na a “patron-client” relationship
between the emperor and the aristocracy. rs The effectiveness of this
is pe
t
relationship was based upon the me constant expansion of resources which
n
cu
explains the constant drivehitowards
sd
o territorial conquests in mughal india.
T
• But there were no more conquests 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 chasing too
o m)
few jagiris coupled with the hugely unequal sizes of il.c
ajagirs. This led to
g m
intense conflicts within the nobility between the 3@
7Turani faction, Irani
jn i2
r a
faction & Hindustani faction. ra
. ( na
i
Rajn
r o
4. Weakening of military might: This problem lise df multiplied during the reign
n a
of Farrukhsiyar (1713-19) & the reign p e rso of Muhammad Shah (1719-1748).
is
nt
It affected the patron-client urelationship. The dissatisfied nobles did
me
o c
not maintain the required h is dnumber of soldiers & horses and there was
T
no effective supervision 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 local
o m)
peasant revolts were led by the Jat peasant-zamindars mail. in north India
c
g
@
and Maratha Sardars in deccan, the sikhs in punjab jni2
7 3 and the rajput
r a
chief’s withdrew their support in Rajasthan. ra
. ( naThus the zamindars/
i
ajn
intermediary classes constituted a centrifugal or
R force in mughal
e df
structure. lis
o na
s er
p
t is
• Nobles thus became more interested u me
n in carving out semi-autonomous
o c
is d
principalities for themselves.
h
T

• 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
Weakening m)
Religious il.c
o
of military a
policies gm
might 3@
jn i27
ar ara
n
i .( No fresh
Jagirdari Rajn
fo r technological
crisis d
a lise inputs
n
rso
pe
nt is
u me
doc
is
Th
Aurangzeb’s Decline Recurrent
expansionist
military of peasant
revolts
campaigns Mughals