Decline of Mughals
Decline of Mughals
Mughal decline was gradual, not sudden. The empire lost effective authority between 1707 and 1761 through a combination of structural crisis in the jagirdari and mansabdari systems, weak successors, foreign invasions and the assertion of regional powers. Historians differ sharply on which cause matters most, and UPSC has tested that difference.
The chain of events after 1707
| Ruler or event | Year | What happened |
|---|---|---|
| Bahadur Shah I | 1707-1712 | Conciliatory policy towards Rajputs, Marathas and Sikhs but no structural reform |
| Jahandar Shah and the Sayyid brothers | 1712-1720 | Nobles became kingmakers; Farrukhsiyar raised and then killed by the Sayyid brothers |
| Muhammad Shah Rangeela | 1719-1748 | Nizam-ul-Mulk left to found Hyderabad in 1724; Bengal, Awadh became autonomous |
| Nadir Shah's invasion | 1739 | Defeat at Karnal; sack of Delhi; the Peacock Throne and Kohinoor taken away |
| Ahmad Shah Abdali's invasions | 1748-1767 | Repeated raids; victory at the third battle of Panipat in 1761 |
| Battle of Buxar | 1764 | Mughal emperor Shah Alam II defeated with Awadh and Bengal by the British |
| Treaty of Allahabad | 1765 | Diwani of Bengal, Bihar and Odisha granted to the East India Company |
1739 का नादिर शाह आक्रमण मुगल प्रतिष्ठा का निर्णायक धक्का था - इसके बाद प्रांतीय शासकों ने दिल्ली को गंभीरता से लेना छोड़ दिया | 1764 का बक्सर युद्ध राजनीतिक अंत की मुहर है |
Causes of decline
| Category | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Structural or economic | Jagirdari crisis - too many mansabdars for available revenue; gap between jama and hasil; peasant distress and rural revolt |
| Political | Absence of a fixed law of succession, producing a war of succession at every death; factionalism among Turani, Irani, Afghan and Hindustani nobles |
| Aurangzeb's policies | Deccan wars draining resources; reimposition of jizya; alienation of Rajputs, Marathas, Jats and Sikhs |
| Military | Failure to modernise artillery and infantry; dependence on heavy cavalry; loss of central control over troops |
| External | Invasions of Nadir Shah in 1739 and Ahmad Shah Abdali repeatedly after 1748 |
| Regional assertion | Rise of Hyderabad, Bengal, Awadh, the Marathas, Sikhs, Jats and Rohillas |
Historians divide broadly into three camps. Jadunath Sarkar emphasised Aurangzeb's religious policy. Satish Chandra and Irfan Habib emphasised structural crisis - the jagirdari system and the agrarian burden respectively. A third group led by Muzaffar Alam and Chetan Singh argues that the regions were not decaying but growing prosperous, and that power shifted from the centre to the provinces rather than simply collapsing.
Decline = jagirdari crisis + succession wars + external invasions + regional assertion
✗ The Mughal empire ended in 1707 | ✓ Effective power ended around 1707-1720; the dynasty formally continued until 1857
- Wars of succession followed almost every emperor's death, destroying continuity of policy
- Nobles divided into ethnic and factional groups and used princes as figureheads
- Provincial governors converted their charges into hereditary states while formally accepting Mughal suzerainty
- The empire's revenue base shrank as regions stopped remitting to Delhi
- European trading companies exploited the vacuum, culminating in Plassey in 1757 and Buxar in 1764
Linkage: this topic is the bridge between medieval and modern India. It leads directly into the regional powers topic, into the British conquest of Bengal, and into the discussion of why India was politically fragmented when European commercial power turned into political power.
Exam pointer: usually appears as a statement question on causes or as a chronology question. Learn 1707, 1739, 1757, 1761, 1764 and 1765 as a sequence, and learn which historian argued what. Traps: assuming the empire ended in 1707, crediting the Battle of Plassey with defeating the Mughal emperor - it was the Nawab of Bengal, while Buxar defeated the emperor himself - and treating religious policy as the sole accepted explanation.
FAQ
Did the Mughal empire end with Aurangzeb's death?
No. Effective imperial authority collapsed within a decade or two of 1707, but the dynasty continued formally. Shah Alam II accepted British protection, and Bahadur Shah Zafar was deposed and exiled only after the revolt of 1857, which is when the dynasty legally ended.
What was the jagirdari crisis?
A structural mismatch between the number of mansabdars needing revenue assignments and the productive land available to assign, which worsened after the Deccan annexations. It produced paper jagirs, oppressive collection during short tenures, rural distress and revolt.
Which invasions accelerated Mughal decline?
Nadir Shah's invasion of 1739, which ended in the sack of Delhi and the loss of the Peacock Throne and the Kohinoor, and the repeated invasions of Ahmad Shah Abdali between 1748 and 1767, including his victory at the third battle of Panipat in 1761.
60-second recap
- Effective decline runs from 1707 to about 1761 while the dynasty lasts until 1857.
- Jagirdari crisis, wars of succession, factional nobility and military stagnation are the core causes.
- Sarkar blames religious policy; Satish Chandra the jagirdari crisis; Habib the agrarian burden.
- Alam and Chetan Singh see regional prosperity and a shift of power, not simple collapse.
- Nadir Shah in 1739 and Abdali up to 1761 destroyed remaining prestige.
- Plassey 1757 defeated the Nawab of Bengal; Buxar 1764 defeated the emperor himself.