Assessment of Aurangzeb’s Reign and the Jagirdari Crisis
Medieval History › Mughal Period · Topic 6.32
Aurangzeb inherited an empire whose nobility had grown from 2069 mansabdars in 1605 to 11,456, while revenue grew slowly, producing the jagirdari crisis of paper incomes that could not be collected and too few jagirs. His errors with the Marathas, the Rajputs, the Deccani states and religious policy deepened it, but historians stress economic, social and institutional causes more than one man's policies.
7 min read · UPSC Prelims · History · Mughal Period
At a Glance
- Mansabdars 2069 (1605), 8000 (1637), 11,456 (later Aurangzeb)
- Crisis Paper income exceeded realised income
- Deccan Overstretch and Maratha pacts
- Rajputs Breach with Marwar and Mewar
- Verdict Mistakes, but deeper structural causes
- Exam link UPSC Prelims, Medieval History: Mughal Period
Where Does It Fit?
This is the thirty-second topic of the category on the Mughal period. The previous topics covered the Deccan war and Aurangzeb’s religious policies, and this topic gives the overall assessment. The next and last topic covers the decline of the empire after him. Previous topic: Aurangzeb’s Religious Policies (Reimposition of Jizya).
What Was the Economic Background?
In short: agriculture and trade grew but too slowly for the swelling demands of the ruling class.
Trade and handicrafts expanded in the seventeenth century, the area under zabti measurement grew, and total cultivation seems to have increased, helped by administrative policy: nobles and even religious grantees were expected to improve cultivation, and detailed village records of ploughs, bullocks, wells and cultivators were kept. Yet production did not expand as fast as needed. There were no new methods to offset exhausted soil, and land revenue, including the shares of zamindars and others, was more or less half the produce from Akbar’s time, though not heavy enough to drive peasants away. Eastern Rajasthan shows new villages being founded. The basic limits were social and administrative. With a population of about 125 million, much cultivable land was free, but landless labourers, largely untouchables, were kept in villages by the upper-caste cultivators and zamindars as a reserve labour force, and the poor lacked capital to settle new land. The state depended on zamindars and headmen for new settlement.
What Was the Jagirdari Crisis?
| Factor | Detail |
|---|---|
| Rising numbers | Mansabdars rose from 2069 in 1605 to 8000 in 1637 and 11,456 in the later half of Aurangzeb’s reign, five times, while revenue resources rose slowly and the empire hardly expanded under Jahangir and Shah Jahan |
| Magnificence | Shah Jahan’s age of magnificence and price rise in the first half of the century increased nobles’ needs; they squeezed peasants and zamindars |
| Zamindars | A powerful class that resisted illegal exactions; peasants moved between villages (pahis or uparis); Mughal policy drew zamindars into administration |
| Result | Peasant discontent, zamindar uprisings, attempts at independent local kingdoms, and factionalism in the nobility |
| Paper income | Nobles could not get from jagirs the income shown on paper and so could not maintain their troop quota |
| Deccan | Bhim Sen says nobles sometimes could not realise even a farthing and many made private agreements with Maratha sardars to pay chauth |
| Shortage | After Bijapur and Golconda were annexed, the best jagirs were kept in khalisa to fund the war; Karnataka jagirs yielded little; small jagirdars were harassed by clerks who demanded bribes |
| Recruitment ban | Aurangzeb’s virtual ban on new recruitment disappointed the sons and sons-in-law of old nobles; Khafi Khan compared a jagir to one pomegranate among a hundred sick |
Shah Jahan’s month-scale and reduced troop quotas had been attempts to ease the problem, as described in Qandahar End…">Shah Jahan’s Reign – Consolidation and Expansion of the Empire.
Which Arguments Are Rejected?
Historians reject the claim that the nobility decayed because immigrants from Central Asia stopped coming: by Aurangzeb’s accession most nobles were India-born, and the idea of a debilitating climate was a racialist argument of later British historians. They also reject the charge that the nobility was anti-national because it was multi-ethnic: nationalism in the modern sense did not exist, but loyalty to the salt gave a broad sense of patriotism, and foreign-born nobles had few links left with their origins. Mughal checks and balances kept ambitions in control, and nobles took independent airs only when successors let the system decay and the jagirdari crisis worsened. The system was highly centralised and needed a competent monarch. Another argument says the army was outmoded in lacking infantry with flintlocks and mobile field artillery, but that needed more resources and would have been resisted by nobles whose prestige rested on cavalry.
What Were Aurangzeb’s Mistakes?
| Area | Mistake |
|---|---|
| Marathas | Failed to grasp the movement, ignored Jai Singh’s advice to befriend Shivaji, executed Sambhaji so that no recognised Maratha head remained to negotiate with, and in 1703 backed away from an agreement because he could not trust Shahu and the sardars; Maratha sardars held high mansabs but were never given offices of trust, so the Marathas could not be integrated |
| Deccani states | Union of hearts was impossible once the 1636 treaty was abandoned; Aurangzeb was forced by Maratha power and Golconda’s help to Shivaji to conquer Bijapur and Golconda; extending administration over Karnataka stretched the empire to a breaking point and left communications open to Maratha attacks; his son Shah Alam had suggested annexing only part and letting them rule Karnataka |
| Rajputs | The breach with Marwar was a miscalculation in trying to divide the state between two claimants, which alienated both and the ruler of Mewar; the long war damaged the moral standing of the state, but the fighting hardly mattered militarily after 1681 and the Rajput demands were met within about six years of his death |
| Religion | The policy on temples and jizyah did not rally Muslims, alienated Hindu groups and strengthened opponents; jizyah was scrapped within about six years of his death |
He also had personal shortcomings, an excessive suspiciousness and a narrow, cold temperament.
What Was the Final Verdict?
The impact of the Deccan wars and Aurangzeb’s long absence from the north should not be overestimated. The empire was still a powerful machine; in the plains and plateau the Mughal artillery remained master of the field, and even thirty or forty years later the Marathas could not face it in battle. In north India trade and industry continued to expand, district administration was tenacious and much of it passed into the British administration, and the dynasty held the popular imagination. Decline came from economic, social, political and institutional factors, including the neglect of science and technology by the ruling class. Akbar’s measures held the forces of disintegration in check, but he could not change the structure of society, and Aurangzeb lacked the foresight to reconcile competing elements. As an analytical point, the answer to whether the empire collapsed under its own weight or from Aurangzeb’s mistakes is both: the system was already under strain, and his errors accelerated it. See Aurangzeb’s Deccan Policy and Conflicts with the Marathas and Sayyid brothers dominate Nadir Shah Sacked…">Decline of the Mughal Empire After Aurangzeb.
Why Is This Topic Important?
- Core Mains theme Aurangzeb and the decline debate
- Terms Jagirdari crisis, khalisa, Khafi Khan
- Balance Policy errors versus structural causes
What Came Next?
The next topic describes the decline of the Mughal empire after Aurangzeb. Next topic: Decline of the Mughal Empire After Aurangzeb.
Key People and Terms
- Jagirdari crisis Shortage and low yield of jagirs
- Khalisa Crown land
- Pahi Migrant peasant
- Sardeshmukhi Extra levy claimed by the Marathas
- Chauth One-fourth of revenue
- Swarajya Maratha-ruled state
Exam Corner
Points to Remember
- Mansabdars: 2069, 8000, 11,456.
- Land revenue about half the produce, including shares of intermediaries.
- Best jagirs kept in khalisa after 1687.
- Khafi Khan: pomegranate among the sick.
- Jizyah scrapped within about six years of his death.
Do Not Confuse With
- Jama and actual income Paper value of a jagir versus what could be collected
- Chauth and sardeshmukhi Quarter of revenue versus a further levy claimed by the Marathas
- Khalisa and jagir Crown land versus land assigned to nobles
Memory Hook
Too many nobles, too few jagirs, paper that does not pay; the empire stretched and strained.
Mains Angle
Questions on Aurangzeb ask for a balanced assessment. These points add depth.
- Structure Jagirdari crisis
- Policy Marathas, Deccan, Rajputs, religion
- Verdict Mistakes accelerated a structural decline
A Question You May Face
An original practice question, not a past paper question.
“Was Aurangzeb responsible for the decline of the Mughal empire? Examine, with reference to the jagirdari crisis.”
How to Answer
- Economy Slow growth, high demands.
- Crisis Jagirs scarce and unproductive.
- Mistakes Marathas, Deccan, Rajputs, religion.
- Verdict Both policies and structure.
GS Relevance
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the jagirdari crisis?
The jagirdari crisis was the growing gap between the paper income of jagirs and the amounts that jagirdars could collect, combined with too few good jagirs for a nobility that had grown fivefold. Nobles could not maintain their troops.
How many mansabdars were there under the Mughals?
The number of mansabdars rose from 2069 at Jahangir's accession in 1605 to 8000 in 1637 under Shah Jahan, and to 11,456 in the latter half of Aurangzeb's reign, while the revenue resources of the empire rose only slowly.
Why was Aurangzeb's Deccan policy criticised?
It stretched the Mughal administration to a breaking point, left lines of communication open to Maratha attacks, and made nobles unable to collect dues from their jagirs, so some made private pacts with the Marathas to pay chauth.
What were Aurangzeb's mistakes with the Marathas?
He misjudged the Maratha movement, ignored Jai Singh's advice to befriend Shivaji, executed Sambhaji, and withdrew from a possible settlement in 1703. Maratha sardars got high mansabs but were never given offices of trust and responsibility.
Did the Mughal empire collapse only because of Aurangzeb?
No. Historians now treat the decline as a result of economic, social, political and institutional causes along with the neglect of science and technology. Aurangzeb's mistakes hastened it, but the structural strains were already strong by his time.
PYQ Practice — Statement Analysis
1 The number of mansabdars rose to 11,456 in Aurangzeb's later reign.
Revenue grew far more slowly.
2 After 1687, Aurangzeb kept the best jagirs in the khalisa.
This worsened the shortage of jagirs.
3 Historians agree that the end of Central Asian immigration caused the nobility's decay.
Most nobles were India-born.
4 Jizyah was scrapped within about six years of Aurangzeb's death.
It did not stop the decline.
Related Topics
Browse the full Medieval History index