Decline of the Mughal Empire After Aurangzeb
Medieval History › Mughal Period · Topic 6.33
After Aurangzeb's death in 1707 the Mughal court fell into faction fighting, with emperors like Bahadur Shah I (to 1712) and Farrukhsiyar (executed 1719) overshadowed by nobles, ambitious provincial governors acting independently, the Marathas raiding into the Gangetic plains, and Nadir Shah's sack of Delhi in 1739 exposing the weakness. The causes lay in the jagirdari crisis, a centralised system that needed able rulers, and neglect of science and sea power.
6 min read · UPSC Prelims · History · Mughal Period
At a Glance
- Aurangzeb died 1707, at Aurangabad
- Bahadur Shah I To 1712
- Farrukhsiyar Executed 1719; Sayyid brothers dominate
- Nadir Shah Sacked Delhi in 1739
- Causes Jagirdari crisis, weak rulers, regional powers, neglect of technology
- Exam link UPSC Prelims, Medieval History: Mughal Period
Where Does It Fit?
This is the last topic of the category on the Mughal period. The previous topic assessed Aurangzeb and the jagirdari crisis, and this topic traces what followed. The next category covers medieval society and social structure, beginning with rural society. Previous topic: Assessment of Aurangzeb’s Reign and the Jagirdari Crisis. The fuller treatment is in Causes of the Decline of the Mughal Empire.
What Happened After 1707?
In short: a sequence of weak emperors, factions at court and rising regional powers broke down central authority within about three decades.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1707 | Aurangzeb dies at Aurangabad, leaving a distracted empire |
| Within about six years | Rajput demands accepted: high mansabs and restoration of homelands; jizyah scrapped |
| 1712 | Bahadur Shah I dies; the dynasty sinks into chaos and violent feuds |
| 1719 | Farrukhsiyar is executed; four emperors succeed in the year as figureheads for the Sayyid brothers, who rule in fact |
| 1719 to 1748 | Muhammad Shah reigns; large parts of central India pass to the Marathas |
| 1739 | Nadir Shah imprisons the emperor and sacks Delhi, draining the treasury |
| 1761 | Ahmad Shah Abdali defeats the Marathas at Panipat |
| 1857 | Last emperor deposed after the revolt |
The Mughal court became the scene of faction fighting among nobles, ambitious provincial governors began to act independently, and Maratha depredations extended from the Deccan to the Gangetic plains. Nadir Shah’s looting of Delhi in 1739 proclaimed the weakness to the world. The regional outcomes are in Rise of Autonomous Regional Powers Following the Decline of Mughal Central Authority in the Early 18th Century and The Maratha Confederacy in the 18th Century (Peshwas, Bhonsles, Gaikwads, Holkars, Scindias).
How Far Was Aurangzeb Responsible?
Historians debate how far the fall was due to developments after Aurangzeb and how far to his policies. The recent view places his reign in its economic, social, administrative and intellectual context, without absolving him. Trade and manufacture grew, but not fast enough; revenue was heavy and the nobility expanded five times in numbers, producing the crisis of the jagirdari system, which led to peasant discontent, zamindar uprisings, attempts at local kingdoms and factionalism among nobles. Nobles began to take independent airs only when the successors of Aurangzeb allowed the administrative machinery to decay and the crisis worsened. The system was highly centralised and needed a competent monarch; when such rulers were missing, wazirs tried to fill the gap and failed. Individual failures and the breakdown of the system reacted on each other. See Assessment of Aurangzeb’s Reign and the Jagirdari Crisis.
What Else Weakened the Empire?
| Factor | Detail |
|---|---|
| Marathas | The unsolved Maratha problem remained an open sore; the Marathas were not integrated into the Mughal political system |
| Rajputs | Their demands were accepted within about six years of Aurangzeb’s death, after which they ceased to be a problem and also did little to arrest the decline |
| Religion | Jizyah was scrapped and building new temples eased, but this had no effect on the accelerating decline |
| Science and technology | The ruling class neglected modern science and technology; no mechanical clock was produced in the seventeenth century; superiority of Europeans in artillery was acknowledged; there was too much stress on past learning |
| Sea power | The Mughal ruling classes had no tradition of connection with the sea and little understanding of naval power |
| Europeans | As long as the empire was strong, Europeans could not control Indian territory; its decline, Nadir Shah and the Afghans, and Europe’s economic growth later let them establish dominance |
What Remained Strong?
Despite decline, the north Indian heart of the empire kept much vigour for some time: trade and industry expanded, and district administration was tenacious and in part passed into the British administration. The Mughal dynasty also held a strong hold on the mind of the people, and thirty or forty years after Aurangzeb the Marathas still could not face the Mughal artillery in the field. As an analytical point, the empire did not collapse in a single blow: authority drained away to governors, zamindars and new regional states, and what the court lost was power over revenue and troops. The later clash of the Marathas with the Afghans is described in Third Battle of Panipat (1761) – Marathas vs. Ahmad Shah Abdali. The long view of the period is in the review of a thousand years of change, which points to political integration and trade as lasting gains and to technological lag as a weakness.
Why Is This Topic Important?
- Core Mains theme Causes of the Mughal decline
- Chronology Later Mughal emperors and Nadir Shah
- Bridge Leads to regional states and European power
What Came Next?
The next category covers medieval society and social structure, beginning with village life. Next topic: Rural Society Structure in Medieval India.
Key People and Terms
- Sayyid brothers Nobles who controlled Farrukhsiyar and his successors
- Nadir Shah Persian ruler who sacked Delhi in 1739
- Jagirdari crisis Shortage and low yield of jagirs
- Wazir Chief minister
- Regional powers Successor states of the 18th century
- Khalisa Crown land
Exam Corner
Points to Remember
- 1712: Bahadur Shah I dies.
- 1719: Farrukhsiyar executed; four emperors in one year.
- 1739: Nadir Shah sacks Delhi.
- Rajput demands met within about six years.
- Jizyah scrapped after Aurangzeb.
Do Not Confuse With
- Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Abdali Raid and sack of 1739 versus the victor of Panipat in 1761
- Sayyid brothers and Saiyid dynasty Eighteenth-century power brokers versus an earlier Sultanate dynasty
- Decline and collapse Gradual loss of authority versus formal end in 1857
Memory Hook
Aurangzeb dies, factions rise, governors drift, Nadir Shah shows the weakness.
Mains Angle
Questions on decline ask for a multi-causal answer. These points add depth.
- Structure Jagirdari crisis and centralised system
- Politics Marathas, governors, factions
- Outlook Technology and sea power neglected
A Question You May Face
An original practice question, not a past paper question.
“Discuss the causes of the decline of the Mughal empire after Aurangzeb.”
How to Answer
- Events Weak rulers, factions, Nadir Shah.
- Economy Jagirdari crisis.
- Politics Governors, Marathas, Rajputs.
- Outlook Science and navy.
GS Relevance
Frequently Asked Questions
When did the Mughal empire begin to decline?
The decline accelerated rapidly after Aurangzeb's death in 1707, as the court became a scene of faction fighting, governors acted independently, and Maratha raids reached the Gangetic plains. Nadir Shah's sack of Delhi in 1739 showed the weakness.
Who were the Sayyid brothers?
The Sayyid brothers were nobles who became the real rulers when Farrukhsiyar was executed in 1719. Four emperors followed in a single year as figureheads, and the Sayyid brothers governed in fact. This showed how far the court's authority had fallen into the hands of rival nobles.
What was the effect of Nadir Shah's invasion?
Nadir Shah imprisoned the Mughal emperor and looted Delhi in 1739, draining the Mughal treasury and proclaiming the weakness of the empire to the whole world. It was the clearest sign that the central authority could no longer protect even its capital.
Why did the Mughal administration decay after Aurangzeb?
The system was highly centralised and needed competent rulers. When such monarchs were absent, wazirs failed to fill the gap, nobles took independent airs, and the jagirdari crisis deepened with factionalism and weak control over the provinces.
Did religious policy cause the decline?
Not by itself. Aurangzeb's policy alienated sections of Hindus, but jizyah was scrapped and temple building eased within years of his death, and this had no effect on the accelerating decline caused by deeper factors.
PYQ Practice — Statement Analysis
1 Nadir Shah sacked Delhi in 1739.
He imprisoned the Mughal emperor.
2 Farrukhsiyar was executed in 1719.
The Sayyid brothers then controlled the throne.
3 The Mughal nobility declined because Central Asian immigration ceased, according to modern historians.
Most nobles were India-born.
4 The Rajputs played a major role in the later disintegration.
They played little role either way.
Related Topics
Browse the full Medieval History index