The Mughal Empire: Political History, Consolidation and Decline — Part 7: Six Great Mughals and Causes of Decline
Part 7: Six Great Mughals comparison table; causes of Mughal decline — jagirdari crisis (JAMMED mnemonic), Aurangzeb's religious policy, Maratha challenge, weak successors, Deccan overextension, Nadir Shah; UPSC PYQs.
Medieval India — Part 2 of 5
8. The Six Great Mughals: Comparative Summary
| Emperor | Period | Best Known For | Policy Weakness |
|---|---|---|---|
| Babur | 1526–1530 | Foundation; artillery tactics; Baburnama autobiography | Short reign; empire barely consolidated |
| Humayun | 1530–1556 | Restoration; Persian cultural influence via Safavid exile | Indecision; lost empire to Sher Shah for 15 years |
| Akbar | 1556–1605 | Administrative genius; sulh-i-kul; mansabdari; Rajput policy | Deccan left partially unconquered |
| Jahangir | 1605–1627 | Patronage of art; Tuzuk memoirs; do aspa sih aspa | Nur Jahan factional politics; Deccan unresolved |
| Shah Jahan | 1628–1658 | Taj Mahal; cultural zenith; chakla administrative unit | Costly Central Asian campaigns; factional succession |
| Aurangzeb | 1658–1707 | Greatest territorial extent | Religious intolerance alienated subjects; Maratha rise; jagirdari crisis |
9. Causes of the Decline of the Mughal Empire
The decline of the Mughal Empire after 1707 was the product of structural contradictions that had accumulated across the seventeenth century and erupted after Aurangzeb's death.
a) Jagirdari Crisis
The mansab-jagir system's central flaw was the growing gap between assessed (jama) and actual (hasil) revenue. As the number of mansabdars grew — particularly under Aurangzeb's Deccan expansion, where new Deccan nobles were enrolled — the available jagir land could not keep pace. Nobles received salaries worth a fraction of their nominal entitlement. Bhimsen explicitly identifies the increase in the strength of the nobility as a direct cause of the jagirdari crisis. The concentration of 80 per cent of revenue among just 1,571 mansabdars meant that any disruption to jagir assignments destabilised the entire administrative and military structure simultaneously.
b) Aurangzeb's Religious Policy
The reimposition of jizya (1679) and destruction of temples alienated the Rajput chiefs whose military cooperation was essential to Mughal power. The Rajput rebellion (Durgadas Rathore of Marwar, 1679–1707) and the estrangement of Marwar and Mewar stretched Mughal military resources and diverted them from the Deccan. Hindu zamindars and revenue-payers who felt targeted reduced cooperation with revenue collection.
c) Maratha Challenge
The Marathas demonstrated that a determined peasant-warrior society, fighting on familiar terrain with guerrilla tactics, could not be permanently defeated by a slow-moving, logistics-heavy Mughal army. After 1680 the Marathas expanded rapidly; by 1720 they controlled large swathes of western, central, and southern India and were threatening Delhi itself.
d) Weak Successors
After Aurangzeb's death (1707), twelve emperors followed in 45 years (1707–1752). None combined political will with military capacity. The war of succession became chronic. Nobles — the Sayyid Brothers, Nizam-ul-Mulk, Maratha chiefs — became kingmakers, further eroding central authority. The emperor was increasingly banda-i dargah (slave of the court) to his own nobles rather than the reverse.
e) Deccan Overextension
The 26-year Deccan campaign exhausted the treasury, drained the military, and drew the emperor's attention away from the north. The annexation of Bijapur (1686) and Golconda (1687) added nominal territory but real administrative and military headaches. Revenue from newly conquered territories consistently fell short of assessment, deepening the jagirdari crisis.
f) External Shocks
Nadir Shah's invasion (1739) and sack of Delhi removed the imperial treasury and the Peacock Throne, symbolically ending Mughal pretensions to universal sovereignty. Ahmad Shah Abdali's repeated invasions (1747–1769) devastated the northwest. The Third Battle of Panipat (1761) — in which Abdali crushed the Maratha Confederacy — prevented any single successor power from inheriting Mughal authority intact.
g) Structural Limits of the Administrative System
Theoretically the Mughal administrative structure was highly centralised and bureaucratic in nature; the emperor was the fountainhead of all powers, and bureaucracy was mere banda-i dargah. When emperors were weak, the system had no self-sustaining institutional mechanisms to maintain cohesion. Provincial subadars became increasingly autonomous; zamindars resisted revenue collection; and the Sikh, Jat, Maratha, and Rajput movements filled the power vacuum created by imperial weakness.
10. UPSC Relevance
| Exam | Area | Likely Angle |
|---|---|---|
| Prelims | Medieval India | Battles and dates; mansab system; Din-i-Ilahi; jizya; suba divisions |
| GS Paper I | Medieval History | Akbar's administration; Rajput policy; causes of Mughal decline |
| History Optional Paper I | Mughal Empire | Administrative structure; agrarian relations; religious policy |
| Essay | Composite culture / Nationalism | Sulh-i-kul as a model; Mughal integration strategies |
Select Previous Year Questions (indicative):
- "Akbar's policy towards the Rajputs was a major factor in the consolidation of the Mughal Empire." (Mains 2016)
- "The Mansabdari system was the backbone of the Mughal administration." (Mains)
- Causes of the decline of the Mughal Empire (Mains, recurring)
- Significance of the Battles of Panipat (Prelims, recurring)