By: Hamza Shahid
The Mughal Empire which had dazzled the
contemporary world by its extensive of
territories, military might and cultural achievements a showed unmistakable signs of decay towards the
beginning of the eighteenth century. The
reign of Aurangzeb was the swan-song of the Mughal rule in India. A
complex disease struck the heart of the
empire and gradually spread to different parts. While nine Mughal emperors followed one another in
quick succession in the fifty years
following the death of Aurangzeb, many adventures, Indian and foreign,
carved out independent principalities
for themselves. Mughal governors of Oudh, Bengal and the Deccan freed themselves from the control
of the central government and the Hindu
powers found the time opportune for assertion of their independence. Invaders from the north-west repeated their
incursions in search of wealth and the
European trading companies dabbled in Indian politics. Notwithstanding
all theses dangers, internal and
external, so great had been the prestige of the empire under the Great Mughals and so strong the central
structure that the dissolution was slow
and a long-drawn-out process. Baji Rao I‘s raid of Delhi(1737) and nadir
Shah‘s invasion (1739) exposed the
hollowness of the Mughal Empire and by 1740 the fall of the Empire was an accomplished fact.
(A)
Later Mughal Emperors
Aurangzeb‘s
death in March 1707 (at the age of 89) was a signal for a war of succession among his three surviving sons,
Prince Muazzam, Muhammad Azam and Kam
Bakhsh. The eldest brother got the better of the other two and defeated and killed Muhammad Azam (at Jajau, 18 June
1707) and Kam Baksh (near Hyderabad, 13
January 1709). Muazzam assumed the title of Bahadur Shah I. An elderly man (over 63 years of age), the new
emperor was not fitted for the role of
an active leader. Whether it was the outcome of statesmanship or
weakness, the new emperor favoured a
pacific a pacific policy. The Maratha prince, Shahu who had been in Mughal captivity since 1689 was
released and allowed to return to
Maharashtra. Peace was made with the Rajput chiefs confirming them in
their states. However, Bahadur Shah was
forced to action against the Sikhs whose new
leader Banda had become a terror for the Muslims in the Panjab. Banda
was defeated at Lohgarh and the Mughal forces reoccupied Sirhind in January
1711; however, the Sikhs were neither
conciliated nor crushed. Bahadur Shah dies on 27 February 1712. ―He was the last emperor.
‗Writes Sidney Owen, ‗of whom anything
favourable can be said. Henceforth, the rapid and complete abasement and practical dissolution of the Empire are
typified in the incapacity and political
insignificance of its sovereigns.
The usual war of succession broke out again in
1712 amongst the four sons of Bahadur
Shah—Jahandar Shah, Azim-us-Shan, Rafi-us-Shan and Jahan Shah. The contestants were in such indecent haste
about decicing the question of
succession that the dead body of Bahadur Shah was not buried for about a
month. Jahandar Shah came out successful
with the help of Zulfikar Khan, a prominent
leader of the Irani party. Jahandar Shah (March 1712-February 1713)
appointed Zulfikar Khan as his prime
minister. Jahandar Shah‘s position was challenged by Farrukhsiyar (son of Azim-us-Shan) who with the
help of the Sayyid brothers— Abdulla Khan and Hussain Ali—defeated and killed
Jahandar Shah (11 February 1713). In
token of gratitude, Farrukhsiyar (1713-19) appointed Abdulla Khan as his Wazir and Hussain Ali as the Mir Bakshi.
Soon the emperor found the yoke of the
Sayyid brothers galling and conspired to get rid of them. However, the
Sayyids proved too clever for him and
with the help of Maratha troopsthey strangled the emperor to deathe on 28 April 1719.
Farrukhsiyar‘s reign saw a victory for the
Mughal arms over the Sikhs whose leader Banda Bahadur was taken prisoner
at Gurdaspur and later executed at Delhi
(19 June 1716). In 1717 the Emperor
heedlessly granted to the English East Indian Company many trading
priviliges including the exemption form
custom duties for its trade through Bengal.
After the execution of Farrukhsiyar, the
Sayyid brothersraised in quick
succession Emperor Rafi-ud-Darajat (28 February-4 June 1719),
Rafi-ud-Daula (6 june-17 September 1719)
and then Muhammad Shah (September 1719-April
1748). The Wheel had gone full circle. The court intrigue under the
leadership of Turani nobles succeeded
and Hussain Ali was murdered (9 October 1720) and Abdulla Khan made prisoner (15 November
1720). During the reign of Muhammad
Shah, Nizam-ul-Mulk set up an autonomous state in the Deccan, Saadat Khan carved out a state for himself in
Oudh while Murshid Kuli Khan became
virtually independent in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. The Marathas under Baji Rao I raided Delhi in March 1737 and
terrorised the Emperor. In 1739 Nadir
Shah invaded India and left the Mughal empire ‗prostrate and bleeding ‗.
The next Mughal emperors Ahmad Shah (1748-54)
and Alamgir II (1754- 59) were too weak to check the rot that had set in. Ahmad
Shah Abdali from the north-west raided
India several times in 1748, 1749, 1752, 1756-57 and 1759 making bold with every successive invasion.
The panjab was lost to the Afghans,
while the Marathas snatched Malwa and Bundelkhand and carried on their
raids in all parts of India. Shah Alam
II (1759-1806) and his successors were emperors
only in name, being puppets in the hands of their own nobles or the
Marathas or the English. In 1803, the
English captured Delhi. The fiction of the Mughal Empire was kept up by the English till 1858 when the
last of the Mughal emperors Bahadur Shah
Zafar was exiled to Rangoon.
(B)
LATER MUGHAL NOBILITY
A
sinister development in the later Mughal polities was the rise of powerful nobles who played the role of ‗king-makers‘.
Wars of succession were fought even in
the hey days of the Mughal Empire but then the royal princes were the
principal contestants supported by
powerful mansabdars. In the later Mughal period the ambitiopus nobles became the real contenders
for political power and the royal
princes receded in the background. The powerful nobles and leaders of
different factions used the royal
princes as pawns in their game and set up and removed royal princess from the throne to suit their
interests. Thus Jahandar Shah became the
emperor not by his own strength but because of the able generalship of
Zulfikar Khan, a leader of the Irani
party. Similarly, it were the Sayyis brothers who raised Farrukhsiyar to the throne in 1713 and pulled
him down in 1719 when he ceased to serve
their interests. The three puppet emperors, Rafi-ud-DArajat, Rafi-ud-Daula and mohammad Shah were raised to the throne
by the Sayyids. The fall of the Sayyid
brothers in 1720 came not because they had lost the confidence of the emperor but was brought about more by the
Turani faction under the leadership of
Nazim-ul-Mulh and Muhammad Amin khan. And worst of all, these powerful
parties were not political parties in the modern sense having different programmes for the welfare of the nation but were
factions looking for self-advancement, more
often at the cost of the nation and against the interests of the Mughal
Empire.
Parties
at the Mughal Court.
Willaim
Irvine mentions the multiplicity of parties at the Mughal Court. Among these four were prominenet—the Turanis,
the Iranis, the Afghans and the
Hindustanis. The first three were descendants of foreigners from Central
Asia, Iran and Afghanistan who formed ‗the
backbone of the army of occupation‘. Their
number had greatly increased during the last twenty-five years of
Aurangzeb‘s reign when he waged
incessant war in the Deccan. Descendants from these foereigners held important military and civil
offices in India. Among these the
Turanis from TransOxiana and the Afghans from Khurasan and fars were
mostly Sunnis, while the Iranis from
Persia were mostly Shias. In opposition to the
Mughal or Foreign Party was the Indian born or Hindustani Party. It
mostly comprised Muhammadans born in
India, whose ancestors though originally foreign immigrants has settled in India for
generations. The party got the support of the
Rajput and the Jat chiefs and powerful Hindu landlords. The Hindus who
filled almost all the subordinate civil
offices naturally were ranged on their side.
However, it will not be correct to assume that the political parties
were based entirely on ethnic or
religious groupings. AS has been rightly pointed out by Prof. Satish Chandrathat ―slogans of race and
religion were raised by individual nobles
only to suit their convenience, and that the actual groupings cut across
ethnis and religious divisions‖
The
Role of Sayyid Brothers in Later Mughal Politics
The Sayyid brothers—Abdulla Khan and Hussain
Ali—were the most powerful factor in the
Mughal court and Mughal politics from 1713 to1720. They were the leaders of the Hindustani Party and
represented the anti-mughal and
quasi-nationalist interests.
The Sayyids, the descendants of the Prophet,
had for centuries settled in India,
principally in the Doab and the district of Muzaffarnagar. The Sayyids
were enlisted in Akbar‘s army and fought
in many campaigns. Abdulla Khan and
hussain Ali of Barhs (called Barha probably because of the bara or
twelve villages which they held) were
descendants from Abul Farrah, a Sayyid adventurer from Mesopatamia who had settled near Patiala
centuries earlier. Their father, Sayyid
Miyan had served as Subahdar of Bijapur and Ajmer and later joined
Prince Muazzam. In the war of succession that followed Aurangzeb‘s death, the
two brothers fought in the vanguard of
Muzzam‘s (Bahadur Shah) army. The emperor
duly rewarded their services and raised their rank to 4,000 besides
awarding the elder brother Hasain Ali
the title of Abdulla Khan. In 1708 Prince Azim-us-Shan appointed Husain Ali to an important
assignment in Bihar and in 1711 the same
prince appointed Abdulla Khan as his deputy in the province of
Allahabad. It was because of the great
favours the Sayyid brothers received from Prince Azim-us Shan that they
espoused the cause of Farrukhsiyar (Azim-us-Shan‘s son) for the throne of Delhi in 1713. In fact it were
these Sayyids who fought and killed
Jahandar Shan in the battle and offered the crown of Delhi to
Farrukhsiyar on a silver platter.
The grateful Farrukhsiyar on his accession as
emperor appointed Sayyid Abdulla Khan as
his Vizier or Chief Minister with the title of Nawab Qutb-ul mulk,
Yamin-ud-daula, Sayyid Abdullah Khan Bahadur, Zafar Jang, Sipah-salar, Yar-I Wafadar. The younger brother, Husain
Ali Khan was appointed Mir Bakshi or
virtually Commander-in-chief and given the title of Umdat-ul-mulk, Amir ul
umara Bahadur, Firoz Jang Sipah-sardar.
Khafi Khan maintains that it was Farrukhsiyar‘s initial mistake to appoint Abdulla Khan as Wazir for he could never rid himself of him later on. One wonders how Farrukhsiyar could have safely done otherwise without producing a rupture with the Sayyisa. An effect of the appointment of Sayyid brothers to such exalted offices was the jealously it excited in the minds of the Turani and Irani nobles who spared no efforts to disgrace and procure the removal of these brothers.
The most active noble in the anti-Sayyid
intrigues was Mir Jumla, afavourite of
the emperor. Mir Jumla had the sympathy and support of turani nobles. The timid emperor—devoid of independent judgment
or strength of character—became an
unwilling tool in the game of the powerful factions. The results were
disastrous. The emperor heedlessly gave
authority to Mir Jumla to sign his name in the
exercise of the emperor‘s patronage. The emperor had said, ―The word of
Mir Jumal and the signature of Mir jumla
are my word and my signature‖. Abdulla
Khan maintained and rightly too as chief minister that no mansabs or
promotions or appointment to offices
should be made without consulting him. Even Khafi Khan maintains that the Sayyid brothers were
right for the Emperor‘s delegation of
his authority to Mir Jumla was contrary to all the rules of the Wazir‘s
office.
Differences between the Sayyids and the
emperor came to a head when Husain Ali
requested fpr appointment to the subahdari of the Deccan, which he proposed to exercise through a deputy Husain
Ali did not like to leave his brother
exposed to the intrigues of Mir Jumla at the court. At Mir jumla‘s
instance the emperor flatly refused
Hussain Ali‘s request unless Husain Ali would personally proceed to the Deccan to Assume the charge of
his duties. Differences between the
emperor and the Sayyids increased so much that the latter would not attend
the court and made elaborate
arrangements for self-defence. Outward cordially was, however, restored through the intercession of
the Queen mother and it was decided that
Hussain Ali would in person assume the subahdari of the Deccan and Mir Jumla also would be sent out of Delhi in a
similar capacity to Patna.
The emperor was not really reconciled to the
patch work. He sent several messages to
Daud Khan, then Subhadar of Gujarat, to kill Husain Ali and offered him suitable reward. Husain Ali discovered
the plot, engaged Daud Khan in action
and killed him.
Farrukhsiyar again intrigued against Husain
Ali. He sent secret message and firmans
to Shahu and the zambindars of the Carnatic not to obey Husain Ali. Once again Husain Ali proved too clever for the
emperor. He changed his tactics in the
Deccan. Far from making efforts to establish imperial authority in the
Deccan he made a rapproachment with the
Marathas and signed with Shahu the treaty of
1719, conceding great concessions to the Marathas in return for their
active armed assistance of a clash
between the emperor‘s forces and those of the Wazir was not ruled out.
Husain Ali had received news about the tense
relations between his brother and the
emperor. Husain Ali proceeded towards Delhi, carrying Maratha troops with him. Clash between the emperor and the
Sayyids seemed inevitable. Abdulla Khan,
on his park took all precautions. He won over important grandees like Sarbuland Khan, Nizam-ul-Mulk, Ajit Singh to
his side by promises of rewards. When
the time seemed ripe the Sayyids confronted the emperor with certain demands. Even when the emperor agreed to all
their demands—surrender of all crown
patronage in their hands, custody of all the forts to men of the Sayyid‘s choice, dismissal of Itikad Khan—so great was
mutual suspicion that the SAyyids
decided to take the life of Farrukhsiyar which they did on 28 April
1719.
Sayyids
Pre-eminent at Delhi.
After the death of Farrukhsiyar, the Sayyid
brothers were complete masters of the
situation at Delhi. They raised to the throne Rafi-ud-Darajat and after his death from consumption Rafi-ud-daula. The
latter died of dysentery. The ‗king makers‘
now placed Muhammad Shah, son of Jahan Shah and a prince of 18 years on the throne. The control of the Sayyids
over all matters of the state was
complete. Their agents were attendants at the palace and their soldiers
guarded it. The young emperor had no say
in the matters of the state. Khafi Khan writes about the treatment meted out to Muhammad Shah,
―All the officers and servants around
the emperor were, as before, the servants of Sayyid Abdulla. When the
young emperor went out for a ride, he was
surrounded, as with a halo, by a number of the
Sayyid‘s adherents, and when occasionally he went out hunting or for an
excursion into the country, they went
with him, and brought him back‖. The Queen mother wrote that ‗constraint used by the Sayyids was
so strict that the emperor had only
liberty to go to service on the Sabbath‖. The Sayyids greatly leaned on
the support of the Hindus. One Rattan
Chand, an ordinary grain-dealer, was given the title of the Raja and Abdulla Khan ―reposed in him
authority in all government and
ministerial matters‖. Khafi Khan writes about Rattan Chand that ―his
authority extended over civil, revenue
and legal matters, even to the appointment of Qazis in the cities and other judicial offices. All
the other Government officials were put in
the background, and no one would undertake any business but under a
document with his seal.‖ The two Rajput
princes, Jai Singh of Amber and Ajit Singh of
Jodhopur were the confederates of the Sayyids. The Maraths also
supported the Sayyids. After the death
of Farrukhsiyar jizya was once again abolished and Ajit Singh, as Subahdar of Ahmadnagar forbade the
slaughter of cows there.
The
Mughal Counter-Revolution and the Fall of the Sayyid Brothers.
The Sayyids had reduced the Irani and Turani
nobles to nobodies in politics. The
pride of the Mughal race and imperial sentiments were strong cohesive
forces. The leader of this counter
revolution was Chin Kilich Khanpopularly known as Nizam-ul-Mulk. The Sayyids
has sent him out of Delhi as Subahdar of Malwa. The Nizam, calculating that a
coup d‘etat at Delhi would not be feasible, turned towards the Deccan. In the Deccan the Nizam
captured the forts of Asirgarh and
Burhanpur and defeated and killed Alam Ali Kahn, Husain Ali‘s adopted
son and Deputy Subahdar of the
Deccan.
Meanwhile, at Delhi a conspiracy was hatched
by Itima-ud-Daula, Saadat Khan and
Haider Khan. The emperor‘s mother and a protégé of Abdulla were privy to the plot. Haider Khan took upon
himself to murder Husain Ali. Haider
Khan presented a petition, Haider stabbed him to death. Itvine comments
: ―In the Indian Karbala a second
Hussain was martyred by a second Yazid‖ (8 October 1720). To average the death of his brother,
Abdulla Kahn raised a large army and
tried to put another puppet, mohammad Ibrahim on the throne in place
of Muhammad Shah. However, Abdulla Khan
was defeated at Hasanpur on 13 November
1720 and taken prisoner. Two years later Abdulla Khan was poisoned to death (11 October 1722).
Estimate
of the Sayyid Brothers.
As far as Farrukshiayr was concerned, the
Sayyid brothers were more sinned against
than sinning. The constant intrigues of the emperor turned them to the point of desperation and their safety seemed to lie
in the end of the emperor. The Sayyids
disarmed and dislodged their opponents. They reduced the succeeding emperors to the position of roi
fainéants.
The Sayyids were Hindustani Muslims and they
prided themselves on being so. They were
not prepared to accept the superiority of the Turani party or be treated as a conquered, inferior or
non-privileged race. It is difficult to establish as to what extent they worked for a non-Mughal
monarchy and anationalist set up against
the foreign court parties.
The Sayyids followed a tolerant religious
policy, reminiscent of the days of
Akbar. It was under their influence that jezia was abolished in 1713 and
after reimposition again abolished in 1719.
Further, the Sayyids won over the
confidence of the Hindus and gave them high posts. The appointment of
Rattan Chand as Diwan is illustrative of
their policy. They also won over the Rajputs to
their side and transformed Raja Ajit Singh from a rebel to an ally. Ajit
Singh gave his daughter in marriage to Emperor Farrukhsiyar. The Sayyids showed
sympathy towards that Jats and it was on
their intervention that the siege of the fort of Thuri was raised and Churaman visited Delhi in
April 1718. Above all, the Marathas
sided with the Sayyids and the Chatrapati became a deputy of the Mughal
emperor. The history of India would have
been certainly different if the enlightened
religious policy of the Sayyids had been continued by their successors
in high offices.
Select
Opinions
Khafi
Khan, author of Muntakhab-ul-Lubab. Both the brothers were distinguished in their day for their generosity and
leniency towards all mankind. The inhabitants
of those countries which were innocent of contumacy and selfishness made
no complaints of the rule of the
Sayyids. In liberality and kindness to learned men and to the needy, and in protection of men of
merit Husain Ali Khan excelled his elder
brother, and was the Hatim suited to his day. Numbers owed their comfort
to the cooked food and raw grain which
he gave away. At the time of the scarcity at
Autrangabad, he appropriated a large sum of money and a great quantity
of grain to supply the wants of the poor
ans of widows..In their native country of Barha they built Sarais, bridges and other buildings for
the public benefit. Sayyid Abdulla was
remarkable for his patiende, endurance and wide sympathy.
Ghulam
Husain Salim.
There was some inequality in the merits of
these two celebrated persons. It was
universally acknowledged that Husain Ali Khan, the younger, was superiror to his elder brother in many qualifications which
bountiful heaven has bestowed on him. In
actual power he excelled all the princes of his time, nay, he surpasses several that bore a character in history, for
having bestowed kingdoms and crowns, abd
conquered empires, but neither his power nor his life was destined to
endure long. If they had, it is probable
that the times which we have now the mortification to behold, would not be so humiliating as
tghey have proved, nor had the honour of
Hindustan been thrown to the winds, nor the Indian nobility and gentry
been reduced to the deplorable
condition, to which we now see them brought. Siyar-ul Mutakherin. Sidney J.Owen. It would not be easy to exaggerate the
important consequences of this counter-revolution
on the future fortune of India. Had not themain Knot been cut by the assassination of Hussain., the Sayyids
might have prevailed. And they might
have established and maintained a strong government on a tolerant basis,
with the support of the Indian
Mussulmans and the Hindoo Princes.
(C)
The Rise of New States
The
weaking central political structure of the Mughal empire and erosion of its military strength created some sort of a
political vaccum in India—tempting
ambitious subahdars and powerful regional chiefs to carve out
semi-independent or independent
principalities for themselves; greedy foreign adventures from across the north-western frontier repeated their
incursions into India and these internal
and external enemies lent a multi-dimensional character to the
political confusion—all hasteing the
doom of the Mughal empire.
Nizams
of the Deccan.
The founder of the Asafjahia hopuse of
Hyderabad was Kilich Khan, popularly
known as Nizam-ul-Mulk.
It was Zulfikar Khan who had first conceived
the plan of an independent state in the
Deccan. In 1708, through the generosity of Bahadur Shah, Zulfikar Khan had obtained the viceroyalty of the
Deccan and administrated it through the
deputy, Daud khan. The death of Zulfikar khan in 1713 ended his dream.
In 1713 Kilich Khan through the good
offices of the Sayyid brothers obtained the
viceroyality of the Deccan. In 1715, however, Husain Ali replaced him as Subahdaar of the Deccan. After the
assassination of Husain Ali in 1720 fortune
again smiled on Kilich Khan and he was reappointed Subahdar of the
Deccan.
In 1722 the Nazim was appointed Wazir at
Delhi. At the court the Nazim tried to
put things in order but all his efforts were thwarted by the pleasure-loving sovereign and his flatters. Like Clarendon at
the court of Charles II of England, he
urged the emperor to his sense of duty. His strict discipline provoked
dislike and jealousy. Soon the Nizam
felt very unhappy and set his heart on the viceroyalty of the Deccan. As Wazir he had added Malwa and
Gujarat to the subahdari of the Deccan. Towards the end of 1723, on the pretext
of going out on a hunting expedition,
the Nizam headed towards the Deccan.
Muhammad Shah, offended at the insolence of
the Nizam, appointed Mubariz Khan as
full-fledged viceroy of the Deccan with instructions that he should send the Nizam dead or alive to the
court. The Nizam, however, proved too
strong for Mubariz Khan and the latter was killed at the battle of
Shakr-Kheda (11 October 1724). The Nizam
was nowthe master of the situation in the Deccan. Finding himself helpless, the emperor
confirmed the Nizam as viceroy of the
Deccan in 1725 and conferred on him the title of Asafjah.
The Nizam had difficult time in the Deccan on
account of the Maratha raids. A clever
politician that he was, the Nizam sought to divert Maratha energy by suggesting to the Peshwa the possibility of
Maratha expansion in Northern India, a
suggestion welcomed by Baji Rao
On more than one occasion the Nizam posed as
defender of the Mughal Empire. He fought
against Baji Rao I but suffered defeat at Bhopal 9December 1737). He also accompanied the emperor to
Karnal to fight against Nadir Shah.
Before leaving Delhi, Nadir Shah cautioned the
emperor against the Nizam whom he ―found to be full of cunning and self-interested
, and more ambitious than becomes a
subject‖. After Nadir Sha‘s invasion, the Nizam retired to the Deccan and further consolidated his position there.
The Nizam had all the qualities necessary for
founding an independent kingdom. He was
a diplomat and a benevolent ruler. He established peace and order in the Deccan, promoted agriculture and
industry and endeared himself to the
people.
Sidney Owen calls the Nizam a wily politican
and an opportunist. He tried to put the
Mughal Empire on its legs. Finding that impossible and perceiving the
state hopelessly doomed, the Nizam took
a boat and saved himself and some of the crew
from the shipwreck.
Oudh.
The founder of the independent principality of
Oudh was Saadat Khan , popularly known
as Burhan-ul-Mulk.
Saadat Khan was a Shia and descendant from
Sayyids of Nishapur. In 1720 he was
appointed the Faujdar of Biyana. He joined in the conspiracy against the Sayyid brothers rose in the estimation of the
emperor. He was amply rewarded by a
grant of a mansab first of 5,000 and then of 7,000 as also given the
title of Burhan ul-Mulk. From 1720 to 1722 he was Governor of Agra which he
administered through his deputy,
Nilkanth Nagar. Soon he fell in favour at the court and was driven out of the capital and appointed as
Governor of Oudh. This proved a blessing
in disguise for Saadat Khan and he converted Oudh into an independent Muslim kingdom for himself. In 1739 Saadat
khan was called to Delhi to assist the
empire in fighting against Nadir Shah. He fought bravely at Karnal but
was taken prisoner. The dirty game he
played in inducing Nadir Shah to invade Delhi
recoiled on him when the invader at Delhi demanded the sum of Rs. 20
crores promised to him. Finding himself
helpless, Saadat Khan took poison and ended his
life in 1739.
Saadat Khan had no son. He had married his
daughter to his nephew, Safdar Jang and
the latter succeeded him at Oudh. Muhammad Shah issued a firman confirming Safdar Jang as Nawab of Oudh. In
1748 Emperor Ahmed Shah appointed Safdar
Jang as his Wazir and he and his successors came to be popularly known as Nawab-Wazirs.
In
1819 the seventh ruler of the house of Saadat Khan took the title of ―the King of Oudh‖.
Ruheals
and Bangash Pathans.
In the Gangetic valley the Ruheals and Bangash
Pathans carved out independent
principalities for themselves. Daud, an Afghan soldier of fortune and his son Ali Mohammad Khan enlarged their
small estate in the Bareily district in
the south. Further east, Mohammad Khan Bangash, another Afghan
adventurer declared himself the ruler of
Farrukhabad and later extended his sway over
Allahabad and Bundelkhand.
Bengal.
Murshid Kuli Khan was the founder of the
independent state of Bengal. Ever since
the time of Aurangazeb, Murshid Kuli Khan held the office of the Diwan and deputy Governor of Bengal first under Prince
Azim-us-Shan and later under Prince
Farrukhsiyar. In 1713 Murshid Kuli Khan was appointed Governor of Bengal
and in 1719 Orissa was added to his charge.
Murshid Kuli was a capable administrator
and Bengal made great strides in trade and commerce.
After
Murshid Kuli‘s death in 1727, his son-in-law Shuja-ud-Din succeeded him. The governorship of Bihar was added to
his charge by Muhammad Shah in 1733.
After Shuja-ud-Din‘s death in 1739 his son Sarfaraz Khan succeeded him. In 1740, however, Alivardi Khan, the Deputy
Governor of Bihar, rebelled against his
master and defeated and killed Sarfaraz Khan at Gheria (10 April 1740)
and seized power. Alivardi Khan obtained
the emperor‘s consent for his usurpation by
sending a present of two crores of rupees to Delhi. In 1746 the emperor
asked him for money but Alivardi Khan
paid no heed to it. Thus the provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa were virtually lost to the
empire.
Alivardi Khan did not depend upon th emperor
for the defence of his provinces aginst
the frequentraids of the Marathas. However, like the Nizam and Nawab-WAzirs of Oudh, Alivardi Khan kept up
the fiction of the sovereignty of the
Mughal emperor.
The
Rajputs.
The Rajputs alienated by the imprudent
policies of Aurangzeb found in the
weakness of the Mughal Empire in the 18th century the right opportunity
to re establish their independence and even extend their sway in all directions.
The love hate Mughal-Rajput relationship resulted in Emperor Bhadur Shah‘s
march towards Jodhpur and submission of
Ajit Singh in 1708, followed by the formation
of an anti-Mughal league by Ajit Singh, Jay Singh II and Durgadas Rathor
the same year; in 1714 Hussain Ali,
Commander-in-chief, again headed towards
Jodhpur and forced Ajit Singh to sue for peace by giving one of his
daughters in marriage to Emperor
Farrukhsiyar.
In the Farrukhsiyar-Sayyid brothers tussle at
Delhi, the chiefs of Jodhpur and Jaipur
followed the policy of ―opportune aloofness or adherence‖ to suit their interests. Thus to win Ajit Singh to their
side, the Sayyids rewarded Ajit Singh with the governorship of Ajmer and
Gujarat, a position which he held till 1721. The anti-Sayyid party appointed Jay Singh II
of Jaipur as governor of Agra in 1721
and he was further given the Sarkar of Surat in the time of Emperor
Muhammad Shah.
Thus the Rajputs at one stage controlled the
entire territory extending from some 600
miles south of Delhi to Surat on the Western Cost. However, the internal dissensions prevented the Rajputs from
consolidating their posisiton and madde
them a prey to Maratha intervention.
The
Jats.
The agriculturist Jat settlers living round
Delhi, Mathura and Agra had revolted
against the oppressive policies of Aurangazeb. The imperialists have suppressed the revolt but the area remaindded
disturbed. Churaman (1660-1721) the Jat
leader built a strong fort at Thun and challenged Mughal authority in the region. The Mughal army under Jay Singh II,
the governor of Agra, marched against
Churaman, now assumed leadership of the Jats. He considerably strengthened his
armyand built four forts of Dig, Kumber, VEr and Bharatpur. Ptofiting from the paralysis that struck the
Mughal empire after Nadir Shah‘s invasion,
Badan Singh established his sway over the districts of Mathura and Agra and laid the foundation of the Bharatpur
Kingdom. Ahmad Shah Abdali accepted
‗Mahendra‘. Suraj Mal (1707-63), who succeeded to the kingdom in 1756
further added to the domination of the
Bharatpur kingdom and ‗for his political sagacity, steady intellect and clean vision‘ is
remembered, as ‗the Plato of the Jat tribe‘ and
as ‗the Jat Ulysses‘. After Surajmal‘s death in 1763 the Jat kingdom
gradually sank into insignificance.
However, Lord Lake had to suffer humiliation when he attempted to capture Bharatpur in 1805.
The
Sikhs.
Guru Gobind Singh, the last of the Sikh Gurus
had transformed the Sikhs into a
militant sect in defence of their religion and liberties. Banda Bahadur,
who assumed leadership of the Sikhs
after the death of Guru Gobind Singh in 17008,
waged a relentless struggle against the imperialists for eight years but
found odds heavily ranged against him;
he was captured and killed in 1716. The fortunes of the lowest ebb in 1716.
The invasion of Nadir Shah and repeated
incursions of Ahmad Shah Abdali
virtually demolished the Mughal central authority and brought about the
collapse of Mugha administration in the
Panjab. This political confusion gave the much
sought for opportunity to the Sikh misls (brotherhoods) who brought a
large part of the Panjab under their
sway in the 1760s and 1770s.
The
Marathas.
Perhaps the most formidable challenge to
Mughal authority both in the Deccan and
the north came from the Marathas. Under the capable leadership of the Peshwas, the Marathas uprooted Mughal
authority from Malwa and Gujarat, extended their sway over Rajputana in the
1703s and made a determined bid to fill
in the political vacuum caused by the disintegration of the Mughal
empire.
The Maratha position swiftly improved and at
one stage in the 1750s they seemed to
have established their claim as chief inheritos of the Mughal dominion till their authority was challenged by Ahmad
Shah Abdali in the third Battle of
PaniPat (1761). The Marathas quickly recovered from the reverse suffered
at Panipat and offered the most
formidable challenge to the English East India
Company in the struggle for political supremacy in India.
(D)
Foreign Incasions from the North-West
(a)
Nadirt Shah’s Invasion, 1738-39
The general deterioration in the Mughal
Administration was visible in the
neglect of the defence of the north-western frontier. Aurangazeb had
kept a vigilant eye on the defence of
the north-western frontier and the Mughal provinces in these region. The Mughal province of Kabul was very
well-administered and the people
regulalrly paid to taxes. The tribal people in the north-west were
pacified and regular subsides were paid
to them, the roads towards India were kept open and a constant and brisk communication of political
intelligence had been maintained between
Kabul and Delhi. However, after the departure of Prince Muazzam from Kabul in 1707 the administration of Kabul and
Ghazni became lax. The general rot that
has sapped the vitality of the empire was visible in the helpless condition of
the defences of the frontier. The same jobbery, corruption and carelessness
which had exposed Gujarat and Malwa to
the attacks of the Marathas, exposed the north-west frontier to the ambition of
Nadir Shah of Persia. Ghulam Hussain, the author of Siyar-ul-mutakherin, writes that incapable
viceroys were appointed by favoritism;
the garrisons in the north-west were totally neglected; the tribal subsides were withheld to swell the illicit
gains of those in power or their
dependants; and the frivolous sovereign and his like-minded ministers
heard little, and cared less, about what
was going on beyond the mountains. To cite an
example, when the Mughal Governor of Kabul reported the threat of a
Persian invasion, Khank-i-Dauran simply
ridiculed the news and described it the outcome
of baseless fears; when the governor reported that the salary of the
soldiers had been in arrears for the
past five years, evasive replies were sent to him.
Nadir Quli was born in 1688 in a Turkoman
family of Khorasan. He had a stormy
career in his youth. He proved the Saviour of Persia against domination. The Afgan under their leader Mahmud had
snatched Kandhar from the Persians and
later (1722) attacked and captured Isfahan, the capital of Persia. Nadir
Kuli took upon himself the task of
liberating his adopted country from the rule of the Afghans. In 1927 Nadir occupied nishapur and
turned out the Afghans from that region.
Nadir acknowledged the overlordship of the Safawid Princce Shah Tahmas and preferred to work as his
Commander-in-chief. Before long the whole of Persia was liberated from Afghan rule. The grateful
Shah shared his kingdom with Nadir Kuli and
allowed him to rule over half of Persia in full sovereign rights including the right to issue coins in his name. In 1736
the last of the Safawadi reuler died and
Nadir became the ruler of the whole of Persia and assumed the title of
Nadir Shah.
Nadir Shah was greatly ambitious and sought
extension of his dominions at the
expense of his neighboring countries. His first target was Kandhar. So long
as Kandhar was not conquered it would
remain a menace to the safety of Persia and
constantly disturb the peace and prosperity of Khorasan. Moreover,
without the conquest of Kandhar the full
heritage of the Safawids could not be said to have come into his possession. To isolate the
Afghan rulers of Kandhar, Nadir Shah
entered into correspondence with Mughal emperor Muhammad Shah soliciting
that Afghan fugitives might not find
shelter in Kabul. Muhammad Shah gave
assurances to Nadir‘s envoy about that. When, however, Nadir Shah
conquered Kandhar in March 1738, a
number of Afghan fugitives took shelter at Kabul and Ghazni. Under Nadir‘s strict instructions his
soldiers did not violate Mughal
territory and refrained from pursuing the Afghan fugitives in Kabul and
Ghazni.
Notwithstanding
the breach of promises on the part of the Mughal government, Nadir had dispatched in 1737 an imperative
emissary—third of its kind—towards
Delhi. Nadir‘s emissary was attacked and cut off at Jalalabad by the
Mughal soldiers.
The indifference with which the Mughal emperor
treated the envoys of Nadir Shah and the
cruel treatment meted out to the last emissary was made an excuse by Nadir Shah to invade India.
Besides, the Mughal emperor had insulted
Nadir Shah by discontinuing the practice of exchange of ambassadors with
the Persian court when Nadir ascended the
throne. However, the real causes of Nadir
Shah‘s invasion of India are to be found in the ambition of Nadir Shah
on the one hand apparent weakness of the
Mughal Emperor on the other. Nadir had heard
about the fabulous India and his greed was excited. To top all, Nadir
had received definite information about
the condition of the Mughal administration and the internal dissensions which had shaped its
belief of his was fortified by the number
of letters of goodwill and invitation he had from Indian Amirs
soliciting him to invade India.
Nadir Shah entered Ghazni on 11 June 1738 and
captured Kabul on 29 June. Nadir Shah
had created for himself a reputation as a merciful enenmy and liberal master, held out inducer deserters. Nasir
Khan, the Mughal governor of Kabul,
surrendered without resistance and with doned and restored to the
viceroyalty of Kabul and Peshawar on
profession of loyalty to master. Crossing the Indus at Attock, Nadir easily defeated the governor of
Lahore and treat kindly and the latter
also like Nasir Khan joined the conqueror‘s train on a rapid march
toward.
The
Battle of Karnal. 24 February 1739.
Nadir‘s
rapid advance towards Delhi alarmed Mughal emperor. The emperor gathered an army of 80,000 and accompanied by
the Nizam-ul-Qamar-ud-Din and
Khan-i-Dauran marched from the capital to confront the invader. Saad
joined them soon after. The weakness of
the Mughal side was soon clear from the fact that in knowledge of the enemy‘s whereabouts until
Nadir‘s advance-guard attacked the
baggage Saadat Khan. Further, there was neither any general plan of
action nor an agreed leader. The Karnal
lasted only three hours. Khan-i-Dauran fell fighting in the battlefield while Saadat Khan taken
prisoner by Nadir Shah.
Nizam-ul-Mulk played the role of the
peace-maker. It was agreed that Nadir
would lakhs of rupees, 20 lakhs imeediately and 30 lakhs in three equal
instalments of 10 lakhs each at Lahore,
Attock and Kabul respectively on him the office of the Mir Bakshi which had fallen vacant on the
Khan-i-Dauran.
Nadir’s
March to Delhi.
The selfishness and mutual rivalries of the
Mughal noble havoc at this stage. Saadat
Khan, who had coveted the office of the Mir Bakshi, was so disappointed at the conferment of the post on the Nizam that
he sought a meeting with Nadir, him that
he could easily secure 20 crores of rupees only if he would proceed from
the Nizam, his meeting with the Nizam
earlier, the Persian invader had asked him why in spite of the pre brave men
like him the Maratha had captured large territories of the empire. The Nizam had told him that the
court factions had created great
confusion and that was why he had himself away to the Deccan in disgust.
Now Nadir had himself tested the truth
of the Nizam‘s obsession.
Nadir Sha now decided to march to Delhi where
he reached on 20 March 1739. At khutba (emblem of sovereignty) was read for
Nadir and coins were struck in his name.
the Empire had ended, the Persian Empire had begun.
On 22 March a rumour spread in Delhi that
Nadir had suddenly died. There was a
rising in the city in which 700of Nadir‘s soldiers were killed. Thereupon, Nadir gave a general massacre. It has been
estimated that about 30,000 persons were
slaughtered. On the solicitation of Muhammad Shah, Nadir ordered his men to stop the massacre.
Return
of Nadir Shah.
Nadir Shah remained in Delhi for about two
months. He tired to collect the maximum
booty from Delhi. He laid all the nobles and even the genral population under contribution. Saadat Khan, the villain
of the piece, was threatened with
corporal punishment if he did not collect for the invader an amount of
20 croroes. Helpless, Saadat Khan took
poison and ended his life. Saadat Khan‘s successor, Safdar Jang paid two crores as his part of
the contribution. The booty collected by
Nadir amounted to 30 crores of rupees in cash besides jewels, gold and
silver plates, besides ―100 elephants,
7,000 horses, 10,000 camels, 100eunuchs, 130 writers, 200 smiths, 300 masons and builders,
100 stone-cutters and 200 carpenters‖.
Above all, the invader carried with him the Peacock Throne of Shahjehan which
alone had cost a crore of rupees. The Mughal emperor was also compelled to give a royal princess in
marriage to Nadir‘s son, Nasir Allah Mirza.
Muhammad Sha also surrendered to Nadir Shah
the Mughal provinces west of the river
Indus including Kashmir and Sind. The subah of Thatta the ports subordinate thereto were also surrendered to
the invader. Besides, the Governor of
the Panjab agreed to pay to Nadir a sum of rupees 20nlakhs per annum ―to
remove the reason for any Persian
garrison being left east of the Indus‖.
Nadir on his part declared Muhammad Sha as
Emperor of the Mughal Empire once again
with the right to issue coins and have the khutba read his name. Before leaving Delhi, Nadir also gave advice
to Muhammad Shah and exhorted his
subjects to obey him. He also promised military support to the Mughal
emperor in time of need.
(b)
Ahmad Shah Abdali’s Invasions and the Third Battle of Panipat.
Ashmad
Shah Abdali (so called because of the name of his tribe ooloos) was a young Afghan officer of noble lineage.
Nadir Sha held high opinion about his
merits and once said, ―I have not found in Iran, Turan or Hindi any man
equal to Ahmad Shah declared himself as
ruler of Kandhar. He also issued coins bearing his name. Soon after he seized Kabul and founded
the modern kingdom of Afghanistasn. He
enlisted a large army of 50,000. As the rightful successor of Nadir, he laid claim to Western Panjab. He
invaded India five times and fought the
Third Battle of Panipat in 1761.
Ahmad Shah Abdali‘s first invasion of India in
1748 ended in a fiasco. Abdali was not a
man to be easily baulked. Early in 1749 he again crossed the frontier and defeated Muni-ul-Mulk, the
Governor of the Panjab. However, he induced
to return on apromise by muin-ul-Mulk of an annual remittance of fourteen thousand rupees. As he did not get
regularly the promised tribute, Abdali
invaded India the third time in 1752. Fearing a repition of Nadir‘s
outrages, the Mughal Emperor Ahmad
invaded India the third time in 1752. Fearing a repetition of Nadir‘s outrages, the mughal Emperor Ahmad
Shah appeased Abdali by surrender of the
Panjab and Sindh. To restore order in the Panjab, which had been a prey to
anarchy after the death of Muin-ul-mulk, in November 1753 Wazir Imad ul Mulk
appointed Adina beg Khan as Governor of the Panjab. This was, however, interpreted as interference in the affairs of
the Panjab by Abdali who crossed into
Indian Territory for the fourth time in November 1756. In January 1757
the invader entered Delhi and plundered
as far as Mathura and Agra. Before his return
Abdali recognized Alamgir II as the emperor, Imad-ul-Daula as the Wazir
and the Rohilla chief najib-ud- Daula as
his personal ‗supreme agent‘ and as mir Bakshi of the Empire.
In March 1758 Raghunath Rao appeared at Delhi,
expelled Najib from the capital and
later overran the Panjab, appointing Adina Beg as governor of the Panjab on behalf of the Peshwa. Abdali
returned to India in 1759 to avenge on the
Marathas. The third battle of Panipat was fought on 14 January 1761,
resulting in the total defeat of the
Marathas.
Before leaving Delhi on 20 march 1761 Abdali
name Sha Alam II as emperor,
Imad-ul-Mulk as WAzir and Najib-ud-Daula as Mir Bakshi. The last of Abdali‘s invasions came in 1767.
Ahmad
Shah Abdali‘s invasions hastened the downfall of the Mughal Empire and created anarchy and confusion all around. So
shallow was the reality of the Mughal
Empire that the new Emperor Sha Alam II was not allowed to enter Delhi
for twelve years and was escorted to his
throne in 1772 only by the Maraths. The
Rohilla leaders Najib-ud-Daula and later his son Zabita Khan and
grandson Ghulam Qadir exercised
undisputed power at Delhi. On 30July 1788 Ghulam Qadir took possession of the royal palace and
deposed Sha Alam and later blinded him
copmpletely (10 August 1788). It was the Maratha leader Mahadaji Sindhia who recovered Delhi for the emperor once agin
in October 1788. In 1803 the English
captured the imperial city and Sha Alam II became a pensioner of the East india Company.
(E)
Cause of the Downfall of the Mughal Empire
1.
Aurangzeb’s Responsibility.
Although the expansion of the Mughal Empire
reached its optimum point under
Aurangzeb yet it only resembled an inflated ballon. The Mughal Empire had expanded beyond the point of effective control
and its castness only tented to weaken
the centre. Considering; the undeveloped means of communications in those days, Mughal Empire was faced with a
stupendous task far beyond the capacity
of Alamgir Aurangzeb himself not to speak of his weak successors.
Whatever his compulsions, Aurangzeb sought to
restore the Islamic character of the
state which he believed, had been disturbed by Akbar and his successors. His policy of religious bigotism
proved counter-productive and provoked a
general discontent in the country and the empire was faced with rebellions of the Sikhs, the jats, the
Bundelas, the Rajputs and, above all, the
Marathas. Aurangzeb was no les stupid than his contemporary James II
of England.
The
Ass
Who
lost three Kingdoms for a Mass.‘
Again like JamesII, Aurangzeb knew the art of
making enemies. The imperialist designs
and narrow religious policy of Aurangzeb turned the Rajputs, reliable supporters of the Imperial dynasty,
into foes. The wanton destruction of
Hindu temples and the reimposition of jizyah (1679) and other political
and social indignities on the Hindus led
to the rising of the Satnamis, the Bundeals and the Jats. In the Panjab the Sikhs to the last man
rose against the empire paralyzing
Imperial administration in the province. In Maharashtra, Maratha
resistance to Mughal rule assumed a
national character and the whole people participated in the struggle for the defence of their religion
and liberties. The Maratha guerrillas
demoralized the splendid armies of Aurangazeb, broke their spirit of
superiority and wore them out.
The over ambitious Aurangzeb followed the
policy of aggressive imperialism towards
the Shia sultanates of Golconda and Bijapur. Being a fanatical Sunni, perhaps an additional reason for his
onslaught on these Deccan kingdoms was
religious. However, the Deccan state of Golconda, Bijapur, Karnataka and
the Marathas occasionally patched up
their mutal jealousies and offered a united front to Mughal imperialism. Though Aurangazeb
succeeded in reducing Bijapur(1686),
Golcaonda (1687) and killing Sambhaji (1689), but these successes only
marked the beginning of greater difficulties.
The conquest of these Muslim kingdoms of the south removed the strongest local
check on Maratha activities and left them
free to organize resistance to Mughal imperialism.
Aurangzeb‘s
mistaken policy of continuous war in the Deccan which continued for twenty seven years drained the
resources of the empire. These wars
meant a great financial drain on the treasury and the flower of the
Mughal soldiery perished in the long
wars. Manucci noted in his book, Storia Do Moger, ―thus until this day he has not been able to accomplish
the enterprise be interned (as he said)
in two years. He marched carrying with him three sons, Shah Alam, Azam
Tara and Kam Baksh, also his grandons.
He had with him much treasure-houses of
Akbar, Nur Jehan, Jahangir and Shah Jahan. Besides this, finding himself
with very little cash, owing to the
immense expenditure forced on him, and because the revenue payers did not pay with the usual
promptitude, he was obliged at
Aurangabad to melt down his household silver-wares.‖ The ‗Deccan ulcer‘
proved as fatal to the Mughal Empire as
the ‗Spanish ulcer‘ was to prove later on to the Napoleonic Empire.
2.
Weak Successors of Aurangzeb.
The Mughal system of government being despotic
much depended on the personality of the
emperor. Under a strong monarch all went with the administration, but the succession of a weak
emperor was reflected in every field of
administration. Unfortunately, all the Mughal emperors after Aurangzeb
were weaklings and therefore unable to
meet the challenges from within and without.
Far from stemming the tide of decline they aggravated the situation by
their idiosynacrasies and lax morals.
Bahadur Shah I (1702-12) was over 63 at the time of his succession to the throne and was too
old to maintain the prestige of the
empire. He liked to appease all parties by profuse grants of titles and
rewards and was nicknamed
Shah-i-bekhabar (The Heedless King), Jahandar Shah (1712-13), the next in succession, was a profligate
fool, Farrukhsiyar (1713-19) a
contemptible coward, while Moha,,ad Shah (1719-48) spent most of his
time watching animal fights. For his
indifference towards public affairs and addition to wine and woman. Mohammad Shah was nicknamed
‗Rangila ‗Ahmad Shah (174- 54) excelled his predecessors in his sensual
pursuits. His harem extended over a full
kos (an area of four square miles) whereform all males were excluded and
the emperor spent a week and sometime as
month in the company of women. In the administrative sphere Ahmad Shah did
equally foolish thing. In November 1753,
he appointed his two and half years old son. Mahmud as Governor of the
Panjab and in perfect keeping with the
spirit named a one-year old baby, Muhammad
Amin as the deputy under him. Similarly the governorship of Kashmir
was conferred on one-year old Tala
Sayyid Shah with a boy of fifteen as the Deputy. These appointments were made and imbecile
emperors could hardly act as worthy
custodians of public interest or maintain the integrity of the
empire.
3.
Degeneration of Mughal Nobility.
When
gold rusts what will iron do?‖, is an old adage. Following the unworthy example of the emperors, the nobles
discarded hard life of military
adventure and took to luxurious living. They became ‗knights of romance‘
against ‗knights at arms.‘ The nobles of
their time in drinking bouts and gambling dens.
Nobles like Bairam Khan, Muzzaffar Khan, Abdur Rahim Khan-i-Khanan,
Mahabat Khan, Asaf Khan, Saidulla Khan were no longer available for the
service of the state. The new nobility
under the later Mughals were at best courtiers and rivaled one another in the subtle arts of
finesse and flattery. At a time when the
emperors ceased to be ipartial judges for rewarding merit, the nobles
had no incentive to fight and die for
the empire. J.N. Sarkar points out in Massir-ul-Umra (Dictionary if Mughal Peerage) that if a
nobleman‘s achievements were recorded in
three pages that of his son usually filled a page, that of the grandson only a
few lines such as ‗nothing worthy of
being recorded‘. The senile decay that had set in the ranks of the upper classes deprived the
state of the services of capable
administrators and energetic military leaders.
4.
Court Factions.
Towards
the end of Aurangzeb‘s reign influential nobles at the court organized themselves into pressure groups.
Though these groups were formed on clan
or family relationships, personal affiliations or interests were the
dominating factors. These groups kept
the country in a state of perpetual political unrest. The Turani or Central Asian party consisted of
nobles from Trans-Oxiania. During the
reign of Mohammad Shah, Asaf Jah, Nizam-ul-Mulk, Qamruddin and were
Amir Khan, Ishaq Khan and Saadat khan.
These factions kept their own retainers who
were mostly recruited from Central Asia or Persia as the case might be.
Together these two factions known as the ‗Mughal or Foreign Party‘ were pitched
against the Hindustani Party whose
leaders during this period were Sayyid Abdulla Khan and Sayyid Hussain Ali who enjoyed the
support of the Hindus. Each faction tried
to win the Emperor to its viewpoint and poison his ears against the
other faction. They fought battles,
upsetting the peace of the country and throwing administration to dogs. Even iun the face of foreign danger
these hostile groups could not forge a
united front and after intrigued with the invader. The personal
interests of Nizam ul-Mulk and Burhan-ul-Mulk led them to intrigue with Nadir
Shah and barter away national
interests.
5.
Defective Law of Succession.
The absence of the law of primogeniture among
the Mughals usually meant a war of
succession among the sons of the dying emperor in which the military leaders of the time took sides. In the words
of Erskine, ―The Sword was the grand
arbiter of right and every son was prepared to try his fortune against
his brothers‖. Such a system, though not
commendable, was not without its advantage. It
provided the country with the ablest son of the dying Emperor as the
ruler. Under the later Mughals a
sinister factor entered the politics of the empire bringing out the worst features of the law of succession.
Now, the new principle that worked in
the later Mughal period was ‗the survival of the weakest.‘ The princes
of the royal dynasty recede to the
background while struggle was fought by leaders of rival factions using royal princes as nominal
leaders. Powerful nobles acted as ‗king maker‘, making and unmaking emperors to
suit their personal interests. Zulfikar
Khan emerged as the ‗king-maker‘ in the war of succession that followed
the death of Bahadur Shah I in 1712. The
Sayyid Brothers (Hussain Ali and Abdullah Khan)
acted as ‗king-makers‘ during 1713-20, when they raised four Imperial
princes to the throne till they were
removed from their position by a faction of Mir
Mohammad Amin and Asaf Jah Nizam-ul-Mulk. Thus the defective law of succession weakened the bodypolitic and crippled
it financially and militarily.
6.
The Rise of the Marathas.
Perhaps the most powerful external factor that
brought about the collapse of the Mughal
Empire was the rising power of the Marathas under the Peshwa. The Peshwas consolidated Maratha power in Western
India and channelized the energies of the nation in an attack on the Mughal
Empire. They inaugurated the policy of
Greater Maharashtra and popularized the ideal of Hindu-pad padshahi. The ideal of Hindu Empire could only be realized
at the cost of the Mughal Emperors and
their viceroys on the defensive. The tide of Maratha expansion continued to rise till it engulfed northern
India also. At one time the Marathas
seemed the most powerful force in the politics of India, assuming the
role of defenders of India against
foreign invasions of Ahmad Shah Abdali and playing the role of ‗king-makers‘ at Delhi as
Sadashiv Rao Bhau seems to have done in
1759 and Mahadaji Sindhia in 1722. Though the Marathas were not
successful in laying the foundations of
a stable empire in India, they certainly played a great part in bringing about the disintegration of the
Mughal Empire.
7.
Military Weakness.
There were inherent defects in the Mughal
military system. The army was organized
more or less on the feudal basis where the common soldier owed allegiance to the mansabdar rather than the
Emperor. The soldier looked upon the
mansabdar as his chief, not as an officer. The defects of this system
though evident enough in the revolts of
Bairam Khan and Mahabat Khan assumed alarming
proportions under the later Mughal kings.
William Irvine points out that excepting the
want of personal courage every other
fault was found among the degenerate Mughals—indiscipline, want of cohesion, luxurious habits, inactivity bad
commissariat and cumbrous equipment.
Luxury and sloth penetrated every rank of the army and the march of the
spectacle of a Mughal army presented ―a
long train of elephants, camels, carts and oxen, mixed up with a crowd of camp-followers,
women of all ranks, merchants,
shopkeepers, servants, cooks, and all kinds of ministers of luxury,
amounting to ten time the number of the
fighting men‖.
In fighting capacity the unwieldy Mughal
armies were nothing more than an armed
rabble. Bernier compares them to a herd of animals who fled at the first shock. The Mughal artillery was crude and
ineffective against the guerrilla tactics
of the Marathas; the Maratha fortresses which the Mughal armies could
not capture despite repeated attempts
easily succumbed the British arms. In 1748 the French Commander, Monsieur Paradis, with a small
detachment consisting of 230 Europeans and 700 indian soldiers and without any
guns routed a large army of the Nawab of
Carnatic consisting of 10,000 men equipped with artillery and entrenched across a river. Dupleix wrote to
the Company‘s Directors in Paris that
―500 European soldiers could reduce all Moslem strongholds and provinces
on this side of the Kistna.‖
The chief defect of the Mughal armies of
eighteenth century was their
composition. The soldiers were usually drawn from Central Asia and
collected by the captains of companies
who supplied men to anyone able to pay for them. These soldiers and their leaders came to India to
make fortunes not to lose them. As such,
the leaders came to India to make fortunes not to lose them. As such,
the leaders of such armies changed sides
without scruples and were constantly plotting either to betray or supplant their employers. Even the
Mughal viceroys employing such troops
were constantly haunted by the fear of desertion. Such hired soldiers without coherence or loyalty were unfit
custodians of the interests of the Empire.
What the Urdu poet Sauda wrote about Shah Alam II‘s time was true of later Mughal period in general
Only forced by need does he (Mughal commander)
come out of the moat (of his
fort);
His Army but knows how to turn from the
flight;
The infantry—afraid of the barber that
shaves;
The cavalry—fall off from their beds in their
sleep
If but in a dream they see their mount
frisk.
8.
Economic Bankruptey.
What ate into the vitals of the Mughal Empire
was the worsening economic and financial
conditions which were visible in the 17th century and which steadily worsen end towards the end of Aurangzeb‘s
reign. Aurangzeb‘s long wars in the Deccan
besides emptying the royal treasury almost ruined the trade and industry
of the country. The marches of the
Imperial army damaged crops in the Deccan while
the beasts of burden ate away all standing crops and greenery. The
emperor ignored all complaints brought
to him because of financial difficulties. Whatever
little
was left was destroyed by the Maratha raiders—Maratha horses were fed on standing crops and Maratha soldiers destroyed
whatever property they found too heavy
to be carried. The peasant gave up agriculture in disgust and many took to life of plunder and highway robbery. There
was so great dislocation of normal life
in the Deccan that the agents of the English and French Companies found
great difficulty in procuring supplies
for export to Europe.
Under the later Mughal Emperors the financial
condition further deteriorated. While the outlying provinces asserted their
independence one after the other and
ceased the payment of any revenue to the centre, the numerous wars of succession and political conclusions
coupled with the lavish living of the
Emperors emptied the royal treasury to an extent that salaries of
soldiers could not be paid regularly.
When the Emperors fell back to the uneconomic device of farming out of Khalisah (crown) lands and granting
jagirs in payment of liquidation of
arrears of pay. The crisis of the jagirdari was reached when the land in the country was insufficient for the total
number of jagirs granted. Many a time
jagirs were granted but the recipient had to wait for long to get actual
possession of land. An aggrieved grantee
sarcastically remarked that the time-gap between the grant of a jagir and its actual possession
was long enough to turn a boy into grey beard person. Jagirdars in turn were so
greatly under debt to money lenders that
they farmed out their jagirs to them. Commenting on the poor financial
condition of the Mughal nobles, the Urdu
poet Sauda wrote the mansabdars had no money to
pay their retainers.
If you buy a horse, and take service with someone Of your salary you will see no sign except
in the world above.
Writing of the times of Alamgir II, Sir
Jadunath Sarkar says that at one time
the Emperor was reduced to such hard straits that for three days no fire
was kindled in the harem kitchen and the
princesses in frantic disregard of purdhah rushed out of the palace to the city.
Jadunath Sarkar argues that the Muslim state
in India lacked a sound economic basis.
The holy scriptures of the Muslims provide—or at least so the medieval Muslim scholars interpreted—that the
true profession of the faithful is war.
The state in India kept a huge army and was thus the greatest single employer.
Peace,
argues Sir Sarkar, was an aesthesia to the society and produced far
reaching economic repercussions. When
the Muslim state in India under Aurangzeb reached its optimum expansion, it was no longer
necessary to maintain a huge army and
employ it profitably. These conditions accentuated in the eighteenth
century.
9.
Nature of the Mughal State.
The Mughal government was essentially a police
government and confined its attention
mainly to the maintenance of internal and external order and collection of revenue. The Mughals failed to effect a
fusion between the Hindus and Muslims
and create a composite nation. Whatever little effort was made by Akbar
to weld the people into a nation was
undone by the bigotry of Aurangzeb and his worthless successors. Far from reconciling the Hindus
to the Mughal rule, the Mughal policies
goaded them to rebellion: Many Indian chiefs looked upon the Mughal Empire in the eighteenth century gave the
Marathas, the Rajputs and other Hindu
communities their much awaited opportunity.
10.
Invasion of Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Abdali.
The invasion of Nadir Shah in 1739 gave a
death blow to the tottering Mughal
Empire. Besides depleting the Mughal treasury of its wealth, it exposed to the world the military weakness of the Empire
and its utter degeneration. Turbulent
elements in the country so far kept in check by the name and prestige of
the Empire rose in rebellion and
circumscribed the authority of the empire. The
repeated invasions of Nadir‘s successor, Mughal authority had so greatly
shrunk that in 1761 Abdali fought the
battle of Panipat not against the Mughal Empire but against the Marathas who virtually controlled
the whole of Northern India. For about a
decade (1761-72) a virtual dictatorship under Najib-ud-daula was set up at Delhi.
11.
Coming of the Europeans.
With the weakness of Mughal central authority
in the eighteenth century, war-lordism
raised its ugly head. The European countries also acted as warlords, and profited from the confused times. The
European countries out did Indian
princes in every sphere whether it was trade and commerce or diplomacy
and war. In fact the static and
stationary Indian society faced a challenge from a dynamic and progressive
West. It is a sad commentary on the Mughal aristocracy that while they spent lakhs in importing European luxury
articles, none ever thought of
purchasing a printing press. When the Renaissance outlook had given an
expansive touch to European energies the
Indian people were stepped in divinism and drew
sustenance from the philosophy of escapism. In fact, India was left far behind
in the race of civilization. Sir
Jadunath Sarkar very aptly comments: The English conquest of the Mughal Empire is only a part
of the inevitable domination of all
Africa and Asia by the European nations—which is only another way of
saying that the progressive races are
supplanting the conservative ones, just as
enterprising families are constantly replacing sleepy self-satisfied
ones in the leadership of our society.‖
Thus, the inherent weaknesses of the Mughal
body-politic and the numerous contemporary operative causes had sapped the
vitality of the Empire. When the phantom
empire collapsed the surprise was not that it crumbled ignominiously, but that the end was so long delayed.
(F)
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITION IN THE
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
Despite political convulsions and instability
in the 18th century, the society in
general retained most of its traditional features with some changes thrown in
by new environments.
Social
Stratification: of the time.
At the apex of the social order was the
emperor closely followed by the nobility
which despite hard times led a life of luxury and extravagancy with great weakness for wine, women and music? At the
lowest rung of the ladder was the
preponderant majority of the poor agriculturalist and artisan in the
village. In the middle came the ‗small
and frugal‘ middle class comprising small merchants, shopkeepers, lower cadre of employees, town
artisans etc. Paucity of contemporary
evidence and disparities incomes and prices in different regions of the
country makes any comparison of living
standard of living a difficult exercise.
The institution of caste stands out a striking
feature of Hindu society of the time.
Caste rules prevailed in matters of marriage, dress, diet and even professions.
However,
economic pressures and administrative innovations introduced by the East India Company compelled some to look
beyond their ancestral professions.
Place
of Women in Society:
Women were given a place of respect in home
and society but not of equality as we
understand the term today. Hindu society being mainly patriarchal (except
in the Malabar and some backward areas),
the will be of the male head of the family
usually prevailed. Though examples can be cited of Hindu and Muslim
women having played significant roles in
polities, administration and scholastic fields, the common women was denied right place in
society. Purdah system was common among
Hindu and Muslim women though women of poor families out on work for livelihood could not observe it. Child
marriages were common among both girls
and boys though consummation usually took place after they attained age
of maturity. Dowry system was prevalent
among the upper classes. Polygamy in
shocking proportions prevailed among the kulin families in Uttar Pradesh
and Bengal. Remarriage of widows was
generally looked down upon the though it
prevailed in some places. Surprisingly the Peshwas imposed a tax called
patdam on remarriage of widows. The evil
practice of Sati mostly prevailed in Bengal, central India and Rajputana among some upper castes.
The Peshwas discouraged Sati in their
dominion with limited success.
Slavery:
Another
social evil was the prevalence of slavery. Broadly speaking, slave could be classed into two categories—the domestic
slabs and the serfs tied to the hand. I
the latter category the serfs were transferred with the sale of land to
new masters. European travelers and administrators
have testified o the widespread prevalence
of slavery in India. Economic distress, famines, natural calamities,
extreme poverty compelled some to sell
their children for a price. The Rajputs, Khatrias and Kayasthas usually kept slave women for
domestic work. However, slaves in India
were treated better than their counterparts in America and Europe.
Slaves were usually treated as
hereditary servants of the family than as menials; they were allowed to meet among themselves and the main
offspring‘s of such marriages were
considered free citizens.
Slavery and slave trade touched new dimensions
with the coming of Europeans in India
particularly the Portuguese, the Dutch and the English. There is mention of a court-house at Calcutta in 1752
which regularly purchased and registered
slaves charging a registration fee of Res. 4 for each entry. The European company purchased slaves at a price ranging
between Rs. 5 to Rs. 15 for a girl of 10
years, Rs. 12 to Rs. 20 for a boy of 16 and Rs. 15 to Rs.20 for a full grown
adult slave from the markets of Bengal,
Assam and Bihar, and carries them to European
and American markets for sale. There are reports of Europeans at Surat,
Madras and Calcutta purchasing Abyssinian slaves and employing them for
domestic work.
Traffic in slaves was abolished by a
proclamation issued in 1789. However,
rural slavery shorn of many of its classical crudities continues in
India even today.
Education.
The love of learning has always exercised a
powerful influence on both the Hindu and
the Muslim mind. However, the ides of Indian education was culture and not literacy. Vocational education
according to one‘s varna or family tradition assured specialization. Both Hindu
and Muslim systems of education linked
learning and religion.
Centers of higher education in Sanskrit were
called chattuspathis or Tols in Bengal
and Bihar. Nadia, Kasi (Benareas), Tirhut (Mithila) and Utkala (Orissa) were reputed centers for Sanskrit education
flocked to its numerous institutions.
Institutions for learning of higher education in Persian and Arabic were
called Madrasahs. Persian being the
court language was learnt both by the Muslims and Hindus. Azimabad (Patna) was a reputed centre
of Persian education in eatern india.
Those interested in the study of Koran and Muslim theology had to acquire proficiency in Arabic.
Elementary education was fairly widespread.
The Hindu elementary schools were called
pathshalas and Muslim elementary schools were popularly known as maktabs. These school, were not unusually
attached to temples and mosques. The
students were given instruction in the three R‘s of reading, writing and
arithmetic. Moral instruction with
emphasis on truth and honesty, obedience to parents and faith in one‘s religion, found a place in the
school curriculum. Though education was mainly popular with the higher castes,
there were cases of children of lower
castes attending schools. Female education received scant
attention.
Arts
and Literature.
In the fields of arts and literature the
absence of patronage at Delhi led to
flight of talent to newly-established state capitals like Hyderabad,
Lucknow, Murshidabad, Jaipur etc.
Asaf-ud-Daula built the Great Imambara (a
building for celebration of Muharram
festival) at Lucknow in 1784; the absence of any pillars or support makes it architecturally interesting. Swai Jai
Singh (1686-1743) built the famous pink
city of Jaipur and five astronomical observations in India including one
at Jaipur, another at New Delhi and a
third at Benares. At Amritsar Maharaja Ranjit
Singh renovated the Sikh shrine decorating the lower half with marble
and the entire upper portion was inlaid
with copper surmounted with a thin plate of gold and gave it is modern name of the Golden
temple. The palace of Suraj Mal at Dig
(the capital of Bharatpur) state was planned to rival in munificence the
imperial palaces at Agra; work on its
construction was begun in 1725 but the construction was left unfinished.
Vernacular languages like Urdu, Hindi,
Bengali, Assamese, Panjabi, Marathi,
Telugu and Tamil greatly developed. It was during the 18th century that
the Christian missionaries set up
printing presses in India and brought out vernacular editions of the Bible, Ziegenbelg, a Danish
missionary composed a Tamil grammar and
published a Tamil version of the Bible. Even a Tamil dictionary was compiled by these missionaries. In Bengal, the Baptist
missionaries (Carey, Ward and Marshman)
set up a printing press at Serampur and published a Bengali version of the Bible.
Economic
Conditions.
In the beginning of the 18th century the basic
unit of Indian Economy was still the
self-sufficient and self-governing village community which produced almost all for its local needs. Its only link
with the state was the payment of land
revenue. While rulers and dynasties changed ceaselessly, the village
communities carried on as usual. It was
this ‗unchangeableness of Asiatic societies‘ that attracted the attention of
European observers and drew the cryptic remark that ―they lasted when nothing else seemed to
last‖. These villages complement
munities though factors in economic and social stability were also
responsible for economic
stagnation.
Town handicrafts in India had reached a high
level of development and attracted
worldwide markets. The cotton products of Dacca, Ahmadabad ad Masulipatnam, the silk fabrics of
Murshidabad, Agra, Lahore and Gujarat, the fine
woolen shawls and carpets of Kashmir, Lahore Agra, the gold and silver
jewelry, metal work, metal utensils,
arms, shields found markets both in India and abroad.
The large scale domestic and foreign trade
brought into existence the
merchant-capitalist and the development of the banking system. The
emergence of Jagat Seths, Nagar Seths in
northern India and the Chetties in the south with their elaborate banking houses and extensive use of
hundies and other banking practices gave
great fillip to trade and commerce.
These developments in the Indian economy in
the 17th and 18th centuries gave some
indications that some pre-conditions for a rapid growth of capitalism did exist. However, certain constraints like
the existence of feudal classes the law of escheat, the absence of correct saving
habits and the use of such savings for
productive purposes and above all, the absence of political stability
and a forward –looking state—all
ill-boded for economic development on modern lines.
The presence of European trading companies in the 18th century with deep politico-economic interests added to the prevailing confusion and economic stagnation.‖
Post a Comment