OCR Specification focus:
‘The dynastic conflicts after his death; weak leaders after 1707, loss of lands and the invasion of Nadir Shah of Persia 1738, the battle of Kamal and the Sack of’
The decline of the Mughal Empire after Aurangzeb’s death in 1707 was marked by dynastic struggles, weak rulers, territorial disintegration, and foreign invasions that shook imperial authority.
Dynastic Conflicts After Aurangzeb’s Death
Succession Struggles
Aurangzeb’s passing triggered a series of succession disputes. Unlike earlier Mughal practice, where powerful contenders fought until a clear victor emerged, post-1707 disputes weakened the centre without producing strong rulers.
Aurangzeb’s sons engaged in prolonged conflict. Bahadur Shah I (Shah Alam) eventually emerged but his authority was contested.
The tradition of war of succession became destructive rather than consolidating, leading to factionalism among nobles.
Court Factionalism
Turanis (Central Asians), Iranis (Persians), and Hindustani nobles competed for influence.
Factional rivalry eroded unity at court and weakened the empire’s ability to respond to regional and foreign threats.
The absence of a strong arbiter like Akbar or Aurangzeb meant the emperor’s role became symbolic rather than authoritative.
Weak Leaders After 1707
Bahadur Shah I (1707–1712)
Attempted reconciliation with the Rajputs and Sikhs but lacked the resources to impose authority.
His short reign failed to consolidate power, allowing centrifugal forces to grow.
Jahandar Shah (1712–1713)
Dependent on the powerful noble Zulfiqar Khan, who dominated administration.
His reign was characterised by extravagance and lack of military focus, contributing to instability.
Farrukhsiyar (1713–1719)
Came to power with the backing of the influential Sayyid Brothers (Abdullah Khan and Husain Ali).
The emperor became a puppet of these kingmakers, reflecting the decline of imperial authority.
Muhammad Shah ‘Rangeela’ (1719–1748)
His long reign epitomised weak central authority.
Despite patronage of the arts, he neglected military and administrative reform.
During his rule, regional powers like the Marathas, Nizam-ul-Mulk in Hyderabad, and the Nawabs of Bengal consolidated independence.
Marathas: A powerful Hindu confederacy in western India that rose during the 17th and 18th centuries, challenging Mughal supremacy and expanding rapidly after Aurangzeb’s death.
Loss of Lands and Fragmentation
Rise of Independent States
The weakness of the centre enabled provincial governors and local powers to establish autonomy:
Bengal under Murshid Quli Khan became effectively independent.
Hyderabad under Nizam-ul-Mulk asserted autonomy while nominally acknowledging Mughal suzerainty.
Awadh developed into a semi-independent kingdom under Saadat Khan.
Challenges in the Deccan and Beyond
The Marathas intensified raids into northern India, extracting chauth (a quarter tax) from Mughal territories.
Sikhs consolidated authority in Punjab, challenging Mughal officials.
Loss of revenue from these lands crippled the imperial treasury.
Deterioration of Military Strength
Mughal forces, once formidable, became outdated compared to rising regional and foreign armies.
Lack of central funding meant imperial troops were ill-equipped and unreliable.
Invasion of Nadir Shah of Persia (1738–1739)
Causes of the Invasion
Persia under Nadir Shah had expanded aggressively, seeking wealth to finance wars.
The disunity and weakness of the Mughal state made India an attractive target.
The Campaign
Nadir Shah advanced through Kabul and captured key Mughal positions with relative ease.
The Mughal army, commanded by Muhammad Shah, faced Nadir Shah at the Battle of Karnal (1739).
Battle diagram of Karnal (24 February 1739) showing Mughal and Persian positions, advances, and the tactical mismatch that led to the Mughal defeat. Source
Battle of Karnal (1739): A decisive engagement between the Mughal forces and Nadir Shah, where the poorly organised Mughal army was swiftly defeated.
The Sack of Delhi
Following victory at Karnal, Nadir Shah entered Delhi, where initial peace broke down into violence after resistance from locals.
Illustration of Nadir Shah ordering the massacre in Delhi during the sack of 1739. Based on historical accounts but drawn in 1907, it conveys the brutality and humiliation of the Mughal court. Source
The subsequent Sack of Delhi was catastrophic:
Massive slaughter of civilians.
Enormous plunder, including the Peacock Throne and Koh-i-Noor diamond, was taken to Persia.
Symbolised the utter humiliation of the Mughal court.
Consequences of Decline
Political
The prestige of the Mughal emperors collapsed; after 1739, they were effectively puppets of powerful nobles or regional rulers.
The empire fragmented into semi-independent successor states, setting the stage for European colonial powers to expand influence.
Economic
The Sack of Delhi drained immense wealth from northern India.
Loss of revenue-rich provinces (Bengal, Awadh, Deccan) crippled imperial finances.
Military
Demonstrated the obsolescence of Mughal warfare.
Regional powers and European trading companies fielded more disciplined and modernised armies.
Symbolic Impact
The invasion of Nadir Shah marked the definitive end of Mughal supremacy in the subcontinent.
While emperors continued to rule in name, they became figureheads, dependent on external forces for survival.
FAQ
The Sayyid Brothers, Abdullah Khan and Husain Ali, became known as the “Kingmakers.” They exercised de facto control over the throne during Farrukhsiyar’s reign, even installing and removing emperors.
Their dominance showed how weak the imperial office had become. Rather than ruling independently, emperors relied on powerful nobles who used the throne to advance their own interests.
The Mughal army was large but poorly coordinated. Nadir Shah’s Persian troops were disciplined, well-drilled, and equipped with effective modern artillery.
The Mughals relied on outdated cavalry charges that were easily countered. Poor communication and divided leadership meant that once key contingents fled, the entire army collapsed quickly.
The massacre and plunder in 1739 devastated the city’s inhabitants. Estimates suggest tens of thousands were killed, and survivors suffered extreme trauma.
Economic life stalled as merchants lost fortunes and artisans faced ruin. Delhi’s status as a cultural and commercial hub never fully recovered from the shock.
The Peacock Throne, taken by Nadir Shah, was more than a seat of power; it symbolised Mughal splendour and legitimacy.
Its removal was a clear sign that the empire’s wealth and prestige had been stripped away. The throne later became a potent emblem of Persian dominance over the weakened Mughals.
The Marathas expanded northwards, demanding tribute through the chauth tax.
Bengal, Hyderabad, and Awadh established semi-autonomy while keeping nominal loyalty.
The Sikhs consolidated control in Punjab, resisting Mughal authority.
These shifts meant that the Mughal emperor’s writ no longer extended across India. The empire was reduced to a fragmented set of territories, undermining central sovereignty.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
Who defeated the Mughal forces at the Battle of Karnal in 1739, and what was one immediate consequence of this defeat?
Mark scheme:
1 mark for correctly identifying Nadir Shah of Persia as the victor.
1 mark for describing one immediate consequence, such as:
Mughal forces were decisively defeated.
Nadir Shah proceeded to enter and sack Delhi.
Loss of wealth, including the Peacock Throne and Koh-i-Noor diamond.
Massacre of civilians in Delhi.
Question 2 (6 marks):
Explain two ways in which weak Mughal leadership after 1707 contributed to the decline of the empire.
Mark scheme:
Award up to 3 marks for each explained point (maximum 6). Answers should identify the factor and explain its effect.
Possible answers:
Factionalism under weak emperors: Court politics dominated by nobles (e.g., Sayyid Brothers under Farrukhsiyar) meant emperors lacked authority, which weakened central control (up to 3 marks).
Failure to prevent regional autonomy: Leaders like Muhammad Shah ‘Rangeela’ failed to restrain governors of Bengal, Awadh, and Hyderabad, leading to loss of territory and revenue (up to 3 marks).
Inadequate military leadership: Later emperors neglected modernisation of the army, leaving the empire vulnerable to the Marathas, Sikhs, and foreign invasions (up to 3 marks).
Credit other relevant explanations if clearly linked to weak leadership and imperial decline.
