Later Mughals & Decline (1605–1857)

Overview

The Mughal Empire after Akbar experienced both its cultural zenith (under Shah Jahan's architectural patronage) and its political unravelling (under Aurangzeb's expansionist overreach). After Aurangzeb's death in 1707, the empire rapidly fragmented into regional powers, though the Mughal emperor remained a symbolic figurehead until 1857.

This chapter covers four distinct phases:

1. Jahangir (1605–1627) — Artistic zenith, Nur Jahan's political dominance, early European contact
2. Shah Jahan (1628–1658) — Architectural golden age (Taj Mahal, Red Fort), Deccan expansion
3. Aurangzeb (1658–1707) — Maximum territorial extent, religious controversies, Deccan quagmire, revolts
4. Post-Aurangzeb Decline (1707–1857) — Weak successors, foreign invasions, rise of regional powers, and the final extinction of the dynasty in 1857

Jahangir (1605–1627)

Nur Jahan's Legacy

After Jahangir's death in 1627, the Junta dissolved. Asaf Khan switched allegiance to support his son-in-law Prince Khurram (Shah Jahan), while Nur Jahan backed Prince Shahryar. Shah Jahan's forces prevailed — Shahryar was defeated and executed. Nur Jahan was confined by Shah Jahan but was provided a generous pension. She lived quietly in Lahore until her death in 1645, and was buried in a tomb she had designed herself near the tomb of her father Itimad-ud-Daulah.

Prelims Fact: Nur Jahan is the only Mughal empress to have issued coins in her own name and to have a farman (royal decree) issued under her authority. The Tomb of Itimad-ud-Daulah in Agra (built 1622–1628), commissioned by Nur Jahan for her father, is often called the "Baby Taj" and is notable as the first Mughal structure to extensively use pietra dura inlay work — a technique later perfected in the Taj Mahal.

Jahangir and the Sikhs

Shah Jahan (1628–1658)

Mughal Architecture Under Shah Jahan

Prelims Fact: The Taj Mahal mausoleum was completed in 1648; the entire complex (gardens, gates, mosque) was finished c. 1653. The chief architect was Ustad Ahmad Lahori, who led a board of architects. Some sources attribute it to Ustad Isa — this is disputed; Lahori is the most widely accepted attribution based on the claim of his son Lutfullah Muhandis. The total cost was estimated at ~32 million rupees at the time.

Shah Jahan's Cultural Patronage

Shah Jahan's reign is considered the golden age of Mughal architecture. The transition from red sandstone (dominant under Akbar) to white marble with pietra dura inlay became the defining feature of this period. His court also witnessed the flourishing of calligraphy — the Taj Mahal's Quranic inscriptions were done by the master calligrapher Amanat Khan al-Shirazi, who was one of the few artisans honoured enough to sign his work on the monument. Shah Jahan also commissioned the famous Diwan-i-Khas inscription in the Red Fort: "Agar firdaus bar roo-e zameen ast, hameen ast-o hameen ast-o hameen ast" ("If there is paradise on earth, it is this, it is this, it is this") — attributed to the Persian poet Amir Khusrau.

Aurangzeb (1658–1707)

War of Succession (1657–1659)

Shah Jahan fell seriously ill in September 1657, triggering a war among his four sons. Each commanded a different region of the empire, and there was no formal rule of primogeniture:

Aurangzeb's Policies

Deccan Campaigns (1681–1707)

Rajput Alienation

Revolts Against Aurangzeb

Historiographical Debate on Aurangzeb

The assessment of Aurangzeb remains the most contested question in Mughal historiography:

• "Religious zealot" school (Jadunath Sarkar, S.R. Sharma, A.L. Srivastava): Aurangzeb's intolerance was the primary cause of Mughal decline — Jizya reimposition, temple destruction, and prohibition of music alienated the majority Hindu population.
• "Political pragmatist" school (Shibli Nomani, Zahiruddin Faruki, Satish Chandra): Aurangzeb's policies were contextual — temple destructions targeted rebellious political opponents, not Hinduism as a religion; he also made grants to many Hindu temples (including the Jangambadi Math in Varanasi) and employed more Hindus in the mansabdari system than any predecessor.
• Modern view (Richard Eaton, Audrey Truschke): The truth lies between the two extremes — Aurangzeb was more orthodox than Akbar, but the idea that his intolerance alone destroyed the empire oversimplifies a complex structural decline.

For Mains: Present a balanced view. The real damage was the Deccan quagmire — 26 years of unwinnable war that destroyed the empire's finances and military capability — combined with the Rajput alienation that broke the political alliance sustaining Mughal rule since Akbar. Religious policies were a contributing factor, not the sole cause.

Decline of the Mughal Empire (Post-1707)

Immediate Causes

Key Events in the Decline

Causes of Mughal Decline — Summary Table

Rise of Regional Powers

Later Mughal Emperors

The Sayyid Brothers — Kingmakers of the Mughal Empire

Abdullah Khan and Hussain Ali Khan (the Sayyid Brothers of Barha) were the most powerful nobles of the post-Aurangzeb era. They belonged to the Sadaat-e-Bara clan and claimed descent from the Prophet Muhammad. They made and unmade emperors between 1713 and 1720 — earning the title "King-makers":

• 1713 — Placed Farrukhsiyar on the throne; Abdullah Khan became Wazir, Hussain Ali Khan became Mir Bakhshi
• 1719 — Deposed, blinded, and killed Farrukhsiyar after he tried to assert independence
• 1719 — Installed Rafi ud-Darajat and then Rafi ud-Daulah as puppet emperors (both died within months)
• 1719 — Placed Muhammad Shah on the throne — but he proved more capable than expected
• 1720 — Hussain Ali Khan was murdered at Fatehpur Sikri; Abdullah Khan was defeated in battle and later poisoned in prison (1722)

Their dominance illustrated how completely real power had shifted from the throne to the nobility. Muhammad Shah eliminated them with the crucial help of Nizam-ul-Mulk Asaf Jah, who then became the most powerful noble — but chose to leave Delhi and establish his own independent state in Hyderabad (1724) rather than serve a weak emperor.

UPSC Relevance

Prelims Focus Areas

• Jahangir: Chain of Justice (Zanjir-i-Adl, 60 bells), Nur Jahan's Junta (Dr. Beni Prasad), Sir Thomas Roe (1615–1618), Captain Hawkins (1608), Guru Arjan Dev's execution (1606), Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri
• Shah Jahan: Taj Mahal (1632–1653, Ustad Ahmad Lahori), Red Fort (1638–1648), Peacock Throne (10 million rupees), Shahjahanabad, Jama Masjid (1650–1656)
• Aurangzeb: Jizya reimposed (1679), Fatawa-i-Alamgiri, conquered Bijapur (1686) and Golconda (1687), maximum territorial extent, Jat revolt (1669), Satnami revolt (1672)
• War of Succession: Dara Shikoh translated Upanishads (Sirr-i-Akbar), Battle of Samugarh (1658)
• Rajput alienation: Marwar succession crisis, Durga Das Rathore
• Nadir Shah (1739): Battle of Karnal, Peacock Throne and Koh-i-Noor taken
• Ahmad Shah Abdali: 8–9 invasions, Third Battle of Panipat (1761)
• Sayyid Brothers as kingmakers; four emperors in 1719
• Battle of Plassey (1757), Battle of Buxar (1764)
• Regional powers: Awadh (Saadat Khan, 1722), Bengal (Murshid Quli Khan, 1717), Hyderabad (Nizam-ul-Mulk, 1724)
• Bahadur Shah Zafar: last Mughal, 1857 revolt, exiled to Rangoon

Mains Focus Areas

• Was Aurangzeb solely responsible for the Mughal decline? — structural vs personality factors
• Compare Akbar and Aurangzeb's religious policies — the temple destruction debate (Richard Eaton counts 15 destructions)
• Rajput alienation: how Aurangzeb broke the Rajput-Mughal partnership that sustained the empire since Akbar
• Mughal architecture as a synthesis of Persian, Indian, and Central Asian traditions
• Nadir Shah's invasion (1739) and its impact on Delhi's political landscape
• Rise of regional powers: was it decline or decentralisation?
• The role of the Sayyid Brothers and nobility factionalism in the Mughal collapse
• Mughal art and cultural contributions — did they survive the political decline?

Vocabulary

Decadence

• Pronunciation: /ˈdɛkədəns/
• Definition: A process or period of moral, cultural, or institutional decline and deterioration, often marked by excessive luxury and self-indulgence among the ruling class.
• Origin: From French décadence (early 15th century), from Medieval Latin decadentia ("a falling away, decay"), from decadens, present participle of decadere ("to decay"), combining Latin de- ("down, apart") and cadere ("to fall").

Succession

• Pronunciation: /səkˈsɛʃən/
• Definition: The process or right by which one person follows another into an office, title, or position of power, especially a throne.
• Origin: From Old French succession, from Latin successio ("a following after, a coming into another's place"), from succedere ("to come close after"), combining sub- ("close to") and cedere ("to go"); first attested in English c. 1275–1325.

Fragmentation

• Pronunciation: /ˌfræɡmənˈteɪʃən/
• Definition: The process by which a unified political entity breaks apart into smaller, often competing, independent units or regions.
• Origin: From fragment (from Latin fragmentum, from frangere, "to break") plus the suffix -ation (indicating a process); the noun form entered English in 1842.

Key Terms

Nadir Shah's Invasion

• Pronunciation: /ˈnɑːdɪr ʃɑː/
• Definition: The devastating invasion of Mughal India in 1738–1739 by Nadir Shah, the Afsharid ruler of Persia, culminating in his victory at the Battle of Karnal (24 February 1739), the sack and massacre at Delhi (22 March 1739), and the plunder of the Peacock Throne, Koh-i-Noor diamond, and an estimated 700 million rupees — effectively ending Mughal financial and military power.
• Context: The invasion exposed the complete military collapse of the Mughal Empire; the Hindustani word nadirshahi (meaning catastrophic plunder) entered the language from this event; the loss of the Peacock Throne and Koh-i-Noor diamond symbolised the end of Mughal grandeur.
• UPSC Relevance: GS1 (Medieval/Modern India). Prelims: tested on date (1739), Battle of Karnal, items plundered (Peacock Throne, Koh-i-Noor), and its role in accelerating Mughal decline. Mains: relevant for analysing causes of Mughal decline — the Jagirdari crisis, weak successors, and foreign invasions. Focus on how this invasion created a power vacuum that regional powers and eventually the British exploited.

Battle of Panipat 1761

• Pronunciation: /ˈpɑːnɪpæt/
• Definition: The Third Battle of Panipat (14 January 1761), fought between the Maratha Confederacy under Sadashivrao Bhau and Ahmad Shah Durrani (Abdali) of Afghanistan with Rohilla and Awadh allies, resulting in a devastating Maratha defeat with an estimated 60,000–70,000 killed, which ended Maratha aspirations for pan-Indian dominance though the empire itself survived until 1818.
• Context: Named after Panipat in present-day Haryana, site of three historically decisive battles (1526, 1556, 1761); UPSC 2010 Prelims asked: "What was the immediate reason for Ahmad Shah Abdali to invade India and fight the Third Battle of Panipat?"
• UPSC Relevance: GS1 (Medieval India). Prelims: tested on participants, date (14 January 1761), immediate cause (Maratha expulsion of Abdali's viceroy Timur Shah from Lahore), and consequences for Maratha power. Mains: asked to assess why the Marathas failed to establish pan-Indian dominance despite military successes. Focus on comparing all three Battles of Panipat and the power vacuum created by this battle.

Sources: Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri (Jahangir's autobiography), Khafi Khan — Muntakhab-ul-Lubab, NCERT — Themes in Indian History Part II, Satish Chandra — History of Medieval India (Orient BlackSwan), Jadunath Sarkar — Fall of the Mughal Empire, Richard Eaton — Temple Desecration and Muslim States in Medieval India, Audrey Truschke — Aurangzeb: The Life and Legacy of India's Most Controversial King, Dr. Beni Prasad — History of Jahangir