Causes of the Decline of the Mughal Empire
Modern History › India on the Eve of British Conquest · Topic 3.3
The Mughal Empire declined because of weak rulers, wars of succession, quarrelling nobles, a failing army, a vast and unwieldy empire, Aurangzeb's religious and Deccan policies, foreign invasions and an economic and jagir crisis. Historians differ on which cause mattered most.
7 min read · UPSC Prelims · History · India on the Eve of British Conquest
At a Glance
- What it is The reasons for the fall of the Mughal Empire in the eighteenth century
- Two views Empire-related (Mughal-centric) and region-related
- Eight standard causes Personal despotism, succession wars, nobility, army, vast empire, religious policy, Deccan policy, invasions
- Key scholars Satish Chandra, Irfan Habib, William Irvine, Sidney Owen and Jadunath Sarkar
- Exam link UPSC Prelims, Modern History: India on the Eve of British Conquest
Where Does It Fit?
This is the third topic of the category on India on the eve of British conquest. The first two topics gave the invasions and the weak rulers. This topic brings the causes together. The next topic looks closely at the jagir crisis and the zamindars. Previous topic: Weak Rulers After Aurangzeb and the Internal Challenges. The fuller medieval account is in Nadir Shah Sacked…">Decline of the Mughal Empire After Aurangzeb.
How Do Historians View the Decline?
Why the Mughal Empire declined has long been debated by historians. Scholarly opinion falls into two broad lines. The empire-related or Mughal-centric view finds the causes in the structure and working of the empire itself. The region-related view finds the causes in the turmoil and instability in different parts of the empire. The decline was due to both aspects.
The break-up began in the reign of Aurangzeb but picked up speed only after his death in 1707. At his death the process of decline could still have been checked. Several chiefs challenged Mughal authority, but none could assert independence in the face of imperial might. The Sikhs, Marathas and Rajputs lacked the capacity to overthrow the empire. They merely resisted Mughal power to gain and keep independence in their own territories. If Aurangzeb’s successors had been capable, the empire might not have fallen. Most of them were incapable, weak and licentious, and they hastened its collapse.
What Were the Main Causes in Brief?
| Cause | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Personal despotism | The government depended on the character of the ruler, and the later Mughals were worthless and neglected administration |
| No law of succession | There was always a war of succession, which weakened stability and put partisanship above patriotism |
| Degenerate nobility | The decay of rulers led to a decay of nobles, whose factional quarrels and intrigues cost the empire heavily |
| Deterioration of the army | It proved disastrous for the empire |
| Too vast an empire | It was too large to be run from a centre by weak rulers, given the transport and communications of the time |
| Aurangzeb’s religious policy | It was largely responsible for revolts of Rajputs, Sikhs, Jats and Marathas |
| Aurangzeb’s Deccan policy | A complete failure and an important cause of the fall; it also kept the emperor away from the capital for long |
| Invasions | The invasions of Irani (Persian) and Durrani (Afghan) kingdoms gave a death-blow |
Other causes in the summary include economic decline from endless wars and stagnation in agriculture, trade and industry, the interference of the European companies in native politics, the shifting allegiance of zamindars, the jagirdari crisis, and the rise of regional aspirations.
What Did Different Historians Argue?
- Satish Chandra The roots of disintegration lie in the medieval Indian economy, its stagnation in trade, industry and science, and the crisis of the jagirdari system, which hit every branch of state activity. Nobles could not fulfil their ambitions in imperial service and so factions struggled and ambitious nobles bid for independent rule. The emperors could not fit the Marathas into the Mughal framework, so the attempt to build a composite ruling class broke down. Personal failings counted, but within these deeper impersonal factors
- Irfan Habib The seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century authorities put the greatest weight on economic and administrative causes of the upheaval and knew little of religious reaction or national consciousness. No new order was or could be created by the forces ranged against the empire
- William Irvine Military inefficiency was the principal, if not the only, cause of the final collapse. The empire had lost military energy at the centre long before its end, and it was doomed before Nadir, Abdali, clive-and-the-anglo-french-struggle-a-comparison/" class="maargx-auto-link" data-preview="At a Glance What it is A profile of Dupleix and a comparison of why the English succeeded and the French failed…">Dupleix or Clive appeared
- Sidney Owen The empire was ruined in Aurangzeb’s reign by his reversal of Akbar’s policy of ignoring distinctions of race and religion and by reimposing jaziya. This turned the Rajputs into enemies, while Shivaji and his followers destroyed the empire’s military reputation, exhausted its treasure and created a state within a state. Nadir Shah then completed the humiliation
- Jadunath Sarkar The fall of the Mughal Empire and of Maratha overlordship came from rottenness at the core of Indian society, shown in military and political helplessness, depraved or weak royalty, selfish nobles and corruption in the public services
These views emphasise, respectively, economy and the jagirdari system, military weakness, religious policy, and social decay. As an analytical point, none of them excludes the others: the decline had political, economic, military and social strands at once.
Why Did Rajputs and Others Turn Away?
Powerful regional groups such as the Jats, Sikhs and Marathas defied Mughal authority in Aurangzeb’s own time, in their bid to create kingdoms of their own. They did not succeed then, but they shaped political events in their regions, and their continuous struggle weakened the empire considerably.
Aurangzeb, and after him Bahadur Shah I, tried to suppress the Rajputs, which spurred them to fight the Mughals. Later Mughals tried reconciliation, but it was too late: the Rajputs no longer trusted the Mughals enough to ally with them for the good of the empire.
Why Is This Topic Important?
- Mains favourite Questions on the decline of the Mughals appear often and expect the historians’ views
- Direct facts Aurangzeb’s religious and Deccan policies and the role of the Rajputs are standard items
- Foundation for later topics The causes explain the rise of successor states and the Company’s opening
What Came Next?
The next topic examines two specific causes in detail: the shifting allegiance of zamindars and the jagirdari crisis. Next topic: Jagirdari Crisis and the Shifting Allegiance of Zamindars.
Key People and Terms
- Mughal-centric view The view that causes of decline lie in the empire’s own structure
- Region-related view The view that causes lie in instability within the provinces
- Jagirdari system The system of assigning land revenue to nobles in return for service
- Primogeniture The rule that the eldest son succeeds, absent in Mughal succession
- Imperium in imperio A state within a state, as one historian described the Maratha power
- Composite ruling class A ruling group made up of different communities and regions
Exam Corner
Points to Remember
- Decline began under Aurangzeb and gathered speed after 1707.
- Two views: empire-related and region-related.
- No law of succession led to repeated wars of succession.
- Aurangzeb’s religious policy and Deccan policy are both causes.
- Scholars: Satish Chandra, Irfan Habib, Irvine, Owen, Sarkar.
Do Not Confuse With
- Satish Chandra and Irfan Habib Chandra stresses the jagirdari crisis; Habib stresses economic and administrative causes noted by contemporaries
- Irvine and Owen Irvine blames military inefficiency; Owen blames Aurangzeb’s religious policy and the Marathas
- Aurangzeb’s religious and Deccan policies One alienated Rajputs, Sikhs, Jats and Marathas; the other kept him away from the capital
Memory Hook
Weak kings, quarrelling nobles, empty treasury, and invaders at the gate.
Mains Angle
Questions usually ask for causes and for a view on the debate. These points add depth.
- Multi-cause approach The decline had political, military, economic and social causes together
- Aurangzeb’s role His religious and Deccan policies are blamed, though the process picked up after 1707
- Region versus centre Regional turmoil combined with weakness at the centre
A Question You May Face
An original practice question, not a past paper question.
“Discuss the causes of the decline of the Mughal Empire and the views of historians on them.”
How to Answer
- Explain the debate Introduce the empire-related and region-related views.
- List causes Give the eight standard causes with examples.
- Add historians Mention Chandra, Habib, Irvine, Owen and Sarkar briefly.
- Conclude Say that no single cause explains the fall.
GS Relevance
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the Mughal Empire decline?
The Mughal Empire declined because of weak successors, wars of succession, quarrelling nobles, a failing army, an over-large empire, Aurangzeb's religious and Deccan policies, foreign invasions and an economic and jagir crisis. Historians differ on which cause mattered most.
What are the two views on the decline of the Mughals?
The empire-related or Mughal-centric view finds the causes in the structure and working of the empire itself, while the region-related view finds them in the turmoil and instability in different parts of the empire. The chapter concludes that the decline was due to both aspects.
How did Aurangzeb's policies contribute to the decline?
Aurangzeb's religious policy led to revolts by Rajputs, Sikhs, Jats and Marathas, and his Deccan policy was a complete failure that kept him away from the capital for a long time. Both are listed among the main causes of the empire's downfall.
Why did wars of succession weaken the Mughals?
The Mughals had no definite law of succession, so every reign ended in a war of succession. These wars weakened the stability of government and encouraged partisanship at the cost of patriotism, and they drained the empire of men and money.
What did William Irvine say about the fall of the Mughals?
William Irvine argued that military inefficiency was the principal, if not the only, cause of the empire's final collapse. He held that the empire had lost military energy at the centre long before it fell and was doomed before Nadir Shah, Abdali, Dupleix or Clive appeared.
What was the jagirdari crisis?
The jagirdari crisis was the shortage of land to give as jagirs to a growing number of nobles, so that income from assigned lands fell short of needs. Satish Chandra sees it as a crisis of the jagirdari system that affected every branch of state activity and fed factional struggle.
PYQ Practice — Statement Analysis
1 The Mughal Empire had a settled law of succession based on the eldest son.
There was no definite law of succession, which caused wars of succession.
2 Aurangzeb's Deccan policy is counted among the causes of the Mughal decline.
It kept him away from the capital for long.
3 The region-related view finds the causes of decline in the turmoil of different parts of the empire.
The empire-related view looks to the empire's structure.
4 Irfan Habib blamed military inefficiency as the sole cause of the fall of the Mughals.
That was William Irvine's view; Habib stressed economic and administrative causes.
5 The invasions of Nadir Shah and Abdali are listed among the causes of the fall.
They gave a death-blow to the empire.
Related Topics
Browse the full Modern History index