Factors responsible for Mughal decline and the successor state of Bengal

 Introduction: -

The 18th century India has been looked by many scholars as a period of Mughal decline and political transition, fragmentation of power and rise of regional states etc. highlighting their characteristics but earlier it was limited only to decline. This period marked the rise of regional powers which were characterized by political and economic growth, re-distribution of power and increasing role of foreign powers like British and French in Indian Polity. Many historians argues that decline of Mughals started in the late years of Aurangzeb’s reign; due to his policy measures as J.F. Richards mentions economic crisis caused due to Aurangzeb’s wars in the Deccan regions which obstructed the collection of revenue and also led to diversion of resources to fund the wars. The internal strife in the Imperial court leading to political crisis caused due to wars of succession. So, here in the essay we will look towards some of the theories related to Mughal decline and also rise of Bengal as a successor state.

Decline of Mughal power: -
Jadunath Sarkar, a famous historian of Mughal history pointed out Aurangzeb’s policy as responsible for imperial downfall. He mentions his Muslim orthodoxy and Deccan campaigns, peasant rebellions as a cause of Mughal decline that led to political instability of the Empire as a ‘Hindu reaction’ to Aurangzeb Muslim orthodoxy. Other historians like Shriram Sharma in Ishwari Prasad upheld Aurangzeb’s religious policies as their main explanatory points. J.F. Richards argued that after the conquest of Bijapur and Golconda royal land known as Khalisa increased the revenue collection by 23%, but instead of distributing his enhanced income to Mansabdars, he used the income to fund his Deccan campaigns as the revenue income goes directly to imperial treasury to pay the soldiers fighting in the south. Thus, according to Richards he lost the opportunity to solve Jagirdari crisis. However, Satish Chandra provides another explanation for Jagirdari crisis, he argues that scarcity in number of Jagirs and relatively infertile, the difference between estimated revenue and actual collection intensified. This impacted the ability of state functionaries to ensure regularity of revenue collection and also to Jagirdari crisis and subsequently, political Mughal instability. Richard M. Eaton also mentions Jagirdari crisis as one of the reasons for decline, he says that successive Vazirs distributed Jagirs and other official appointments to their political followers and relatives carelessly, with no certainty that revenue producing Jagirs supported those ranks could be found. Also, because of increasing number of Mansabdars contested bitterly against shrinking pool of revenue generating Jagirs, nobles who owned substantial Jagirs opposed transfer of their Jagirs since Akbar’s time which resulted in Jagirs becoming hereditary and destabilizing the idea of Mughal nobility as a service class without permanent landholdings. On the other hand, Irfan Habib and Athar Ali focuses on the agrarian unrest, Irfan Habib mentions, a high rate of revenue demanded by Mughals leading to large scale rural exploitation. He explains that the Zabt areas had a revenue demand which accounted to one-third of the produce but the actual amount varied from place to place, for example- in Gujarat which was a fertile region      three- fourth part was collected as Zabt. Some portion of it is was collected from Khalisa and which went to imperial treasury, while larger portion, around 80% went to Jagirdars. There was a rural hierarchy which worked in exacting revenue from peasants for example- some big Rajput chiefs of Rajasthan who were Jagirdars owning Vatan Jagirs were big Rajas who paid a fixed payment to Mughals to maintain their autonomy over their land under Mughals were at the apex, then there were intermediary zamindars who worked as intermediaries between the chiefs and Malgujari Zamindars who collected revenue from both their zamindari and Malgujari zamindars, then there were Malgujari zamindars at the primary level. Peasants were also of two categories, the Khudkasht, who owned farmlands and Pahikasht who worked on big farmers’ land as tenants and had no land of their own. Caste, class and religious relations existed between primary zamindars and peasants which was an important source of power for the leaders who maintained smaller armies and forts. So, they played an important role in Mughal administration but their loyalty began fall after the death of Aurangzeb’s and with towards the end of Bahadur Shah’s reign all the Zamindars turned against Mughals with the support of exploited peasantry. Irfan Habib also argues that as the Jagirdars were transferable, they didn't develop any attachment or long-term interest in the estate and exacted as much as resources possible for them without thinking about the peasantry. Athar Ali also accepted Irfan Habib’s view of a fiscally centralized state but ascribed Be-Jagiri or Jagirdari crisis as responsible for decline caused due to political expansion of empire into less fertile regions leading to shortage of revenue collection. Some historians attributed Aurangzeb’s policy measures as a reason for decline, like he didn't distributed much power between his sons, instead he had a strong hold on the resources, fearing the assumed consequences as he did with his father Shahjahan. After his death his sons A’zam, Mu’azzam and Kam Baksh declared their sovereignty and marched towards Agra to claim their succession. Prince Mu’azzam who was posted near Peshawar adopted the title of Bahadur Shah and defeated A’zam while marching south. At the end Mu’azzam or Bahadur Shah emerged victorious but along with, the disintegration also started where powerful governors and military commanders claimed their sovereignty like Zulfikar Khan, the commander who seized Raigad from the Marathas and led Jing’s siege pressurised Bahadur Shah to appoint him Governor and Mir Bakshi or paymaster general of Deccan. The Mir Bakshi’s position authorised him with the power to approve ranks, it empowered him to thwart ruler’s power to enlist nobles in the cadre of Mansabdar. Bahadur Shah’s sons remained at the court for the first time in Mughal history, without serving as governors of any province and as a result they didn't had any independent power base, administrative experience and knowledge of revenue system etc. When Jahandar Shah succeeded thrown in 1712 he lacked political, military and administrative base. We can also see ethnic issues rising between of nobles, for example- Baraha clan and the Khanzads (Turko-Iranian nobility). Syed ‘Abd allah Khan who was the governor of Allahabad and Syed Hussain ‘Ali Khan, governor of Bihar. Both of them were commonly known as a Syed brothers belonging to Baraha clan, they were under the patronage of Prince ‘Azim al- Shan who was killed in a coup by Jahandar Shah. After his death and weakening authority of the Emperor they became ambitious and under the flagship of Farukh Siyar, son of ‘Azim al- Shan they marched towards Agra in 1712.  The empires’ military’s situation was not good, when the army reached Agra the desperate court brooked vessels of gold and silver and stripped gold off the roofs of Delhi's Imperial Palace to pay the army as they were not been paid for around the year. In 1713 when Farukh Siyar was throned, Jahandar and Zulfikar were executed and ‘Abd allah Khan was appointed as Wazir and Hussain ‘Ali Khan as Paymaster General, but his decision faced a stiff opposition from the Khanzads, in 1720 both the brothers were assassinated under a well-engineered plan by them. This assassination was meted out with the help of Nizam ul Mulk, governor of Malwa at that time by Muhammad Shah. Although Farukh Siyar also tried earlier to assassinate them earlier with the help of Ajit Singh, leader of Rathors of Jodhpur and Marathas but failed both the times. Then in 1718 Hussain ‘Ali arrived Delhi from Deccan with 25,000 army men including Marathas. In 1719 Farukh Siyar was killed and Bahadur Shah’s grandson Rafi’ al-Darjat was crowned but he died in a few months following Rafi’ al-Daulah who was crowned after him. Then Muhammad Shah came up to the throne who ruled from 1719-48 and he assassinated Syed Brothers in 1720. In 1722 Nizam ul Mulk who has also served as commander and administrator under Aurangzeb was appointed as Wazir; he tried to bring sweeping changes to repair the empire’s administration like ending the practice of revenue farming on Khalisa land and rusticating administrators who were ill fit for governance etc. But his reforms faced strong opposition from within the court and in 1723 he Departed for Deccan and defeated Mubariz Khan his deputy who became powerful after he left but nizam ul-Mulk never declared his independence from Mughal Empire formally although his successors gained full autonomy. On the other hand, there was impedance to weakening Mughal power from inside powers like Marathas, Shivaji who was a famous rival of Aurangzeb recruited men inhabiting the jungles and ravines of Western guards in his service to fight Mughals and Aurangzeb also did the same to resist Marathas. They fought to get access to Western Ghats’s military labour market. This war intensified with the entry of Shahuji in 1707 who was a rival to Tarabai and Nizam ul-Mulk. To strengthen the army Marathas recruited village peasants as soldiers and village chiefs reached the ranks of Sardar. Another essential role was of Peshwas (prime minister) office accounting military and administrative position they belonged to Brahmin caste. The two important Peshwas of early 18th century were Balaji Vishwanath from Konkan coast and his son Bajirao who worked in the court of Shahuji. From 1713 Maratha army went deeper into Northern Mughal provinces to take over the decaying local administration left by Mughals. These raids were directed under the Peshwas and financed by Brahmin sardars and Chauth. Since, Marathas have recruited peasants to their armies it was hindering cultivation & simultaneously revenue collection. So, they started recruiting mercenaries such as Pashtun, Arabs and North Indians. Balaji in 1716 asked Farukh Siyar audaciously to grant him right to collect Chauth from region falling under south of Narmada, proposing share in revenue collection along with the Mughal-Maratha government but he denied the proposal after he was dethroned, Syed brothers consented to deal with Peshwa. Vishwanath’s son Bajirao who became Peshwa in 1720 emerged as an important figure. Maratha raids under him became more regular and concluding in 1728 when he defeated the Nizam ul-Mulk just a few kilometres away from capital of Aurangabad, he continued defeating Mughals marching Ujjain. Nizam ul-Mulk granted Bajirao to collect Chauth throughout Deccan, as after consecutive defeats, Malwa was open to Maratha plundering. From 1730 onwards Bajirao’s armies were marching towards Rajasthan, Eastern Gangetic plain and towards Delhi in North, both Nizam ul-Mulk and Muhammad Shah couldn't haul Maratha army and in 1739 Nizam ul-Mulk has to sought Maratha sovereignty in Malwa and lands between Narmada in Chambal.

The successor state of Bengal: -

The province of Bengal became independent from Mughal rule in 1717 under Murshid Quli Khan who was governor of Bengal appointed by Aurangzeb and then reinstated to his position by Bahadur Shah and Farukh Siyar in 1710 and 1717 respectively. He was also appointed as Deputy Governor of Orissa as well buy Farukh Siyar. Although Murshid Quli didn't abandoned his patronage completely even after getting governance and Diwani rights together. He regularly paid the revenue generated through surplus to the Mughals and Bengal was the only province which paid revenue even crisis. He was known for his successful revenue administration. Although Sekhar Bandyopadhyay questions this by arguing that ‘it is difficult to determine whether or not he was oppressive or that revenue demand during his period increased significantly but revenue collection had shot up by 20% between 1700 and 1722. This efficient collection system was operated through powerful intermediary Zamindars. Murshid Quli sent his investigators to every revenue paying area to make a detailed survey and compelled the zamindars to pay in full on time, for this purpose he encouraged development of a powerful Zamindaris at the expenses of smaller inefficiently managed zamindaris, while refractory zamindars were punished and some of the Jagjrdars were transferred into outlying provinces of Odisha, their estates being converted into Khalisa or Royal land.’ (Shekhar Bandhopadhayay; Plassey to partition; 2015; pg-14). There was a rise of noble houses who were responsible for administration like the Jagat Seths who accordingly became the treasurer of provincial government in 1730 with control over mint through collaboration by the ruler and bureaucracy. Trade was also prospering under Hindu Muslim and Armenian traders who used to trade in sugar, cotton and silk textiles through over land routes to Persia and Afghanistan via distribution centers across Northern and Western India, and on oceanic route through Port of Hooghly to Southeast Asia, Persian Gulf and Red Sea ports. Umichand and Khoja Wajid who controlled a fleet of ships are some of the prominent merchants. Murshid also ensured loyalty of his officials by appointing his relatives, friends and his supporters to high positions. However, through the rise of administrative houses and magnets we can see that how power was distributed. An instance of it can be seen when a coup led by army commander Alivardi Khan supported by Jagat Seths ousted Sarfaraz Khan the new governor in 1739 40. In Alivardi’s reign we can see a decline in relationship with Mughals, as the flow of revenue was stopped to Delhi. Although he had to face Maratha and Afghan rebellions, and in 1751 he had to agree to pay Chauth to them. Under the leadership of Mustafa Khan Afghans conquered Patna in 1748. Alivardi declared Siraj ud-Daulah as his successor but he was also challenged by Shaukat Jung (Faujdar of Purnia) and Ghaseti Begum (Alivardi’s daughter), although they didn’t revolted but this led to factionalism in court between Zamindars and other influential officials. It was only in 1757 when he was killed under a conspiracy in the Battle of Plassey supported by British East India company which resulted in transition of power to the British. But between this political turmoil trade didn't get affected much.

Conclusion
Many Scholars have tried to define what was happening during the 17th and 18th centuries through economic, political and social perspectives which presented before us a larger picture of the centuries apart from looking to them just as a period of Mughal decline. Some scholars have also suggested that due to moral decline between Indian monarchs and nobles, rulers started appointing British to their courts and using their power in expansion of their rule. However, through the example of Bengal we get to see that how there was a redistribution of power after the weakening of Mughal authorities, how regional powers were rising like the Marathas after decline of Delhi’s authority. So, we can say that ‘decline of Mughal state may have enhanced the possibility of self-organization among local bodies’ in Max Weber’s words. Hence, we can say that 17th and 18th centuries were not only period of decline but resurgence as well.

References: -

1.      1. Shekhar Bandhopadhayay, From Plassey to Partition and after, (Orient Blackswan Private Limited, 2009; reprint, Orient Blackswan Private Limited, 2015).

2.      2. Seema Alvi, The Eighteenth Century, Introduction

3.      3. P.J. Marshall, The Eighteenth Century, Introduction

4. C.A. Bayly, “ch1-Prologue: War and Society in Eighteenth-century India, 2. Agriculture, Ecology and Politics, 3. Stability and Change in Towns and Cities, 1770–1810, 4. The Rise of the Corporations, 5. The Growth of Political Stability in India, 1780–1830” in Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars North Indian Society in the Age of British Expansion 1770–1870, ed. Third, (Published in India by Oxford University Press YMCA Library Building, 1 Jai Singh Road, New Delhi 110 001, India).