Why did the Mughals fail?

The Mughal Empire, established by Zahiruddin Babur following his decisive triumph at the Battle of Panipat in 1526, experienced continuous expansion under his successors. It attained its maximum territorial extent during the reign of Aurangzeb (1657–1707), when the empire extended from Kashmir in the north to Jinji in the south and from the Hindukush in the west to Chittagong in the east. However, the process of deterioration had already commenced during Aurangzeb’s rule, and his ineffectual successors failed to halt the decline. Paradoxically, the extensive territorial acquisitions under Aurangzeb did not consolidate the empire’s strength; instead, they undermined its structural stability, largely due to his socio-religious policies, which—unlike those of his predecessors—were marked by intolerance and religious orthodoxy.

Following Aurangzeb’s demise in 1707, the empire persistently diminished in scale and degenerated in power. Over the 150-year period from Aurangzeb’s death in 1707 to the deposition of the last Mughal ruler, Bahadur Shah Zafar, in 1857 by the British, twelve emperors ascended the throne. Among them, Muhammad Shah (1719–1748) and Shah Alam (1759–1806) had relatively lengthy reigns, during which the empire endured devastating foreign invasions. The incursions of Nadir Shah in 1739 and Ahmad Shah Abdali—who launched six invasions between 1748 and 1767—severely destabilized the empire. These invasions not only fractured the imperial foundations but also triggered widespread insurrections, uprisings, and secessionist movements by various regional powers.

The causative factors behind the decline of the Mughal Empire can be systematically examined under the following categories:

Aurangzeb’s Responsibility

• Although the territorial extent of the Mughal Empire reached its zenith under Aurangzeb, it bore the characteristics of an overextended and fragile structure, resembling an inflated balloon lacking internal coherence. The empire had grown beyond the scope of manageable governance, and its sheer magnitude served to debilitate the central authority rather than fortify it.
• Aurangzeb’s approach, grounded in religious bigotry, proved counterproductive, instigating widespread discontent across the empire. His reign witnessed a series of uprisings by various socio-political groups, including the Sikhs, Jats, Bundelas, Rajputs, and most notably, the Marathas. His orthodox orientation led him to adhere strictly to Islamic jurisprudence, which had been formulated outside the Indian subcontinent under vastly different socio-cultural conditions, rendering its rigid application unsuitable for the Indian milieu.
• Aurangzeb repeatedly failed to acknowledge the sensitivities of his non-Muslim subjects. His actions, such as enforcing the traditional policy concerning temples and reinstating jizyah (a per capita levy imposed on non-Muslims under Islamic rule), were aligned with religious mandates but failed to unify the Muslim populace or inspire greater allegiance to a state governed by Islamic law. Instead, such policies estranged the Hindu majority and empowered those factions already inclined to resist the Mughal regime for political or ideological reasons.
• Furthermore, Aurangzeb’s misguided strategy of prolonged military engagement in the Deccan region inflicted an irreparable blow to the empire. The campaign, sustained for a prolonged duration of 27 years, exhausted imperial finances and led to the complete depletion of resources. Collectively, these critical missteps by Aurangzeb served as the initiating forces behind the gradual disintegration of the Mughal Empire.

Weak Successors of Aurangzeb

• Given that the Mughal system of governance operated under a despotic framework, it was heavily contingent upon the individual capability of the emperor. Consequently, the emergence of a series of ineffectual successors after Aurangzeb had a detrimental impact on all aspects of imperial administration. Each ruler who ascended the throne post-Aurangzeb exhibited a lack of competence, rendering them incapable of addressing the internal and external challenges faced by the empire.
• Bahadur Shah I (1702–1712), due to his advanced age, failed to uphold the imperial prestige. He pursued a policy of appeasement, indiscriminately distributing titles and rewards in an attempt to satisfy various factions. This led to his being derisively referred to as “Shah-i-Bekhabar” (the uninformed monarch). His successor, Jahandar Shah (1712–1713), was known for his reckless extravagance and general incompetence. Farrukhsiyar, who followed, exhibited traits of cowardice and lacked the resolve required for effective governance. Muhammad Shah, rather than focusing on state affairs, indulged extensively in spectacles such as animal combats, and his life of excess earned him the epithet “Rangeela” due to his indulgence in hedonism.
• Ahmad Shah took this pattern of sensual indulgence even further by significantly enlarging the royal harem, where he reportedly spent extended periods of time, sometimes for weeks or even months. His administrative actions were similarly marked by irrationality and poor judgment. Collectively, these rulers were manifestly unfit to govern a vast and complex empire, and their deficiencies in leadership made the task of managing the expansive Mughal state entirely unattainable.

Degeneration of Mughal Nobility

• A marked decline was also observed in the character and composition of the Mughal nobility. Initially, the nobles who accompanied the Mughals into India exhibited a resilient and disciplined nature. However, prolonged exposure to immense wealth, luxury, and idleness led to the erosion of their martial vigor. Their lives became saturated with opulence, as indicated by their overpopulated harems and abundant access to wine. Many of them even traveled in palanquins to battlefields, highlighting their unsuitability for combat against determined adversaries like the Marathas, Rajputs, and Sikhs. The moral and physical deterioration of the Mughal nobility progressed at an alarmingly rapid pace.
• A fundamental cause behind this degeneration was the transformation of the nobility into a closed elite. Unlike earlier periods, when social mobility and the advancement of meritorious individuals from diverse backgrounds were possible, the later nobility increasingly restricted access to power, reserving state offices for a limited number of hereditary lineages. This exclusivity eroded the administrative competence of the ruling class. Moreover, their unrestrained indulgence in extravagant lifestyles and ostentatious displays of wealth severely weakened their moral discipline and depleted their financial reserves. Many nobles squandered their wealth on maintaining extensive harems, employing large retinues of attendants, and engaging in lavish practices devoid of practical value.
• As a consequence, numerous nobles faced financial ruin, despite controlling extensive Jagirs. For most, dismissal from service or the loss of Jagirs signaled complete economic collapse. This drove many of them to establish cliques and factions, each vying for profitable assignments and territorial grants. Some resorted to exploitative governance, transforming into oppressive rulers who ruthlessly extracted revenue from the peasantry. The nobility, once the backbone of the empire, increasingly became complacent, comfort-seeking, and incapable of effective leadership.
• The Mughal nobility had grown so accustomed to a life of extravagance that even during military expeditions, they could not forgo their luxurious comforts. Their aversion to warfare and inflexible attachment to opulence severely impaired their combat readiness and strategic discipline.
• Additionally, the nobility became deeply corrupt and riddled with factionalism. Through the use of bribes, virtually any government regulation could be bypassed or any desired favour procured. The welfare and stability of the Mughal Empire held little significance for this class. British officials exploited this weakness by regularly offering bribes to Mughal nobles in order to secure official approvals or privileges. Even the highest-ranking dignitaries accepted such bribes, euphemistically referred to as Peshkash or presents, thereby contributing to the administrative degradation of the empire. Over time, the prevalence of bribery and malpractice escalated significantly. In the later stages, some emperors themselves became complicit, taking a share of the funds their favourites extorted under the guise of Peshkash from aspirants seeking government appointments or transfers.
• This deepening culture of corruption was compounded by the unchecked rise of factionalism, which gradually permeated all administrative sectors. Two primary causes of this divisiveness were the competition for Jagirs and personal advancement, and the power struggle between the Wazir (prime minister) and the emperor. These internal rivalries not only weakened the monarchy but also opened the gates for external forces such as the Marathas, Jats, and others to consolidate their power and intervene in court politics. As a result, the emperors were incapable of maintaining a coherent and unified policy.
• By 1715, factionalism had become the most formidable threat to the integrity of Mughal governance. In an attempt to shield themselves from the damaging effects of these courtly disputes, emperors increasingly turned to unqualified favourites, a decision that only served to exacerbate the decline of the imperial structure.

Court Factions

• In the final phase of Aurangzeb’s reign, powerful nobles at the imperial court began organizing themselves into influential pressure blocs. Although these factions were outwardly based on kinship ties or familial affiliations, it was personal ambition and vested interests that primarily governed their formation. These rival factions perpetuated a state of chronic political instability across the empire.
• One of the prominent groups, the Turani faction, was composed of nobles hailing from Transoxiana (Central Asia). During the reign of Muhammad Shah, key figures in this group included Asaf Jah, Nizam-ul-Mulk, Kamruddin, and Zakariya Khan. Opposing them was the Persian faction, led by Amir Khan, Ishaq Khan, and Saadat Khan. Both factions maintained private militias, consisting primarily of recruits from their respective homelands—Central Asia for the Turanis and Persia for the Persians. Collectively, these two groups were referred to as the Mughal or Foreign Party.
• In contrast, the Hindustani faction—whose notable leaders during this period were Sayyid Abdullah Khan and Sayyid Hussain Ali, commonly known as the Sayyid Brothers—enjoyed considerable support from Hindu nobles. The inter-factional rivalry manifested in relentless court intrigues, with each group attempting to influence imperial decisions and discredit the opposing camp by manipulating the emperor’s perception.
• These internal conflicts often escalated into armed confrontations, undermining national stability and disrupting administrative coherence. Even in the face of external threats, these antagonistic factions failed to present a unified front, and in some instances, went so far as to collaborate with invading forces.
• A glaring example of this self-serving opportunism was the behavior of Nizam-ul-Mulk (Kilic Khan) and Burhan-ul-Mulk (Saadat Khan), whose personal ambitions drove them to secretly conspire with Nadir Shah, thereby contributing to one of the most devastating invasions in Mughal history.

Defective Law of Succession

• A notable contributing factor to the decline of the Mughal Empire was the absence of a codified principle of succession, particularly the law of primogeniture—the customary right of the eldest son to inherit the throne to the exclusion of his siblings. In the absence of such a definitive protocol, every Mughal prince regarded himself as equally entitled to ascend the imperial throne and was prepared to wage battle to assert his claim.
• Following the death of Bahadur Shah I, succession disputes became increasingly manipulative, with rival factions exploiting royal claimants as pawns to advance their self-serving political agendas. In the succession crisis of 1712, Zulfikar Khan emerged as a decisive power broker, orchestrating the installation of a ruler in alignment with his factional interests. Subsequently, the Sayyid Brothers assumed the role of king-makers between 1713 and 1720, during which they were instrumental in placing as many as four emperors on the throne.
• After the decline of their influence, other dominant court figures, such as Mir Mohammad Amin and Asaf Jah Nizam-ul-Mulk, assumed similar king-making roles, continuing the pattern of political manipulation that destabilized the imperial structure. This persistent lack of a clear and accepted succession framework led to continuous power struggles, undermined the legitimacy of imperial authority, and accelerated the disintegration of the Mughal state.

The Rise of the Marathas

• Another crucial factor contributing to the decline of the Mughal Empire was the ascendancy of the Marathas under the leadership of the Peshwas. Initially consolidating their authority in Western India, the Marathas soon began to formulate ambitious plans for the establishment of a Hindu-Pad Padshahi, or a Greater Maharashtra Empire. However, the realization of this vision necessitated the erosion of Mughal authority, making the Maratha rise a direct threat to imperial dominance. Every territorial gain made by the Marathas corresponded to a strategic loss for the Mughals.
• By the mid-eighteenth century, the Marathas had emerged as the preeminent military force in Northern India. They actively engaged in Delhi’s court politics, assuming the role of king-makers, and positioned themselves as the defenders of the Indian subcontinent against foreign aggressors, notably Ahmad Shah Abdali. Although the Marathas ultimately did not succeed in achieving their grand objective, their expansive campaigns across Northern India during the 18th century delivered a crippling blow to the already fragile Mughal Empire.
• The inability of successive Mughal emperors to accommodate Maratha aspirations within the imperial structure, combined with their failure to incorporate Maratha leaders into a composite aristocracy, proved to be a decisive misstep. This breakdown in political integration disrupted the formation of a unified ruling class in India. The consequent ramifications were far-reaching, affecting court politics, national administration, and particularly the security of the north-western frontiers, which became increasingly vulnerable to external invasions and internal disarray.

Military Weaknesses

• An additional pivotal factor behind the decline of the Mughal Empire was the progressive deterioration and demoralization within the imperial military apparatus. The vast wealth of India and the prevalence of luxurious indulgences—notably the widespread use of wine and excessive comfort—had a profoundly corrupting influence on the discipline and efficiency of the Mughal Army. Regrettably, no substantive measures were taken to arrest this decline in martial integrity. Soldiers became increasingly preoccupied with personal convenience, exhibiting diminished interest in strategic success or combat victory.
• A multitude of military flaws plagued the degenerate Mughal forces, including rampant indiscipline, entrenched luxurious lifestyles, prolonged inactivity, a disorganized commissariat, and cumbersome logistical equipment. These deficiencies severely compromised operational capability.
• The inability of the Mughal military to perform effectively was publicly exposed when the empire failed to reclaim Qandhar, despite launching three determined campaigns. The situation reached a catastrophic nadir in 1739, when Nadir Shah not only looted Delhi extensively but also orchestrated a brutal massacre of civilians. The absence of any effective resistance or intervention from the Mughal ruler during this national humiliation revealed the complete impotence of the imperial establishment. Such failure led to a loss of moral legitimacy, as a sovereign unable to protect his subjects or maintain public order forfeits the right to command loyalty.
• The Mughal administration, essentially a police-based regime, ultimately failed in ensuring both internal stability and external defense. This breakdown in state functionality led to the erosion of public confidence and a complete loss of reverence for the imperial government.

The Demoralization of the Army

• The moral and structural collapse of the Mughal Army constituted one of the principal causes behind the fragmentation of the empire. At the root of this military deterioration lay the composition of the armed forces, which were primarily made up of contingents funded by powerful nobles through revenues derived from land assignments granted specifically for that purpose. As the central authority weakened, these nobles increasingly began to appropriate such assignments as their personal entitlements, using them to maintain private forces rather than imperial troops.
• This shift led to a progressive breakdown of discipline and cohesion, reducing the army to a disorderly mass rather than a coherent fighting force. Military drill and systematic training were virtually nonexistent. A soldier’s instruction, if undertaken at all, consisted merely of rudimentary physical conditioning and personal practice with his assigned weapons. Participation in guard duty was left to the individual’s discretion, and there were no consistent penalties imposed for acts of military indiscipline or misconduct.
• Even during critical engagements, instances of treason, cowardice, and wilful neglect of duty before the enemy went unpunished. Notably, Aurangzeb himself, despite his otherwise rigid orthodoxy, often ignored serious breaches of military protocol, treating them as routine matters rather than grave offences. This absence of accountability, coupled with lax command structures, contributed significantly to the disintegration of the Mughal military, and by extension, to the ultimate collapse of the empire.

Obsolescence of the Mughal Military System

• A critical shortcoming of the Mughal military system was its outdated weaponry and archaic warfare techniques. The empire placed excessive reliance on artillery units and heavily armored cavalry, both of which had become inefficient in the context of evolving military strategy. The Mughal artillery, while formidable in isolated engagements, was limited in range and cumbersome to mobilize. This inefficiency was exacerbated by the massive logistical tail of the army, which resembled a moving city, complete with marketplaces, tents, supply depots, and vast stores of baggage.
• The Mughal military entourage included not only combatants but also non-combatants, such as women, elderly individuals, and children, alongside elephants, livestock, and various beasts of burden. This burdensome and unwieldy caravan rendered the army immobile and vulnerable, particularly in contrast to more agile adversaries.
• In stark contrast, the Maratha cavalry was characterized by its agility and tactical unpredictability. Comparable to the force and swiftness of the wind, Maratha horsemen frequently executed sudden raids on Mughal encampments, launching high-impact assaults on key positions. Before Mughal forces could reorganize or mount an effective response, the Marathas, likened to water parting and swiftly closing behind an oar, would engulf and overpower their opponents.
• By the dawn of the 18th century, significant advancements in firearm technology, particularly musketry, had transformed the nature of warfare. The emergence of light cavalry composed of highly mobile matchlock troops proved vastly superior to the Mughals’ cumbersome artillery divisions and heavily armored riders. Yet, the Mughal leadership remained unwilling to adapt, clinging to obsolete strategies and ineffective battlefield tactics. This resistance to innovation inevitably led to defeat at the hands of the Marathas, who had fully embraced modern, mobile combat doctrines.

Economic Bankruptcy

• Following the death of Aurangzeb, the Mughal Empire plunged into a state of severe financial insolvency. The onset of this economic decline had already commenced during Aurangzeb’s reign and was further exacerbated after his demise. In a desperate attempt to manage fiscal shortfalls, the state resorted to tax farming—a practice wherein the responsibility of collecting revenue was transferred to private agents or consortiums. While this arrangement failed to yield substantial revenue for the imperial treasury, it devastated the agrarian population, as they were subjected to exorbitant taxation, leading to the complete erosion of their productive motivation.
• Under Shah Jahan, the state’s demand for agricultural output had risen sharply, reaching one-half of the total produce, thereby placing an immense burden on cultivators. Moreover, his lavish architectural endeavors, while monumental in aesthetic value, placed crippling stress on the country’s economic foundation. The situation was further aggravated by the corruption of officials and the arbitrary tyranny of provincial governors, which inflicted misery upon the peasantry, who were left without effective mechanisms for redress.
• Aurangzeb’s prolonged military campaign in the Deccan nearly bankrupted the imperial treasury and also inflicted irreparable damage to the region’s commerce and industry. The relentless movement of the Mughal army devastated agricultural fields, as imperial beasts of burden consumed standing crops and trampled green pastures. Complaints lodged with the emperor were largely disregarded, owing to the dire fiscal constraints faced by the state.
• What little remained of the region’s economic infrastructure was subsequently ravaged by Maratha incursions. Maratha cavalry units frequently fed their horses on cultivated crops, and their soldiers plundered and destroyed properties deemed too cumbersome to transport. As a result, peasants, now dispossessed and destitute, began abandoning agriculture altogether, turning instead to plunder and highway robbery as a means of survival. This widespread agrarian collapse significantly contributed to the economic and administrative breakdown of the Mughal Empire.
• As the Mughal Empire weakened under the later emperors, an increasing number of provinces declared autonomy, severing financial ties with the central government and discontinuing revenue contributions. This fragmentation coincided with a series of successive wars of succession, political upheavals, and the extravagant lifestyles maintained by the emperors—all of which culminated in the exhaustion of the royal treasury. The fiscal collapse reached its nadir during the reign of Alamgir II, a period marked by extreme deprivation and institutional decay.
• The situation became so dire that the imperial government was unable to disburse regular salaries to its soldiers, further undermining military morale and state stability. Alamgir II himself suffered personal indignities as a result of this economic deterioration. His Wazir, Imad-ul-Mulk, wielded unchecked power, to the extent that the emperor was reportedly deprived of basic necessities. Contemporary accounts suggest that Alamgir II was denied access to a proper conveyance for official religious observances and was compelled to walk on foot to the Idgah, a humiliating symbol of the imperial decline and the erosion of centralized authority.

Nature of the Mughal State

• The administrative structure of the Mughal Empire functioned primarily as a police state, with its central focus limited to the preservation of internal stability, defense against external threats, and efficient revenue collection. Its scope did not extend meaningfully into social integration or nation-building beyond these basic administrative priorities.
• A critical failure of the Mughal regime was its inability to forge a cohesive national identity by integrating the Hindu and Muslim communities. While Akbar had made notable strides toward promoting religious inclusivity and fostering unity, these progressive efforts were systematically undermined by the sectarian policies of Aurangzeb and the ineffectual leadership of his successors. The reversal of Akbar’s conciliatory vision led to a deepening of religious and cultural divisions within the empire.
• As a result, many indigenous rulers and chieftains perceived the Mughal sovereigns as foreign occupiers and viewed their administration as hostile to Indian traditions and the Hindu faith. This widespread sentiment provided the Marathas, Rajputs, and other regional powers with the justification and momentum they needed to assert their autonomy and challenge Mughal supremacy. Thus, the failure to cultivate a composite national framework significantly contributed to the decline of imperial authority and the eventual fragmentation of the Mughal state.

Invasion of Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Abdali

• The invasion of Nadir Shah in 1739 delivered a fatal blow to the already deteriorating Mughal Empire. Beyond the massive plundering of the imperial treasury, the assault publicly exposed the military vulnerability and the complete institutional decay of the Mughal state. The aura of imperial invincibility, which had for long kept restive elements across the empire in check, evaporated instantly, leading to a surge in rebellion and regional defiance.
• The situation was further aggravated by the successive invasions of Ahmad Shah Abdali, the successor of Nadir Shah, who repeatedly invaded India and ultimately annexed key frontier territories, including Punjab, Sindh, and Kashmir. By this stage, the Mughal Empire’s territorial control had shrunk so drastically that, by 1761, Abdali’s decisive engagement—the Third Battle of Panipat—was not against the Mughal forces, but against the Marathas, who had become the de facto rulers of Northern India.
• Following the battle, between 1761 and 1772, a quasi-Afghan regime was established in Delhi under the influence of Najib-ud-Daula, marking a period of foreign dominance in the imperial capital. This symbolic loss of sovereignty, wherein Mughals retained only nominal authority, reflected the terminal phase of the empire’s decline, as foreign powers, regional forces, and military usurpers displaced any semblance of centralized Mughal governance.

Coming of the Europeans

• The erosion of central authority within the Mughal Empire during the 18th century created a political vacuum that gave rise to warlordism across various regions. Seizing this opportunity, European trading companies, particularly the English East India Company, began to assert themselves as regional powers, functioning in many respects as military warlords amidst the prevailing instability.
• These European entities, most notably the British, surpassed Indian rulers in key domains such as trade, strategic diplomacy, and military operations. The superior organization, resources, and tactical acumen of the English East India Company enabled it to achieve decisive territorial gains, which effectively nullified any prospect of a Mughal resurgence.
• The Battle of Plassey marked a turning point, as British forces began expanding their dominion both in the Deccan Plateau and the Gangetic Plains. Over time, the systematic consolidation of British control across the subcontinent culminated in the establishment of complete colonial dominance. This uninterrupted expansion ensured that the possibility of reviving the Mughal Empire was permanently extinguished, as imperial authority was irreversibly supplanted by a foreign colonial regime.

FAQs