The Mughal Empire: Political History, Consolidation and Decline — Part 9: FAQ

FAQ

Q1. What was the significance of the First Battle of Panipat (1526)?

The First Battle of Panipat (21 April 1526) ended the Delhi Sultanate, which had been the dominant political structure of north India since Qutbuddin Aibak in 1206, and established the Mughal Empire. Babur defeated and killed Sultan Ibrahim Lodi using superior artillery and the tulughma (flanking) strategy. It introduced massed field artillery into Indian warfare on a decisive scale, opened the Gangetic plain to Mughal control, and displaced the last Afghan dynasty from the Delhi throne.

Q2. How did Akbar's mansabdari system differ from earlier military organisation?

Unlike the Delhi Sultanate's iqta system — which assigned revenue land without standardised military obligation tied to numerical ranks — the mansab system linked every administrative rank to a precise cavalry obligation (sawar) and a personal salary (zat). Inspection through dagh-chehra prevented fraud. The dual rank was introduced around 1595–96; promotion was merit-and-lineage based but ultimately at the emperor's discretion. Critically, the system included both military and civil-revenue officers, making it a comprehensive bureaucratic framework rather than a purely military one. Babur's time used the term wajhdar rather than mansabdar; it was Akbar who gave the system its definitive shape across 66 grades.

Q3. Why is Aurangzeb's reign seen as both the apogee and the beginning of the decline of the Mughal Empire?

Aurangzeb expanded the empire to its greatest territorial extent, annexing Bijapur (1686) and Golconda (1687) and pushing the imperial boundary to the far south. However, the 26-year Deccan campaign exhausted the treasury and military. His reimposition of jizya (1679) and destruction of temples alienated Rajput allies and Hindu subjects, fuelling major rebellions (Durgadas Rathore in Marwar, Satnami and Jat uprisings). The jagirdari crisis — a structural imbalance between available jagir land and the growing number of mansabdars — deepened under continuous warfare. By the time Aurangzeb died in 1707, centrifugal forces were irreversible.

Q4. What was Sher Shah Suri's contribution to Mughal administration?

Sher Shah (1540–1545), though an Afghan who displaced Humayun, laid the administrative foundations that Akbar would later refine. He standardised land measurement using the sikandra gaz, introduced direct revenue contracts with peasants (patta-qabuliyat), organised the sarkar-pargana hierarchy across 66 sarkars, built or rebuilt the Grand Trunk Road with sarais, and introduced the silver rupiya of uniform weight. The corpus of Mughal administrative texts confirms that the Afghan interlude (1540–1555) was significant: "Under Sher Shah Suri the experiment in the formation of a bureaucracy under a centralised despotism had taken place. Akbar gave it a definite shape."

Q5. How did the Rajput policy of Akbar differ from that of Aurangzeb?

Akbar's Rajput policy was integrationist: matrimonial alliances (marriage with Harka Bai of Amber, 1562), enrollment of Rajput chiefs as high-ranking mansabdars (Man Singh reaching 7,000 zat), and exemption from religious conversion. The only consistent exception was Mewar, which resisted. Aurangzeb, by contrast, reimposed jizya (1679), discontinued matrimonial alliances with Rajput families, and refused to recognise Ajit Singh of Marwar's succession — triggering a prolonged Rajput rebellion under Durgadas Rathore that lasted until Aurangzeb's death. The shift from cooperation to confrontation fatally undermined the empire's military base in north India at precisely the moment when the Deccan was draining resources from the south.

---

Cross-references

• Previous article: Delhi Sultanate: Political History — covers the Ilbari, Khalji, Tughlaq, Sayyid, and Lodi dynasties (1206–1526) that the Mughals replaced; foundational for understanding the administrative inheritance Akbar built upon.
• Related reading: Medieval Administrative Systems in India — detailed treatment of iqta, mansab, jagir, and land revenue systems including the Todar Mal settlement and agrarian relations.
• Continuation: Decline of the Mughals and 18th Century India — the successor states, Maratha Confederacy, European trading companies, and the transition to British paramountcy.
• Agrarian context: The Ain-i Akbari (Abul Fazl) is the most systematic primary source for Mughal agrarian administration. The chapter on "Peasants, Zamindars and the State" provides the agrarian sociology of the Mughal Empire, covering the raiyat, khud-kashta, pahi-kashta, zamindar hierarchy, and the state's revenue-maximisation drive.