Modern History Playlist
19 chapters • 0 completed
1
Advent of Europeans in India
9 topics
2
Decline of the Mughal Empire
7 topics
3
Emergence of Regional States
11 topics
4
Expansion and Consolidation of British Power
19 topics
5
British Government & Economic Policies (1757–1857)
4 topics
6
Social Reform Movements
20 topics
7
People’s Resistance before 1857
3 topics
8
The revolt of 1857
6 topics
9
Growth of Nationalism and Moderate Phase of Congress
6 topics
10
British Administration in India
7 topics
11
Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909)
5 topics
12
First Phase of Revolutionary Activities(1907-1917)
8 topics
13
India’s Response to First World War and Home Rule Movement
4 topics
14
Emergence of Gandhi
6 topics
15
Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat Movement
7 topics
16
Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities
5 topics
17
Struggle For Swaraj: 1928-1935
13 topics
18
Period from 1935-42
9 topics
19
Period from 1942-47
22 topics
Progress
0% complete
Chapter 2: Decline of the Mughal Empire
Chapter Test7 topics•Estimated reading: 21 minutes
Causes of Decline
Key Point
Aurangzeb’s over-extension, weak successors, economic crisis, and rise of regional powers led to Mughal decline.
Aurangzeb’s over-extension, weak successors, economic crisis, and rise of regional powers led to Mughal decline.
Detailed Notes (10 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Aurangzeb’s long Deccan campaigns (1680–1707) drained the imperial treasury, caused heavy military expenditure and diverted attention from the north; prolonged campaigning weakened central authority.
Overextension of military commitments led to difficulty in maintaining garrisons and administrative control across vast territories.
Religious policies and perceived intolerance under Aurangzeb alienated important elites and large segments of the population (Hindus, Rajputs, Sikhs), undermining social cohesion.
Weak and short-lived successors after Aurangzeb produced palace factionalism; nobles (misls, powerful amirs) dominated politics and often made and unmade emperors.
Jagirdari and mansabdari systems degenerated: zamindars and jagirdars sublet rights, collected excessive revenue, and absenteeism increased—leading to administrative inefficiency and localised corruption.
Agrarian distress from heavy revenue demands, combined with natural calamities and breakdown of effective policing, produced peasant unrest and banditry in many regions.
Rise of regional powers (Marathas, Sikhs, Nizams, Awadh, Bengal Nawabs) filled administrative and military vacuums and created competing centres of authority.
Repeated foreign invasions (Nadir Shah 1739; Ahmad Shah Abdali mid-18th century) humiliated the empire, caused large-scale looting, and caused loss of confidence in imperial protection.
Economic decline: disruption of trade routes, decline in urban artisanal production in some regions, and loss of revenue base eroded the Mughal fiscal capacity.
European companies exploited political fragmentation—commercial privileges, military alliances and eventually territorial gains accelerated the process of imperial contraction.
Key Causes of Mughal Decline
| Cause | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Military Overstretch | Deccan wars exhausted resources |
| Weak Successors | Later Mughals lacked authority |
| Economic Breakdown | Jagirdari crisis, peasant unrest |
| Rise of Regional Powers | Marathas, Sikhs, Rajputs, Nawabs |
| Foreign Invasions | Nadir Shah (1739), Abdali (1761) |
| European Factor | British and French interference |
Fun Facts
The Peacock Throne and the Kohinoor were taken by Nadir Shah in 1739 — symbolic blows to Mughal prestige.
The breakdown of mansabdari/jagirdari systems often meant local zamindars acted as semi-autonomous powerbrokers.
Mains Key Points
Analyse how military overreach, fiscal strain and administrative decay combined to weaken Mughal central authority.
Discuss the role of regional polities and foreign invasions in converting political fragmentation into permanent loss of imperial control.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Connect Aurangzeb’s Deccan campaigns (1680–1707) with fiscal strain and political decentralisation.
Remember Nadir Shah (1739) and Third Battle of Panipat (1761) as key external shocks.
Later Mughal Rulers (1707–1857)
Key Point
From Bahadur Shah I (1707) to Bahadur Shah II (1857), most emperors were weak, short-lived, and dependent on nobles.
From Bahadur Shah I (1707) to Bahadur Shah II (1857), most emperors were weak, short-lived, and dependent on nobles.
Detailed Notes (9 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Bahadur Shah I (1707–1712): Attempted conciliation with Rajputs and other elites but lacked resources to restore centralized control; faced revolts and noble dissent.
Jahandar Shah (1712–1713): Short reign dominated by powerful nobles; his weakness highlighted the increasing role of kingmakers.
Farrukhsiyar (1713–1719): Real power rested with the Sayyid Brothers; his 1717 Farman granted British merchants duty-free trade in Bengal—an early concession with long-term consequences.
Muhammad Shah Rangeela (1719–1748): Long reign but saw decay in military effectiveness and the devastating sack of Delhi by Nadir Shah (1739).
Ahmad Shah (1748–1754) and Alamgir II (1754–1759): Periods of continued noble dominance, assassinations and territorial losses.
Shah Alam II (1759–1806): Defeated at Buxar (1764), lost political control; Treaty of Allahabad (1765) formalised Company influence in revenue matters of Bengal.
Akbar Shah II (1806–1837): Symbolic monarch under increasing British supervision; pensions and ceremonial roles replaced real power.
Bahadur Shah II (Zafar) (1837–1857): Last Mughal—reduced to titular role; became the symbolic leader of 1857 revolt and was exiled to Rangoon after its failure.
Common pattern: emperors became dependent on regional allies and European powers, lacked direct control over revenue and military recruitment.
Later Mughal Emperors
| Ruler | Reign | Key Events |
|---|---|---|
| Bahadur Shah I | 1707–1712 | Conciliation attempts with Rajputs, Sikhs |
| Jahandar Shah | 1712–1713 | Killed after one year |
| Farrukhsiyar | 1713–1719 | 1717 Farman to British |
| Muhammad Shah Rangeela | 1719–1748 | Nadir Shah invasion (1739) |
| Ahmad Shah | 1748–1754 | Weak ruler, lost territories |
| Alamgir II | 1754–1759 | Assassinated |
| Shah Alam II | 1759–1806 | Defeated at Buxar, Treaty of Allahabad |
| Akbar Shah II | 1806–1837 | British dominance complete |
| Bahadur Shah II (Zafar) | 1837–1857 | Last Mughal, exiled after 1857 |
Fun Facts
Farrukhsiyar’s reign shows how kingmakers (Sayyid Brothers) could control emperors.
Bahadur Shah Zafar was a poet as well as the last Mughal emperor — his exile in 1858 symbolised the end of an era.
Mains Key Points
Explain how succession struggles and the dominance of powerful nobles eroded Mughal sovereignty during the 18th century.
Assess the ways in which Company interventions (trade concessions, military alliances) converted Mughal decline into colonial opportunity.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Remember the 1717 Farman (Farrukhsiyar) as an early British commercial concession.
Link Treaty of Allahabad (1765) with Shah Alam II and Company’s diwani rights.
Rise of Regional States
Key Point
Marathas, Sikhs, Rajputs, and autonomous Nawabs filled the vacuum after Mughal decline.
Marathas, Sikhs, Rajputs, and autonomous Nawabs filled the vacuum after Mughal decline.
Detailed Notes (7 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Marathas: From Shivaji’s guerrilla kingdom to the Peshwa-led confederacy, Marathas expanded territorially, extracted chauth and sardeshmukhi, and became the principal challengers to Mughal authority across central and northern India.
Sikhs: Under Guru Gobind Singh and later leaders, Sikh misls consolidated power in Punjab; Ranjit Singh later formed a centralized Sikh Empire that resisted both Afghan invasions and later negotiated with the British.
Awadh (Oudh): Founded by Saadat Khan (1722), Awadh became a wealthy, semi-autonomous state with its own administrative and cultural institutions and played a major role in north Indian politics.
Hyderabad: Asaf Jahi dynasty (Nizam-ul-Mulk, 1724) carved out a powerful Deccan state with a distinct administrative setup and later treaties with the British.
Bengal: Murshid Quli Khan’s reforms made Bengal prosperous; autonomous Nawabs of Bengal wielded fiscal power until Plassey (1757) altered its fate.
Rajputs and smaller states: Many Rajput states asserted local autonomy—some allied with Mughals while others leveraged European alliances for their goals.
Collectively, these regional powers changed the political map from centralized Mughal rule to a patchwork of competing states.
Major Regional Powers
| Region/State | Leader/Founder | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Marathas | Shivaji, later Peshwas | Expanded across India, checked by Abdali (1761) |
| Punjab | Guru Gobind Singh, Banda Bahadur, later Ranjit Singh | Sikh Confederacy & Empire |
| Awadh | Saadat Khan (1722) | Wealthy nawabdom, semi-independent |
| Hyderabad | Nizam-ul-Mulk (1724) | Established Asaf Jahi dynasty |
| Bengal | Murshid Quli Khan | Prosperous region, later Plassey (1757) |
| Rajputs | Ajit Singh of Marwar, Sawai Jai Singh of Amber | Asserted autonomy but some allied with Mughals |
Fun Facts
The Maratha Confederacy was not a unitary state but a collection of semi-independent chiefs under the Peshwa.
Serampore (a Danish post) later became an important centre for Christian missionary education in Bengal.
Mains Key Points
Examine how regional polities (Marathas, Sikhs, Awadh, Hyderabad) exploited Mughal weaknesses to build alternative state structures.
Discuss the varying administrative and military models adopted by these states and their implications for 18th–19th century Indian politics.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Associate Maratha revenue practices (chauth) with their political expansion.
Remember Ranjit Singh as the unifier of Punjab in the early 19th century.
Foreign Invasions
Key Point
Nadir Shah (1739) and Ahmad Shah Abdali (1748–1767) devastated Mughal prestige and economy.
Nadir Shah (1739) and Ahmad Shah Abdali (1748–1767) devastated Mughal prestige and economy.
Detailed Notes (5 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
1739: Nadir Shah of Persia defeated Muhammad Shah at the Battle of Karnal, marched into Delhi, and carried off enormous plunder (including Peacock Throne and the Kohinoor), devastating imperial prestige and treasury.
Nadir Shah’s invasion exposed the military weakness of the Mughal state and accelerated fiscal breakdown due to loot and disrupted administration.
Ahmad Shah Abdali (Ahmad Shah Durrani) launched repeated invasions (1748–1767); his forces defeated Marathas at Third Battle of Panipat (1761), causing huge loss of life and destabilising north Indian politics.
These invasions weakened central authority, emboldened regional rulers and made large tracts vulnerable to plunder and shifting alliances.
European powers observed and exploited this instability—offering military assistance to local rulers and securing trading privileges.
Key Foreign Invasions
| Invasion | Year | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Nadir Shah | 1739 | Battle of Karnal; looted Delhi, Peacock Throne taken |
| Ahmad Shah Abdali | 1761 | Third Battle of Panipat; halted Maratha expansion |
Fun Facts
The Kohinoor diamond—later a contested symbol—left India with Nadir Shah and changed hands multiple times thereafter.
Mains Key Points
Assess the strategic and fiscal impacts of Nadir Shah and Abdali invasions on Mughal administrative capacity.
Discuss how these invasions altered regional alliances and accelerated the decline of centralised Mughal rule.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Link Karnal (1739) with Nadir Shah and loot of Delhi; link Panipat III (1761) with Abdali and Maratha setback.
Socio-Economic Factors
Key Point
Agrarian crisis, jagirdari corruption, rising taxes, and peasant revolts accelerated decline.
Agrarian crisis, jagirdari corruption, rising taxes, and peasant revolts accelerated decline.
Detailed Notes (6 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Collapse or corruption in jagirdari and mansabdari systems led to absenteeism, reduced land productivity and arbitrary tax extraction by intermediaries.
Heavy revenue demands to fund continuous warfare forced many peasants to abandon cultivation or fall into debt, provoking agrarian unrest (e.g., Jat uprisings, other local revolts).
Degradation of law-and-order: unpaid soldiers and disbanded mercenaries often turned to plunder and raiding, further destabilising countryside and trade routes.
Decline of urban artisanry in some regions due to competition with cheaper imported European goods affected livelihoods and reduced urban tax base.
Disruption of traditional credit and market networks reduced rural resilience during famines and price shocks.
Fiscal weakness limited the emperor’s ability to maintain infrastructure (roads, canals) and administrative reach—creating a vicious circle of decline.
Fun Facts
Local revenue intermediaries (zamindars) sometimes functioned like mini-states, collecting taxes and maintaining private militias.
Mains Key Points
Critically evaluate the argument that socio-economic breakdown (agrarian distress, administrative corruption) was more decisive than military defeats in precipitating Mughal decline.
Discuss policy failures and institutional decay that prevented effective recovery of imperial authority.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Link jagirdari/mansabdari collapse with rise in peasant unrest and banditry.
Know examples of agrarian resistance (e.g., Jat uprisings) as symptoms of socio-economic stress.
Legacy of Decline
Key Point
Mughal decline led to regionalism, European expansion, and rise of British paramountcy.
Mughal decline led to regionalism, European expansion, and rise of British paramountcy.
Detailed Notes (5 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Political legacy: fragmentation produced multiple centres of power and a reconfigured political map that the British would later exploit through diplomacy and warfare.
Administrative legacy: breakdown of centralized revenue-administration led to experimentation with new land revenue systems (Permanent Settlement, Ryotwari, Mahalwari) under Company rule.
Economic legacy: some regions integrated into global markets while others experienced long-term stagnation; changing commodity patterns affected social structures.
Cultural legacy: Mughal art, architecture and court culture continued to influence regional courts; Persianate norms persisted though political power waned.
1857 marked the final end of the dynasty—Bahadur Shah Zafar’s exile removed the last symbolic claim to pan-Indian sovereignty and cleared way for direct British Crown rule (1858).
Fun Facts
Many elements of Mughal court culture (language, art, cuisine) persisted long after political power declined.
Some regional dynasties retained Mughal-style titles and rituals to claim legitimacy.
Mains Key Points
Evaluate how Mughal decline reorganised power structures in South Asia and paved the way for colonial rule.
Discuss continuities in cultural and administrative practices despite political disintegration.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Connect Mughal decline with the rise of Company rule and 1857 as the formal end-point of Mughal sovereignty.
Remember administrative outcomes: Permanent Settlement (Bengal) and Ryotwari/Mahalwari experiments as legacies.
MCQs
Fun Facts
Some regional rulers continued to use Mughal titulature to legitimise their authority even after central power waned.
Mains Key Points
Prepare short notes on causes (military, administrative, socio-economic), foreign invasions and the rise of regional polities—then link these to Company expansion for a full-scope answer.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Remember key dates: Aurangzeb’s campaigns (1680–1707), Nadir Shah (1739), Panipat III (1761), Diwani/Allahabad (1765).
Chapter Complete!
Ready to move to the next chapter?