Mughal Decline and Aurangzeb

QUESTIONS-

2005 - Q. Aurangzeb-How far was Aurangzeb responsible for the crisis that developed in
the Mughal State in the latter half of the 17th century?
Q12- 18th century - In the light of recent debates how would you interpret the 18 th
century in Indian history?

2006 – Qaurangzeb - What were the various developments in the 17 th century that
corroded the basis of the Mughal state?
Q10- DECLINE- Give a critical assessment of various theories of Mughal decline.

2007 - Q4 Aurangzeb- Do you think in the second half of the 17 th century Aurangzeb was
responsible for the decline of the Mughal Empire?
Q-12 18th cent-Is it justified to call the 18th century in India a dark age?

2008-Q3-Aurangzeb decline- Analyze the various controversies associated with agrarian

revolts during the reign of Aurangzeb.
Q12- 18th century eco (?)Discuss the trends in the medieval Indian economy in the first
half of the 18th century.

2009 - Q DECLINE- Critically examine different theories on the decline of the Mughal
Empire.
Q – AURANGZEB - Deccan policy.
Q12- 18th century
2010-AURANGZEB- Peasant revolts contributed significantly to the decline of the Mughal
empire comment. NO 18th century or decline.

INTRO- 18TH CENTURY:

 The eighteenth century in India was one of political turmoil and socio-economic
changes.
 The Mughal Empire which had given a sense of virtual unity to the subcontinent for
a century and a half, disintegrated rapidly.
 The Maratha bid to establish hegemony over the country failed and the British
merchant adventurers succeeded in laying the foundations of an empire of a new
type.
 Traditionally, historians like Jadunath Sarkar, AL Srivastav etc, have blamed
Aurangzeb’s policies for accelerating the decline of the Mughal Empire. The
rebellions of the Jats, Sikhs, Satnamis etc. have often been viewed in this context. Yet

1
 recent historiography has begun analyze the institutional and structural factors that
contributed to the decline of the Empire.

PEASANT REBELLIONS-
 Aurangzeb’s reign saw a number of peasant/agrarian revolts.
 However peasant revolts were not unprecedented in the Mughal Empire, since the
time of its inception peasants resisted the centralizing tendencies of the empire and
were suppressed ruthlessly. This suppression was also accompanied by attempts at
conciliation, assimilation of peasants. Yet the new feature of Aurangzeb’s reign was
greater peasant defiance and organized resistance under local landed elements/
new leaders. Yet before moving on to various historians’ views on the role of such
revolts in Mughal decline, it is important to briefly trace these revolts.

THE JAT REBELLION

 The Jats who were mostly peasants, in the Yamuna belt rebelled primarily in the
Agra region which had been a centre of resistance from the time ofAkbar. Manucci
holds that→ Jats attacked and plundered the tomb of Akbar at Sikandra, yet this is
unverifiable. Resistance intensified under Aurangzeb.
 In 1667, one saw the rebellion of Jat leader Gokul, in Mathura and the death of a
corrupt mughal faujdar Abdun Nabi. This was suppressed by 1669. From 1680s, Jat
resistance was continued by Raja Ram and later Churaman, largely in the form of
plundering raids and withholding of revenue.

 But in 1680, the character of the struggle also changed subtly under Rajaram→
primacy was accorded to ousting non-Jat zamindars of the region, and moving
towards a Jat dominated state. This led to a conflict between the Jats and the Rajputs
over zamindari rights
 Most of the primary zamindars, (cultivating peasants who owned the land) were
Jats, and the intermediary zamindars, (those who collected the land-revenue) were
Rajputs.
 The Jats put up stiff resistance, but by 1691, Rajaram and his successor, Churaman,
were compelled to submit.
 Later on, in the eighteenth century, taking advantage of Mughal civil wars and
weakness in the central government, Churaman was able to carve out a separate Jat
principality in the area and to oust the Rajput zamindars.
 V imp:→Thus, what apparently started as a peasant uprising, was diverted from its
character, and culminated in a state in which Jat chiefs formed the ruling class.
CAUSES
 The origins of the Jat resistance can be traced to the 15 th and 16th centuries during
which the Jats, from being nomadic pastoralists began to adopt settled agriculture
and through technological innovations and extension of agriculture began to rise

2
 economically. The Jats had begun to cultivate cash crops like sugarcane, indigo,
cotton.
 In spite of their economic improvement they were still accorded a low social status.
 One noted aspiration for higher social status → kind of titles they adopted, such as
Singh, which had largely been seen as a Rajput prerogative.
 In this context we can see that they were a receptive audience to Nanak’s ideology.

THE SIKH REBELLION

 The Sikhs had been resisting Mughal rule since the time of Jahangir.
 CASUSE- Chetan Singh points out in the 17th century one saw the economic rise of
the Jat peasants and Khatri trading class in Punjab, as the jat-nomadic pastoralists
took to sedentary agriculture and adopted new agrarian technology(Persian wheel,
cash crops) and the Khatris benefitted from increased trade across the NWFP
passes.
 Sikhism offered a rallying point for these economically mobile but socially inferior
jats and khatris, due to its rejection of caste system and emphasis on equality.
 In this context the ascending Jats and Khatris under Sikh leadership, began directing
their resistance against the Mughal state’s high revenue demand and the tax
collecting allies of the mughal states i.e local Rajput Zamindar.

 By the mid 17th century, under the leadership of Guru Hargobind the Sikhs
organized themselves in a more disciplined and well-knit manner, acquiring a more
militant character in the form of the Khalsa. The Khalsa became a symbol of armed
resistance against the Mughals.
 The struggle intensified by late 17th century under Sikh warrior Banda Bahadur as
imperial control weakened and agrarian unrest rose

BANDA BAHADUR
 By 1710 resistance surged under Banda Bahadur with control extended over
Sirhind, Sutlej and Yamuna region.
 Banda Bahadur began to issue coins in his own name without reference to the
Mughal state and even started to issue farmans and hukumnamas. He also took on
the title of Saccha Padshah. He began targeting Mughal representatives.
 Soon Banda Bahadur was able to carve out his independent sphere of influence, but
he was unable to consolidate his hold over the region as his raids alienated his base
the trading classes-Khatris.
 The Mughal governor in Punjab, Zakaria Khan tired forge an alliance with the landed
magnates, the Rajputs, but since they were a largely unpopular group lacking a
support base, the effects of such an alliance were nullified, in this region, the
challenge came from the peasantry as well as the zamindars indicating a deep
rooted agrarian crisis, one that could not be solved simply by a strong provincial
governor from above.
 Any solution would have to take into account the Jats and Banda Bahadur.
3
  Eventually, the economic prosperity of the area decelind due to military activities of
Banda Bahadur, campaigns of Nadir Shah and Ahmed Shah Abdali and Maratha
incursions. However Band’s agrarian revolt laid the basis for the later development
of the DalKhalsa and the Sikh Misls, which eventually led to Ranjit
Singh capturing Lahore in 1799 and establishing the Sikh Kingdom of the Punjab.

THE SATNAMI REBELLION 1672

 The Satnamis, a group of low caste peasants and artisana belonged to the Vairagi
sect rebelled in 1672.
 Like Kabir, they believed in monotheism, and condemned rituals and superstition.
And were sympathetic towards the poor, and hostilie towards authority and wealth.
 Appealed → lower caste-peasants and artisans as they did not observe distinctions
of caste and rank or between Hindus and Muslims, and followed a strict code of
conduct.
 The rebellion started when a Satnami was murdered by a soldier in the Mathura
region.
 The Satnamis plundered many villages, and after defeating the local faujdar, seized
the towns of Narnaul and Bairat.

MARATHA REBELLION
 One also saw rise of Maratha resistance following Shivaji, which was highly
dispersed and spread over Kolhapur and Poona.
 Maratha resistance gathered momentum with the rise of the Peshwas.
 Under Balaji Vishwanath, the Peshwa under Sahu, the Marathas were reorganized.
 Under the Peshwas, the Maratha state extended up to Malwa and Gujarat as well.
 Irfan Habib → Maratha resistance ‘rebellion of zamindars’.

THEORIES REGARDING THE DECLINE OF THE MUGHAL EMPIRE

COLONIAL WRITERS → James Mill, Elphinstone, and British administrators like Vincent
Smith presented the earliest view on the decline of the Mughal state and peasant
uprisings→
 In their colonial conception of Indian history, peasant uprisings and decline were
viewed in a religious light. The viewed Mughals as ‘foreigners’ and the Mughal state
as a‘Muslim state’. For them decline and resistance to Mughal rule was ‘Hindu’
reaction to orthodox Muslim rule. The inability of the ‘Muslim’ Mughal state to
garner support among non-Muslims was perceived as its weakness.
 In political terms they attributed decline to a large authoritarian monarchical state
without any laws of succession and marked by moral, administrative and military
decadence of the Mughals.
 They also blamed the lavish and ostentatious Mughal lifestyle.
 Critique- The colonial view sought to paint a picture of decadence in the preceding
period in order to justify the benevolent colonial rule in contrast.
4
  As regards their argument there is enough evidence that the Mughals enjoyed
popular support, acceptance and legitimacy and were not perceived as foreigners as
point in case being the large non-muslim support of the Mughal emperor during the
Revolt of 1857.

NATIONALIST HISTORIANS → Sir Jadunath Sarkar, AL Srivastava and R.C. Majumdar and
Ishwari Prasad- Focused solely on the Role of Aurangzeb in the decline of the Mughal
Empire.
 They saw peasant resistance to Mughals as popular reaction against Aurangzeb’s
religious bigotry and orthodox rule. Aurangzeb was attacked for his orthodox
religious policy, his wasteful and expensive Deccan campaigns, and decadent
nobility.
 Jadunath Sarkar, presented Aurangzeb’s as a complete contrast to his forefather
Akbar who has been traditionally viewed as the consolidator of Mughal rule with his
liberal religious policy, creation of a composite nobility, and forging of Rajput
alliances. Aurangzeb, on the other hand was presented as the last great Mughal ruler
and the harbinger of decline through his orthodox policies.
 Sarkar blamed Aurangzeb for his religious orthodoxy- citing religious motivation
behind his reimpostion of Jaziya and his destruction of Hindu temples, his wasteful
and expensive Deccan campaigns.
 Popular resistance from the Sikhs, Jats and Satnamis was viewed in this religious
context, prevailing discontent and lawlessness under Aurangzeb.
 They also blamed Aurangzeb for intellectual and technological stagnation in this
period.
 Finally these historians relied on SOURCES like Bernier, →described the ‘Maratha
raids’ and Manucci → described the 18th century as a dark age.
 CRITIQUE: This long prevalent view has been critiqued by various historians like
Satish Chandra and Irfan Habib, who say it needs to be understood that state
formation or decline is a process and cannot be attributed to one person. The
decline of the Mughal Empire was in fact a cumulative process which had begun
under the reigns of Jahangir and Shah Jahan, and they trace an institutional basis for
such decline.
 With regards to Aurangzeb’s religious orthodoxy causing revolts- Aziz Ahmad cites
fiscal reasons for the reimpostition of jaziya, while Satish Chandra argues it was
probably imposed to win over ascendant muslim orthodoxy was infact opposed
even by some muslims. With regards to temple destruction historians argue it was
partly out or religious orthodoxy and part out of wanting to assert his political
supremacy in the context of rising revolts.

RECENT WRITINGS → shifted their focus towards an analysis of institutional failings as

opposed to political or religious failing of Aurangzeb.

5
  IRFAN HABIB → Explained the decline & various rebellions faced by Aurangzeb
→in terms of an agrarian crisis facing the empire, causing peasant discontent.
Relying on the works of Bernier, St. Xavier and Bhimsen-

I. He Argued→ high rate of land revenue demanded by Delhi → large-scale rural

exploitation, leading to peasant migration and rebellion. This created an agrarian
crisis → weakening of the empire’s political edifice.
 The gap between the jama (gross estimate) and haasil (gross revenue) is seen as
reflective of this crisis.

II. He says there was an intimate connection between military power and the jagirdari
system: The principal obligation of the mansabdars was the maintenance of cavalry
contingents with horses of standard breeds. → therefore
 Imperial revenue policy had to balance between two important considerations:
Firstly, the revenue had to be enough to pay for the maintenance of such
contingents. Secondly, it could not be so high as to leave the peasant with
pittance.
III. Burden on small and Middle peasants: Regressive land revenue structure of the
Mughal state which applied a fixed revenue rate→ put increased pressure on the
small and middle peasants. Land revenue demand was so high that the smaller
peasants were often left with barely subsistence level produce after paying taxes.
Also,insistence of payment in cash, made the peasants subject to the vagaries of
market forces.

IV. Structural contradiction: Irfan Habib also points to a structural flaw in the system
→whereby there was a basic contradiction between short term and long term interests
of the jagirdars. According to him, the practice of reckless and frequent transfers led
jagirdars to extract as much as they could from their jagirs in as short a period of time
as possible. As a result there was no investment in agriculture which could yield long-
term benefits and the peasantry was exploited further as the burden of land revenue
demand was passed on to them.

V. Caste and Sect: Habib further illustrates how that peasant rebellion caused primarily
by oppressive land revenue system was given an impetus by two important social
forces at play→(i)The first was the larger community of caste, which was an important
binding force for peasants as seen in the Jat revolt. Caste also led to Petty Zamindars
leading fellow caste members in revolt.(ii) Secondly organization along sect lines
formed as a result of the great religious revival of the 15th- century.
 New egalitarian sectarian beliefs helped to forge a sense of unity among
disparate low caste/class discontented groups. Thus he saw the Satnami revolt as
a result of the solidarity that the Bhairagi identity gave the satnamis and the Sikh
revolt as a result of Sikh identity and Khalsa which gave the low caste peasants
and khatris a solid identity and military fighting ethic which disregarded caste.
6
 VI. Yet for Habib, roots of revolt were linked to peasant exploitation and the State was the
biggest culprit in this.

SATISH CHANDRA CRTIQUED HABIB

→1. Chandra argues that the 17th/18th centuries saw a laxity in the transfer of jagirdars
rather than frequent transfers this led to exploitation of peasantry.
→2. He also says exploitation of the peasantry may also have been due to the zamindars
and one can’t solely blame the State.
→3. Chandra says the target of peasant revolts was not always the state but also the local
zamindar at times –e.g. in Punjab peasants attacked Rajput zamindars and jats who
aspired for higer social status also
→While Habib may be credited with shifting the academic focus to institutional factors,
→ Chandra says it’s too simplistic to view the above movements as mere peasant uprisings
as social aspirations weare also at play and the decline can’t be explained merely by an
agrarian crisis.

SATISH CHANDRA :Views decline of the Mughal Empire in terms of a jagirdari crisis
characterized by bejagiri or a shortage of jagirs. M. Athar Ali substantiated Chandra’s
views with statistical details while using Sources→ like Bhimsen’s account of deccan and
Khafi Khan’s account, who have highlighted the shortage of jagirs.

 The jagirdari crisis was essentially a situation in which there was a serious gap
between the number of mansabdars and number of available jagirs.
 Satish Chandra points to Aurangzeb’s Deccan conquests of Bijapur, Golconda and
the Maratha kingdom as precipitating the jagirdari crisis. He points out that in
the eagerness to annex these kingdoms Aurangzeb lavishly awarded high
mansabs to new groups whom he was inducting such the Marathas.
 The resulting increased demand for jagirs led to a crisis because-
(i)The state exhausted the reserve of paibaqi lands which meant that many long-
established noble families (khanzadas) who had served the empire faithfully, this
caused them to be unhappy.
(ii)It also led to older Mansabdars jealously guarding their jagirs and refusing to
give them up, in fear of being assigned underproductive land.
(iii)Delay in Assignment: It caused a delay couple of years delay in assignment of
jagirs, leading to mansabdar’s salaries suffering, in a period where there was
already a huge gap between jama and hasil.
 (iv) Khalisa: Initially it led to highly productive Kahlisa lands (crown lands) being
reserved for the state, to fund the Deccan campaign. But soon the shortage led to
jagirs being given from khalisa lands leading to loss in state income.
 (v)Zortalab-Shortage of jagir led to the state assigning zortalab land(land with
recalcitrant zamidars on it) to nobles, which led to tension and the jagirar being
unable to collect revenue properly, thus his maintainnance of contingents and
salary suffering.
7
  (vi) All this thus undermined the undermined the loyalty of the mansabdars and
encouraged factionalism in the nobility.
 Competition: competition increased among the jagirdars to grab more lucrative
jagirs since many of the new jagirs were in difficult and unproductive terrain, →
many jagirdars also began to turn their jagirs into hereditary possessions.
 Widespread conflict among the Mughal nobility was thus an unanticipated effect
of the Deccan conquests.

J.F. RICHARDS CRITIQUED CHANDRA & ALI:

In his path-breaking article presented at the Chicago Symposium on “Decline of the
Mughals” JF Richards has questioned the proposition of the two above scholars.

1. No Shortage of Jagir-Richards through his study of Golconda→ Agreed there was a

jagir crisis, but argued against there being a shortage of jagirs and said infact
annexation of Bijapur and Golconda gave new territorial resources to the State,
sufficient to offset the influx of new Deccani nobles into the Mughal nobility.
2. However he says, Aurangzeb chose instead to restrict access to new fertile tracts to
meet his strategic objectives in the south and the cost of his campaign. .i)Most
productive tracts were kept under khalisa, ii) slightly poor lands were given off as
jagirs iii) rest were kept as paibaqi.
3. He also critiqued the note of inevitability in Chandra’s thesis i.e. as soon as the
Deccan was conquered the jagir shortage began to be followed inevitably by the
imperial crisis. ii) Chandra’s implication that ties between the Emperor and the
nobility were essentially economic in nature.
4. Thus Richards sees the shortage of jagirs in the 1690s as partly artificial rather
than one caused by an absolute shortage of territory, which did lead to loss of
moral amongst mansabdars.

II. RICHARDS’S ARGUMENT:

1. Richards argued→ That if Aurangzeb had managed to consolidate the southern
frontier of Bijapur and Golconda his revenue would have increased by 23% solving
his jagir crisis, yet Aurangzeb failed to do so.
2. He also holds Aurangzeb’s inability to forge successful alliances with local groups
like Marathas and Deccani nobles, as the Mughal state had cultivated with the
khanzadas and the Rajputs turning their support into active loyalty, didn’t develop
now.
3. Richards stressed the absence of the unique nature of the Emperor-noble
relationship built on dynamic personal interaction and commonality of values and
attitudes, which was the strength of the Mughal Empire.
4. However as the empire came under stress for having stretched its frontiers too far,
Some Deccan nobles moved into open rebellion. An interesting case is that of the
Bedars who refused to accept Aurangzeb’s offer due to their rejection of the Indo-

8
 Persian court culture and the increasing emphasis put by Aurangzeb on conversion
to Islam.

CONCLUSION: V IMP.
 Hence rather than a failure of resources for jagirs, incomplete administrative and
political consolidation of Bijapur and Golconda after 1686-87 and commitment of
the best administrative/military resources of the empire to continued expansion in
the south brought about a crisis of public order.
 V.IMP :By 1711-12, the mansabdars of the region were demoralized. The failure also
lay in the inability of Aurangzeb to assimilation of the rural Deccan aristocracies but
not due to lack of trying but also due to the resistance of Marathas to accept mughal
culture and assimilate.

SATISH CHANDRA-REVISED VIEW:DECLINE-

Richards’ critique led Satish Chandra to revise his views on ‘shortage of jagirs’. He now
said that it was a delay in the transfer of jagirs that accelerated the jagirdari crisis. It was
in fact the non-working of the jagirdari system which led to a crisis as opposed to regular
transfers and efficient working of the system.
 Laxity in transfer of jagirdars → jagirdars tightening their control over their jagirs. →
extracting the maximum from the zamindars, who put pressure on the peasantry.
 This disturbed the delicate balance of the tripolar relationship between the jagirdar,
zamindar and the peasantry, which was vital to the survival of the state and thus led
to the decline of the Mughal Empire.
 The state had to assure the zamindars and jagirdars that it was beneficial to them to
ally with the Mughal state. As soon as the Mughal state (rep by Jagirdar) itself
became a primary exploiter, this balance was disrupted.

SATISH CHANDRA ON PEASANT REVOLTS: I)Satish Chandra points out that the peasant
rebellions in Aurangzeb’s period were not simply peasant revolts directed against the
state’s high revenue demand but were far more complex and need to be understood as a
result of Social movements too.
 In the case of Punjab: the rebellion was not just reaction to Mughal agrarian policy
but an expression of greater social aspiration. It is important to note that that
leadership was provided by the Jat peasants and Khatris trading class both of which
were economically upwardly mobile, but didn’t have a corresponding high social
status. In a bid to strive to this higher social status, he says both communities were
attracted to Sikhism which didn’t observe caste distinction. This aspiration also
explained their tendency to attack economically-socially superior Rajput zamindars
and adopt Rajput titles like Singh.
 Similarly in the case of the Jat rebellions he says it was a similar social striving that
in part caused them to revolt.

9
  In the case of the revolts of the Afghans he says again the resistance was partly out
of economic necessity owing to their living in rugged terrain and partly out of
politico-religious reasons.

CHETAN SINGH – Looked at Socio-economic basis of the Sikh revolts in Punjab.

 Argued that peasant unrest in Punjab was linked to tensions generated between the
agrarian economy of the Mughal State on one hand and fringe tribal societies on the
other as they moved towards sedentary existence.
 The latter process altered the structure of tribal societies and increased pressure on
the agrarian economy, which was already under stress. Thus the events of the
eighteenth-century were rooted in the economic processes that shaped the
functioning of empire from its very inception.

MUZAFFAR ALAM– regional study on Awadh and agrarian uprisings in the region:
 He says early eighteenth-century Awadh provides evidence of the remarkable
economic growth and prosperity which resulted in zamindari unrest in the region.
 Economic prosperity was a consequence of increased commercialization and the
monetization of the economy that was initiated in the heyday of the Mughals.
 As zamindars rose in rebellion, the Mughal subedar (governor) in the region
enhanced his power by using the unrest as his bargaining chip with the emperor.
 Under him regional assertion ultimately buoyed the suba to political autonomy.
 Alam tried to show that the eighteenth-century ‘crisis’ is a far more complex issue
than the Delhi-centered administrative and fiscal studies of empire have so far
projected.

M.N. PEARSON: Offers an alternative view of the decline of the Mughal Empire

 Not aggressive and expansionist but defensive : According to Pearson, the apparent
aggressive Deccan policy of the Mughals was in fact a defensive policy that they
were forced to follow due the aggressive attitude of the Marathas and in order to
preserve the image of the Mughal empire as a strong state.
 Southward wasn’t expansion but military defence: He contends that the move South
was itself a symptom of central weakness of the Mughal Empire. Due to the military
concerns of the State, there was no alternative but to respond aggressively to the
military challenge of Maratha resistance. The move was thus not expansionist but
entirely defensive.
 Unique relationship between Mughal sate and nobility: Pearson also analyzed the
unique relationship between the Mughal state and the nobility.
i) He perceived Mughal rule as very indirect, and the only people directly
connected to the emperor were the mansabdars.
ii) They were bound by patronage and continuity of these ties depended upon
military success and not religious or ethnic background.

10
 iii) Pearson shows how Shivaji’s increasing threats through- his attack on Surat,
attack on Shaista Khan, the failure of the Mughal Emperor to strike an alliance
with him as well as his eventual escape from Agra were all humiliating for the
Mughal state.
iv) With the consequent move to the Deccan, by the 1670s there was a sense of
despair in Mughal nobility. →They began to think in terms of whether or not
support to Mughal state was still beneficial.
v) Pearson maintains that the Empire declined because it failed to evolve to a more
impersonal level where criteria other than military might could be allowed to
have more influence.

PETER HARDY – CRITIQUES PEARSON

 Peter Hardy critiqued Pearson’s thesis and pointed out that it is unreasonable to
expect anything more than a military ethic based relationship between the
Emperor and the nobility for centuries prior to this in India, such was the norm.
 He also says that apart from the military ethos, other ties of loyalty and patronage
also bound both sides. Their relationship had political and administrative
dimensions aa at various levels there were attempts to integrate nobility with
local chiefs and zamindars and bring them into Mughal framework. The concept of
watan jagir is an example which took into account political interests of groups like
Rajputs and zamindars.

J.C. HEESTERMANN - TRADE

Heestrerman explained the decline of the Mughal Empire in terms of decline in trade.
 According to him the Mughal state was unable to establish proper control over trade
routes. Internal trade routes → vulnerable due to increasing plundering raids Sea
routes had become → monopolized by the Europeans.
 Critique: i)Satish Chandra, Muzaffar Alam and Stephen Dale have shown that if
trade routes were affected then external trade was carried on through land routes of
Central Asia. i)Moreover the Mughals were a land-oriented state. Hence their trade
was also carried usually on land and not seas. iii)They also point out that if certain
trade centres had declined, yet others had emerged.
 Cyclical realignment , not collapse : According to Heesterman, the Mughal Empire
did not fall; rather it was simply swallowed by a larger political organism: a cyclical
realignment rather than a collapse characterized the change in the eighteenth
century.

ATHAR ALI Traces decline to Mughal cultural failure shared other Islamic polities which
tilted the economic balance in favor of Europe and reduced their capacity to grapple with
the agrarian crisis.
 Islamic world crisis: In his article ‘Passing of the Empire’ he saw a similarity
between the collapse of the Mughal Empire and collapse of the Safavids, Uzbeks and
Ottomans around the same time.
11
  Europe: He saw the emergence of Europe as the principle market for luxuries and
crafts manufacturing of the world as the major event between 1500 and 1700. This
caused a serious disturbance in the economics of the Eastern countries because
prices of luxuries ↑, the ruling class found it difficult to obtain them from their
limited income. Thus the ruling class resorted to reckless agricultural exploitation
and when that failed, to factional activities for individual gains →led to civil wars
and spelled the end of the empire.
 Stagnantion in science and technology: Ali also maintains that India remained
stagnant in the growth of science and technology whereas Europe forged ahead thus
leading to decline.
CRITIQUE i)This argument has been challenged by Chris Bayly, Satish Chandra, Muzaffar
Alam and A.J. Kaiser who hold that the Indians did not lag behind the Europeans in
technical terms.
ii) Kaiser points out that in some areas Mughal technology was far superior to European
technology but needed more time to produce. He also says Mughals were aware of
western technology but chose not to adopt it as they felt it was unsuitable to Indian
conditions.
iii) These scholars place Ali’s contention in the context of the larger tendency to term the
18th century as a period of decline and instability.

KAREN LEONARD.
 Leonbard argues that earlier, merchants only extended loans to the Mughal
nobility/state yet with the coming of the EEIC they began extending loans to them
which caused a collapse of Mughal financial system.
 She argued for movement of mercantile capital from Delhi to the regional centers,
led to the buoyancy of the latter’s political economy and the relative decline of the
former.
 The shift of credit and trade of the great banking firms to the regional centers was
accompanied by the emergence of a mobile service class with multiple functions:
trade, accounting, as well as revenue collection.
 This theory however explains one aspect of the decline but one cannot explain the
phenomenon of decline in its totality from just this perspective.

CONCLUSION
(i)To use to term peasant revolts to describe these various social uprisings in late 17 th-18th
century is a simplistic generalization. Not only were there factors like exploitation by the
zamindars at play but also higher social aspiration, appeal of new religious ideologies, and
regional economic buoyancy at play.
(ii)We need to look at institutional problems which developed over time and not just
politico-religious explanations that focus on the personality of one individual – Aurangzeb.
(iii)Recent revisionist writings like those of Alam and Bayly, Burton Stein question the
very notion of a general decline since there is evidence that from a regional perspective
there was economic prosperity in the subcontinent.
12
(iv)They argue for a reorientation of interests from the centre to the provinces.
(v)The emergence of various successor states such as Awadh, Bengal, Hyderabad, Mysore,
Punjab and Jat states, in which Mughal traditions continued at a regional level are
testimony to this decentralization and reorientation of authority.

NOTE:
CASE 1-In case a question comes on Aurangzeb’s role in the decline of the Mughal empire,
or the various crisis that developed in the late 17 th century in the Mughal empire led to
decline-
Just remembers- how Tasneem says Az could do nothing wrong, he was clearly the BEST-
thus write- The “villainous views” of -The colonial writers n nationalists first, n then
everything else. Leave out the initial bit on peasant revolts.

CASE 2- In case Mughal decline comes in unit 1 or 3- then just omit peasant revolts initial
bit.

CASE3- In case Peasant revolts contributed significantly to the decline of the Mughal
empire comes, - describe the peasant revolts then write-colonial view, nationalist view,
irfan habib’s view, satish chandra’s peasant revolt view, Shetan singh and Alam. (highly
doubt this will come)

There has never been a case where Aurangzeb’s role in decline came and decline also
came in unit 3.. But it happens and u have choice in unit 3- then attempt something else
like marathas or deccan, cause u don’t want 2 similar answers!

13