Decline Of The Mughal Empire: Causes and Consequences

A detailed exploration of the factors leading to the decline of the Mughal Empire, including the Jagirdari Crisis, Agrarian Crisis, cultural stagnation, and the rise of regional powers, along with the consequences for the Indian subcontinent. The Mughal Empire, one of the most powerful and culturally rich empires in Indian history, ruled large parts of the Indian subcontinent from the 16th to the 18th century. At its peak under emperors such as Akbar, Jahangir, Shah Jahan, and Aurangzeb, the empire was renowned for its wealth, military strength, and cultural achievements, including the construction of iconic monuments like the Taj Mahal.

However, by the early 18th century, the empire began to decline, eventually losing its dominance and giving way to regional powers and, later, British colonial rule. The decline of the Mughal Empire was a complex process driven by a combination of internal weaknesses and external pressures. This article examines the primary causes of the Mughal decline, concentrating on the Jagirdari Crisis, the Agrarian Crisis, cultural and technological stagnation, and the emergence of regional powers, as well as the far-reaching consequences of this decline.

Theories On the Decline Of The Mughal Empire

The Jagirdari Crisis: A Structural Weakness

The Mughal Empire’s administrative and military systems relied heavily on two key institutions: the mansabdari system and the jagirdari system. These systems were the backbone of the empire’s governance, but their eventual breakdown played a significant role in its decline.

Understanding the Mansabdari and Jagirdari Systems

The mansabdari system was a hierarchical structure where nobles, known as mansabdars, were assigned ranks (mansabs) based on their status and responsibilities. These ranks determined their salary, military obligations, and prestige within the Mughal court. Instead of cash salaries, mansabdars were often paid through jagirs, which were assignments of land from which they collected revenue to maintain their households and military contingents. These contingents, consisting of cavalry and infantry, were crucial for maintaining the empire’s authority and collecting taxes from the jagirs.

The jagirdari system was designed to ensure the loyalty and efficiency of the nobles while maintaining the empire’s military and administrative structure. However, by the late 17th century, this system began to falter, leading to what historians call the Jagirdari Crisis.

Causes of the Jagirdari Crisis

The Jagirdari Crisis emerged due to several interconnected factors, as highlighted by historians like Satish Chandra and Athar Ali. Satish Chandra, in his seminal work Parties and Politics at the Mughal Court (1959), argued that the Mughal Empire’s decline was closely tied to its failure to sustain the mansabdari-jagirdari system, particularly during the reign of Aurangzeb (1658–1707). The key causes of this crisis included:

1. Shortage of Jagirs: The rapid expansion of the Mughal Empire, especially into the Deccan and Maratha territories under Aurangzeb, led to a significant increase in the number of mansabdars. This expansion required the integration of new nobles, including Marathas and Deccanis, into the Mughal nobility. However, the empire faced a shortage of productive jagirs to assign to these nobles. According to Athar Ali (The Mughal Nobility under Aurangzeb, 1966), the influx of new nobles created fierce competition for the limited number of profitable jagirs, leading to inefficiencies and dissatisfaction among the nobility.
2. Aurangzeb’s Policy of Increasing Khalisa Revenues: J.F. Richards further elaborated that Aurangzeb deliberately increased the share of khalisa revenues (lands directly controlled by the imperial treasury) and reduced the assignment of jagirs in the Deccan. This policy, implemented from 1687 onwards, concentrated more revenue in the hands of the central government but left fewer jagirs available for mansabdars. As a result, nobles faced financial strain, which weakened their ability to maintain their military contingents and loyalty to the emperor.
3. Frequent Transfers of Jagirs: The Mughal practice of frequently transferring jagirs among mansabdars prevented them from developing long-term ties to the land or the local population. This lack of permanence discouraged mansabdars from investing in agricultural development or maintaining the welfare of the peasants under their control. As a result, the revenue potential of many jagirs declined, further straining the system.
4. Over-Lavish Appointments: The Mughal emperors, particularly Aurangzeb, appointed an excessive number of mansabdars to secure loyalty and expand their influence. However, this overextension strained the empire’s resources, as there were not enough jagirs to support the growing number of nobles. This condition, termed bejagiri (a lack of jagirs), left many mansabdars without adequate resources, weakening their ability to fulfill their military and administrative duties.

Consequences of the Jagirdari Crisis

The breakdown of the jagirdari system had profound consequences for the Mughal Empire:

• Weakened Military Capacity: The mansabdars were responsible for maintaining the empire’s military forces. As their financial resources dwindled due to the shortage of jagirs, they could no longer sustain the required number of troops. This weakened the Mughal army, making it less capable of suppressing rebellions or defending against external threats.
• Erosion of Noble Loyalty: The scarcity of jagirs and the financial difficulties faced by mansabdars eroded their loyalty to the emperor. Many nobles began prioritizing their personal interests over the empire’s stability, leading to factionalism and internal conflicts within the Mughal court.
• Rise of Regional Powers: The weakening of the central authority allowed regional elites, such as the Marathas, to challenge Mughal control. The mansabdars’ inability to effectively govern their jagirs created opportunities for local zamindars (landholders) and other groups to assert their independence, further fragmenting the empire.

The Agrarian Crisis: Tensions in the Rural Economy

While the Jagirdari Crisis undermined the Mughal administrative and military structure, the Agrarian Crisis, as theorized by Irfan Habib in The Agrarian System of Mughal India (1963), highlighted the underlying economic and social tensions that contributed to the empire’s decline. Habib argued that the Mughal land revenue system placed immense pressure on the peasantry, leading to widespread discontent and economic instability.

Features of the Agrarian Crisis

Irfan Habib identified several key features of the Agrarian Crisis that destabilized the Mughal Empire:

1. High Revenue Demand: The Mughal revenue system, known as the zabt system, imposed a high rate of land revenue, often exceeding half of the agricultural produce. This heavy tax burden placed immense pressure on peasants, leaving them with little surplus to sustain their livelihoods or invest in agricultural improvements.
2. Gap Between Jama and Hasil: The Mughal revenue system was based on two key figures: the jama (the assessed revenue) and the hasil (the actual revenue collected). Over time, a growing gap emerged between these two figures, as the actual revenue collected fell short of expectations. This discrepancy was caused by factors such as declining agricultural productivity, peasant resistance, and inefficiencies in revenue collection.
3. Impact of Jagir Rotation: The frequent rotation of jagirs among mansabdars discouraged long-term investment in agriculture. Mansabdars, knowing they might be transferred to another jagir, focused on extracting as much revenue as possible in the short term, often at the expense of the land’s productivity. This practice led to the ruination of agriculture and the impoverishment of peasants.
4. Flight of Peasantry: The heavy revenue demands and exploitative practices of mansabdars drove many peasants to abandon their lands and flee to areas beyond Mughal control. This flight reduced the agricultural output of jagirs and further strained the revenue system, as zamindars and mansabdars struggled to meet their financial obligations.
5. Agrarian Revolts: The mounting economic pressures culminated in widespread peasant revolts, which Habib described as manifestations of peasant discontent. These revolts, often led by local zamindars or village headmen, challenged Mughal authority and destabilized the empire’s rural economy.

The Role of Zamindars

S. Nurul Hasan, in his 1969 paper “Zamindars Under the Mughals,” highlighted the complex role of zamindars in the Mughal agrarian structure. Zamindars were local landholders who acted as intermediaries between the Mughal state and the peasantry, collecting revenue and maintaining order in their territories. While many zamindars were loyal to the Mughal state, conflicts often arose between them and the mansabdars or among themselves. These conflicts, combined with the weakening of Mughal authority after Aurangzeb’s death in 1707, disrupted the delicate balance of agrarian relations.

The zamindars’ growing autonomy in the 18th century further weakened the Mughal state. Without a strong central authority or an alternative class to counterbalance the zamindars, the empire could not maintain control over its rural economy, leading to the collapse of the agrarian system.

Consequences of the Agrarian Crisis

The Agrarian Crisis had far-reaching consequences for the Mughal Empire:

• Economic Instability: The decline in agricultural productivity and the flight of peasants reduced the empire’s revenue base, making it difficult to finance military campaigns and administrative functions.
• Peasant and Zamindar Revolts: The growing discontent among peasants and zamindars fueled rebellions that challenged Mughal authority. These revolts, such as those led by the Marathas and Jats, further eroded the empire’s control over its territories.
• Weakening of the Imperial Structure: The Agrarian Crisis exacerbated the Jagirdari Crisis, as the decline in revenue from jagirs left mansabdars unable to fulfill their obligations. This created a vicious cycle of economic and political instability that undermined the empire’s foundations.

Cultural and Technological Stagnation

In addition to the structural and economic crises, some historians, such as M. Athar Ali and Iqtidar Alam Khan, have pointed to cultural and technological stagnation as contributing factors to the Mughal decline.

Cultural and Ideological Failure

M. Athar Ali, in his 1975 article “The Passing of Empire: The Mughal Case,” argued that the Mughal Empire suffered from a “cultural and ideological failure” that prevented it from modernizing its military and productive capacities. Unlike earlier periods when the Mughals demonstrated adaptability in warfare and governance, the late 17th century saw a lack of innovation in these areas. The empire’s intellectual focus remained on traditional pursuits, such as compiling philosophical or religious texts, rather than embracing new technologies or ideas that could have strengthened its military and economic systems.

However, this argument has been criticized for being overly simplistic. The Mughal Empire had a history of adopting new technologies, such as gunpowder weapons, and developing sophisticated administrative systems. Explaining the sudden loss of this dynamism requires a deeper analysis of the empire’s internal and external challenges.

Technological Backwardness

Iqtidar Alam Khan highlighted the Mughal failure to develop superior military technology as a key factor in their decline. By the late 16th and 17th centuries, the use of gunpowder and handguns had become widespread, even among peasants and zamindars. While the Mughals initially used firearms effectively, as evidenced by Babur’s use of artillery in the First Battle of Panipat (1526), they later struggled to maintain control over the production and distribution of these weapons.

Khan noted that handguns became increasingly accessible to local groups, enabling them to challenge Mughal authority. For example, archival evidence from the period, such as the Ain-i-Akbari and Munsha’at-i Namakin, indicates that the Mughal state attempted to regulate the production of firearms by restricting blacksmiths and maintaining centralized control over tufangchis (musketeers). However, these efforts were largely unsuccessful, as peasants and zamindars armed themselves with guns, leading to increased resistance against Mughal rule.

Consequences of Cultural and Technological Stagnation

The failure to innovate technologically and culturally had several consequences:

• Military Weakness: The Mughal army, once a formidable force, became less effective as regional powers adopted more advanced military technologies and tactics. The widespread availability of firearms among local groups further eroded Mughal military dominance.
• Loss of Ideological Cohesion: The lack of a unifying ideology that could justify the empire’s heavy revenue demands weakened its legitimacy. As regional powers developed their own administrative and military systems, they attracted the loyalty of local elites, further fragmenting the empire.

The Role of Bankers and the “Great Firm” Theory

Karen Leonard’s “Great Firm” theory (1979) offers an alternative perspective on the Mughal decline, emphasizing the role of indigenous banking firms (sahukars, shroffs, and mahajans). These firms were critical to the Mughal economy, providing credit to nobles, facilitating trade, and supporting revenue collection.

The Importance of Banking Firms

Leonard argued that banking firms were indispensable allies of the Mughal state, as they provided loans to mansabdars and imperial officers, enabling them to meet their financial obligations. However, from 1650 to 1750, these firms began diverting their resources to regional powers, such as the Marathas and successor states, rather than the Mughal central government. This shift starved the empire of critical financial support, contributing to its bankruptcy and eventual collapse.

Critiques of the Great Firm Theory

J.F. Richards challenged Leonard’s theory, arguing that it lacked sufficient primary evidence and overstated the role of banking firms. Richards pointed out that Mughal India’s economy was supported by various commercial groups, including grain dealers, moneylenders, and merchants, who operated independently of the imperial system. These groups were not as indispensable as Leonard suggested, and their services were often limited in scope. Furthermore, Leonard’s claim that the Mughal state was indifferent to money-lending firms contradicts evidence that emperors like Akbar and Aurangzeb actively regulated these firms to reduce their influence.

Consequences of Shifting Financial Support

Despite the critiques, Leonard’s theory highlights an important aspect of the Mughal decline: the redirection of financial resources to regional powers. As banking firms supported emerging states like Awadh, Bengal, and Hyderabad, these regions grew stronger, further weakening the Mughal center.

The Rise of Regional Powers and Successor States

The decline of the Mughal Empire was not only a result of internal crises but also the rise of regional powers that capitalized on the empire’s weaknesses. Historians like Christopher A. Bayly, Richard Barnett, and Andrea Hintz have emphasized the emergence of “successor states” as a key factor in the Mughal collapse.

The Emergence of Successor States

By the early 18th century, regional powers such as Awadh, Bengal, Hyderabad, the Marathas, and the Sikhs began to assert their independence. These successor states did not openly defy Mughal authority but instead worked within the Mughal system to secure greater autonomy. They achieved this by:

• Securing Tax-Farming Rights: Regional elites obtained ijara (tax-farming) rights, allowing them to collect revenue directly and retain a larger share for themselves.
• Acquiring Long-Term Jagirs: Unlike the short-term jagirs assigned to mansabdars, successor states secured long-term control over their territories, enabling them to build stable administrative systems.
• Building Alliances with Local Elites: Successor states forged alliances with local zamindars and magnates, creating efficient revenue collection systems that outstripped the Mughal administration.

The Maratha Challenge

The Marathas, under leaders like Shivaji, posed a significant threat to the Mughal Empire. Their military successes, such as the sack of Surat in 1664 and Shivaji’s escape from Agra in 1666, demoralized the Mughal nobility and exposed the empire’s vulnerabilities. The Marathas’ ability to mobilize resources and resist Mughal control further strained the empire’s military and financial resources.

Consequences of Regional Fragmentation

The rise of successor states had profound consequences:

• Diversion of Resources: As regional powers intercepted revenue and resources, the Mughal center became increasingly impoverished, unable to sustain its military or administrative functions.
• Political Fragmentation: The emergence of independent regional states fragmented the empire, reducing the Mughal emperor to a nominal figurehead by the mid-18th century.
• Cultural and Economic Vibrancy in Regions: While the Mughal center declined, successor states like Awadh and Bengal experienced economic and cultural growth, laying the foundation for new regional identities.

Critiques of the Aligarh School

The Aligarh School, represented by historians like Irfan Habib, Satish Chandra, and Athar Ali, has been influential in explaining the Mughal decline through the lens of the Jagirdari and Agrarian Crises. However, their theories have faced criticism from the Cambridge School, which includes historians like C.A. Bayly, Muzaffar Alam, and M.N. Pearson.

The Cambridge School’s Perspective

The Cambridge School argues that the Mughal decline was not driven by a systemic agrarian crisis or class conflicts but by internal contradictions within the empire and the natural evolution of regional powers. Key points of their critique include:

• No Agrarian Crisis: Bayly and Alam argue that the 18th century was a period of economic growth and social vitality in many regions, rather than widespread crisis. They suggest that the Mughal collapse was a political failure rather than an economic or social one.
• Patron-Client Relationships: M.N. Pearson emphasized that the Mughal Empire was built on patron-client relationships rather than a rigid class structure. He argued that loyalty to the emperor depended on military success, and setbacks like those against Shivaji undermined this loyalty, leading to the empire’s collapse.
• Successor States as Structural Adaptation: Bayly and others view the rise of successor states as a “structural adaptation” to changing economic and social realities, rather than a symptom of decline. These states built more efficient systems of governance and revenue collection, outpacing the Mughal administration.

Weaknesses in the Cambridge School’s Arguments

While the Cambridge School offers valuable insights, their arguments have been criticized for downplaying the economic and social tensions highlighted by the Aligarh School. For example, Pearson’s dismissal of the Agrarian Crisis overlooks evidence of peasant revolts and the economic pressures caused by high revenue demands. Additionally, the Cambridge School’s focus on regional vitality does not fully explain why powerful regional elites withdrew their support from the Mughal center.

Consequences of the Mughal Decline

The decline of the Mughal Empire had profound and lasting consequences for the Indian subcontinent:

1. Political Fragmentation: The weakening of the Mughal center led to the emergence of independent regional powers, such as Awadh, Bengal, Hyderabad, the Marathas, and the Sikhs. This fragmentation created a power vacuum that paved the way for British colonial intervention in the 18th and 19th centuries.
2. Economic Shifts: While the Mughal center declined, many successor states experienced economic growth, driven by increased trade and commerce. However, the loss of centralized control disrupted long-distance trade networks and weakened the empire’s ability to regulate economic activity.
3. Cultural Transition: The Mughal decline marked the end of a golden age of cultural synthesis, characterized by the blending of Persian, Indian, and Islamic traditions. However, successor states continued to patronize art, architecture, and literature, preserving and adapting Mughal cultural traditions.
4. British Colonial Rule: The Mughal Empire’s collapse created opportunities for European powers, particularly the British, to establish dominance in India. By the mid-19th century, the British East India Company had become the dominant power, culminating in the formal end of Mughal rule in 1857 after the Indian Rebellion.

Conclusion

The decline of the Mughal Empire was a multifaceted process driven by a combination of internal crises and external pressures. The Jagirdari Crisis undermined the empire’s administrative and military structure, while the Agrarian Crisis fueled economic instability and peasant discontent. Cultural and technological stagnation limited the empire’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances, and the redirection of financial resources by banking firms weakened its economic foundation. The rise of regional powers, such as the Marathas and successor states, further eroded Mughal authority, leading to political fragmentation. While the Aligarh School emphasizes structural and economic crises, the Cambridge School highlights the vitality of regional formations and the limitations of Mughal governance. Together, these perspectives provide a comprehensive understanding of the Mughal decline and its lasting impact on the Indian subcontinent. The fall of the Mughal Empire marked the end of an era, but it also paved the way for new political, economic, and cultural developments that shaped modern India.

Futher readings: https://egyankosh.ac.in/handle/123456789/20287