Founded by Zahiruddin Babur in 1526 and expanded to its full glory by Emperor Akbar in the second half of the sixteenth century, the Mughal empire began to decline rapidly since the reign of its last great ruler Aurangzeb. Even during the first half of the seventeenth century, the capital of Delhi was considered a major power centre in the entire eastern hemisphere; but within 50 years, the signs of decline of this mighty empire were unmistakably visible.
Some historians ascribe Aurangzeb’s divisive policies for the rapid decline – particularly blamed are his religious policies. His expansionist military campaigns in western India against the two autonomous states of Bijapur and Golconda, and against the Marathas are believed to have sapped the vitality of the empire. But other historians believe the root of Mughal decline lay in the institutions and systems intrinsic to the Mughal administration, rather than in personalities and specific policies.
The process of decline had set in during the time of Aurangzeb and could not be arrested by his weak successors. The situation was further worsened by recurrent wars of successions, like the Persian invasion under Nadir Shah in 1738-39 and the Marathas under Shivaji, who had had time and again challenged Aurangzeb’s imperial rule.
Earlier historians like Sir JN Sarkar believed that it was crises of personality, weak emperors and incompetent commanders who were responsible for the downfall of the mighty Mughal empire. But then, other historians like TGP Spear have pointed out that there was no dearth of able personalities in eighteenth century India. It was indeed a period marked by activities of such able politicians and generals like Sayyid brothers, Nizam–Ul–Mulk and many more.
But unfortunately, all these able statesmen were preoccupied more in self-aggrandisement and had little concern for the fate of empire. So, at times of crises, they could not provide leadership and directly contributed to the process of decline.
Lineage or ethnic background was the single most important factor in matters of appointments as mansabdars. A great majority of Mughal nobles were outsiders who had come from various parts of central Asia. The aristocracy was therefore divided into various ethno-religious groups, the most powerful among being the Turani and Irani groups. Those who came from the Turkish-speaking region were called Turanis and were Sunnis, and those who came from the Persian-speaking regions were called Iranis and were Shias. This lent religious colour to their mutual animosity and jealousy. The other groups among the nobility were the Afghans, Sheikhjadas or the Indian Muslims, and the Hindus.
Recurring peasants revolts in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries are also believed to have been a major cause of the decline of the Mughal empire and it is not unlikely that the crises of ruling elites have something to do with them. An empire imposed from above and its gradually increasing economic pressures were, perhaps, never fully accepted by the ruler society; and the regional sentiments against the centralised power had also been there.
In the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the weaknesses of central power became apparent and the Mughal army faced successive debacles. At the same time, the oppression of the Mughal ruling class increased, and resistance to imperial authority also became widespread and more resolute. In most cases, these rebellions led by the disaffected local zamindars and backed fully by the oppressed peasantry. Eventually, the combined pressure of the zamindars and peasants often proved to be too much for the Mughal authority to withstand.
We may, however, conclude by saying that the idea of ‘decline’ is perhaps an inadequate theme to understand the eighteenth century in Indian history. The Mughal system continued long after the de facto demise of empire, which was followed long after the emergence of a number of regional powers. The eighteenth century in Indian history is not a dark age, nor an age of overall decline. The decline of a pan-Indian empire was followed by the rise of another, intervening period being dominated by a variety of powerful regional states. This century should therefore be considered, as Satish Chandra argued, a distinct chronological whole.