18th Century Successor

States

UNIT 10 THE MUGHAL STATE

Structure
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Evolution of Theory of Sovereignty
10.3 Imperial Ideology under Akbar
10.4 Nature of State: Various Interpretations
10.5 Decline
10.6 Summary
10.7 Exercises

10.1 INTRODUCTION
We have explained in earlier Units-8 and 9 the nature of polity existing under the
Delhi Sultanate and in the kingdoms that emerged following the decline of the Delhi
Sultanate. In the analysis of state in medieval times the major landmark is the
establishment of the Mughal state by Babur in the early half of the 16th century. The
task initiated by Babur was further carried forward by his successors, particularly
Akbar. The Mughal empire lasted for over two centuries and in the process of its
expansion and consolidation it left a lasting impact on the polity of the Indian
subcontinent. The extraordinary longevity of the Mughal imperial structure and the
control that the emperors developed to rule such a vast empire make it more important
to understand the dynamics of the Mughal state. We have large number of historical
works for understanding the Mughal state. Starting from the writings by early British
writers till recently we come across scholarly debate among historians around whether
the Mughal was a conquest state or a highly centralized bureaucratic empire or a
patrimonial state or a state to be understood in terms of its fiscal management, etc.
In this Unit we will first explain the basis of imperial ideology tracing it from the
central Asian tradition and the innovations made by the Mughal rulers. After this you
will be introduced to the various interpretations on the nature of the Mughal state
and the debates regarding the decline of the Mughal empire. This should help in
making your assessment of the Mughal polity.

10.2 EVOLUTION OF THEORY OF SOVEREIGNTY

After the decline of the Mongol empire in the 14th century Timur, a Chaghtai Turk,
established a large empire covering central Asia, west Asia and parts of south Asia.
The Mughals were the direct descendants of Amir Timur. The Timurids, the Ottomans
in eastern Europe (Turks), the Safavids (in Persia) and later the Mughals in India,
though Islamised did not consider it essential to obtain the formal sanction from the
khalifa whose power was waning. It is interesting to note that although these powers
had gradually been Islamised but their political ideals were not based on purely
Islamic principles. The Timurid polity combined the attributes of the Yassa of Chingez
(Mongol Traditions), Turkish traditions and the principles of shara. Therefore the
Mughal state can be understood by a close examination of the Timurid polity and can
be categorized as an admixture of Islamic, Persian and Turko Mongol practices.
Timur’s empire or the Chaghati Khanate was transformed from a loose structure to
a close knit system which was a blend of divine precepts and Chingez Khanid
decrees. The divine proclamation aspect was given priority over the mundane Chingez
Khanid regulations (partitioning of tribes). The divinity related aspects imparted
legitimacy to the state more than any other type of law or decree. It is argued by
some scholars that the Timurids did adopt the bureaucratic system (largely based on 23
State in Medieval Times Persian traditions) however, their principle of shared sovereignty could lead to partition
and decentralization of empire.
The Mughal state cannot be analysed without an understanding of the Turko-Mongol
theory of kingship. Babur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty in India was related
to the Mongol leader Chingez Khan and Timur the Chaghtai Islamised Turk. Therefore
Babur’s perception portrayed a combination of Turkish, Mongol and Islamic ideals.
The Turks, Persians and Mongols regarded the ruler as holding a status which was
higher than a chief. Myths relating to Chingez Khan’s ancestry point to super natural
aspects of his life by referring to him as son of light. The divine aspects attributed
to Chingez Khan’s lineage and the tremendous respect and veneration his family
enjoyed had enabled the house of Chingez to retain kinghip till the 16th Century.
Thus, sovereignty acquired a hereditary character and was confined to the house of
Chingez not on the basis of mythical traditions but real exploits and achievements
which imparted an exalted status to their house. Even Timur was unable to aspire to
the status of the house of Chingez and therefore he had to remain satisfied with the
modest title of ‘Amir’ or ‘Beg’.
Khan of the Mongols can be contrasted with the khalifa of Islamic state. The khalifa
was basically a religious and political head of the Islamic community or states.
However, the great Khan was a political and warrior leader and thereby his status
as a sovereign was not bound by religious or divine factors. According to Dr. R.P.
Tripathi ‘He was a political sovereign pure and simple’. Though the Great Khan was
an elected leader but this election was devoid of religious overtones. A characteristic
aspect of Mongol polity was that the empire was split among the princes not on a
territorial but a tribal premise. The areas over which the princes had power and
authority were practically their autonomous domain. However, they owed symbolic
allegiance to the Great Khan who ruled in their homeland in Central Asia.
The Malfuzat-I-Timuri (Institutes, Political and Military written originally in Mongol
language by the Great Timur) is an important source material for understanding the
ideals of sovereignty which existed during the period of Timur. This reflects an
amalgamation of Mongol and Islamic ideals. The main focus of Timur’s theory of
sovereignty was the understanding that the positions held in the temporal empire
were in fact a representation of the empire of God. This belief had been revealed to
him by his spiritual teacher. Timur was of the opinion that since there was only one
God therefore the representative of God on earth could be only one. King should not
be influenced by anyone. Power should not be exercised arbitrarily by the king. The
nobles and the officials were to be taken into confidence and respected. But the
King’s resolve was the ultimate solution. The advice of the officials was not binding
upon him.
Timur had imbibed Islamic ideals and therefore his conception of kingship, at least
theoretically, could not be simply political and military. According to the Malfuzt-
I-Timuri through a letter (maktub) Mir Sayyid Sharif bestowed upon Timur a title
depicting him as the champion and reformer of Islam. Here Timur’s name is found
with the names of Ummayid and Abbasid khalifas. It is also mentioned that Timur
read the khutba in his name in the mosque in the manner of some of the earlier
khalifas. An important change took place under the Timurids since the Mongol
practice of splitting the tribes and placing them under the princes. was now replaced
by territorial partition of the empire among the princes. Timur adopted this policy
and this tradition was carried further by his successors.
Abu Said Mirza, the grandfather of Babur, brought about a drastic shift in Timur’s
position. It has already been stated that though the Timurids enjoyed absolute power
in their territorial spheres but they theoretically accepted the suzerainty (though
nominal) of the Great Mongol Khan. Babur’s grandfather pointed out that ‘… the
mandates will be issued in the name of the dynasty (of Timur) because I am Padshah
in my own right’. This challenge to the authority of the Great Mongol Khan was a
24 novel step resorted to by the Timurids. Abu Said Mirza adopted the humble titles of
Sultan and Mirza though he did try to break the hegemony of the Great Mongol Khan. 18th Century Successor
States
It seems that women were not allowed to become sovereign themselves but could
influence state functioning during the minority of princes as their regents. Minority
did not debar a prince from attaining the status of sovereign. Babur and Akbar were
both minors when sovereign status was bestowed upon them. The nobility and the
religious groups were the other categories which enjoyed tremendous respect and
authority in central Asia.
Around 1507 Babur adopted the designation padshah (emperor). He was firmly
established in Kabul. The emergence of Ottomans in eastern Europe, Safavids in
Persia and Shaibanids Uzbeks (Mongol tribe) in central Asia was a major threat to
the authority of the Timurids. The Ottomen Sultan adopted the title of Qaisar, Safavid
of Shah and the Shaibanids called themselves Sultan. In these circumstances taking
cue from his grandfather Babur adopted the title of padshah.
Babur’s religious beliefs did not shape his political outlook which was pragmatic. Dr.
R.P. Tripathi suggests ‘Although he had unbounded faith in the will of God and had
versified the Islamic law for the guidance of his second son, his memoirs do not
show any superstitious and morbid regard either for schoolmen or the details of the
law’. Patrimony, ancestry, heredity were regarded by Babur as the foundation of
sovereignty. His views regarding kingship and sovereignty were spelt out in a letter
he wrote to Humayun in 1529. He suggested that sovereignty was like bondage and
a sovereign could not combine his work with pleasure and rest. He also indicated
that advice should be sought from close associates. With regard to conflict between
Humayun and Kamran although division was advocated but he was of the opinion
that padshahi (sovereign power) should not be split. Babur mentioned that ‘partnership
in rule is a thing unheard of’. It was felt that partitioning of authority was not in
accordance with the ideal of preservation of sovereign power and brought about
problems in the functioning of the state.
The pious caliphs had carved out a special niche for themselves as heads of Islamic
religious and political system. However, the Timurids had never accepted the khalifa
as their suzerain. When Babur invaded India even the semblance of authority of the
khalifa of Egypt had been erased. The authority of the Ottomans (who conquered
Egypt, Syria, Arabia in the 16th century and got the title of Sultan of Rum (Asia
Minor) from the caliph at Cairo and adopted the title of Padshah-i-Isalm) could never
be acceptable to the Timurids as higher.
The accession of Babur and Humayun as the eldest sons established a positive
tradition for the Mughal state. The legitimacy and sanctity which the Mughal Emperors
Babur and Humayun provided to the principles of heredity and especially the faith
reposed in the eldest progeny provided the foundation to the principles of sovereignty
as operational in the Mughal state.
The death of Babur was followed by the accession of Humayun without any conflict
but the problem of dividing the empire among his brothers could not be resolved
easily. The Mughals in India had not acquired a secure foothold and the principle of
partition of empire was applied in these adverse circumstances. The empire had to
counter resistance from several quarters and amidst the problems the issue of division
of empire loomed large over the empire. After Humayun was defeated by Sher Shah,
he decided to go to Badakhshan through Kabul but Kamran (Humayun’s brother) did
not allow him passage on the pretext that it was given to Kamran’s mother by Babur.
Hindal, Humayun’s brother removed Babur’s name from the khutba at Qandahar. In
this situation Babur was made to realize that the principle of division of empire as
an administrative procedure was fraught with many lacunae.
Humayun’s personal beliefs played an important role in the formulation of an ideology
which found articulation in various ways. He was interested in transcendentalism,
astrology and like a devout muslim he regarded the king as the ‘shadow of god on
earth’. He maintained that the sun was the pivot of the physical world and the king 25
State in Medieval Times being comparable to the sun was the focus of the mortal (human) world. He organized
the servants of the state into 12 parts and placed himself at the centre. This philosophy
was derived from the Timurid legacy. Humayun also laid down novel court procedures
and ceremonies which enhanced the status of the monarch. The belief that king was
the shadow of god on earth was manifested in the official history of the period
written by Khwand Mir. The historian refers to Humayun , his majesty the king, the
shadow of god (Hazrat Padshah Zill-i-ilahi). Humayun’s perception of the sovereignty
implied that kingship was the ‘personal property’ of the king which he could confer
on whomsoever he desired. Humayun’s ideas of kingship also incorporated the ideal
of abject submission of the nobles to the will of the padshah. However, in reality
Humayun was not able to command total loyalty and subservience from his nobles.
Although he was regarded as a ‘personification of spiritual and temporal sovereignty’
and the Mughals considered themselves superior to the other contemporary political
powers viz. Uzbeks, Safavids, Ottomans, etc. but the Timurids did not possess a
dynastic and religious ideology to enforce total submission of the populace to the crown.

10.3 IMPERIAL IDEOLOGY UNDER AKBAR

Under Akbar a framework of power and hierarchy was developed buttressed by
symbolic and ritual elements. The rallying together of the nobility including the
military cum civil personnel i.e. the mansabdar-jagirdar category, zamindars especially
the chieftains and the ulema in the state machinery was brought about due to the
sharp acumen of Akbar. He had to combine the task of expansion of territory with
the creation of an administrative structure based on a delicate equilibrium between
the different ethnic, religious and social groups which were accommodated in the
imperial service as mansabdars. This category (military cum civil administrative
elite) became the crux of the administrative system and gave adequate opportunity
to the various ambitious rajas (chiefs), Muslim migrants etc. to rise in social and
economic status. In Block 6 we will separately discuss the organization of nobility
as reflected in the mansabdari and jagirdari system of the Mughals. The elite or
nobility relied upon the Emperor for obtaining a position in the Mughal administrative
system. Remuneration was accorded to those employed in Mughal administrative
system for services rendered by them. The composition of the nobility was based
on a variegated category comprising of various groups viz. Indo-Muslim, Persian,
Brahman, Khatri, Kayastha etc. The khanzads (Muslim sons of the house) who were
related to the Mughals by descent, family and heredity and the Rajputs proved to be
the most trustworthy and reliable props of the Mughal state. The principle of authority
and subordination in a hierarchical pattern was stressed which helped in sustaining
the state in the midst of all kinds of challenges. This was achieved by the formulation
of an imperial ideology under Akbar.

Akbar’s authority was reinforced by a systematic unfolding of a dynastic ideology

by Abul Fazl. This ideology combined the Timurid traditions of hereditary monarchy
and ascribed spiritual status to the emperor through symbols and metaphors. The
emperor could now command unflinching loyalty from his subordinates. In this
respect Akbar’s period represented a major shift from the earlier pattern of division
of empire and of power, which hindered the process of centralization and cohesion.
As mentioned earlier the Mongol appanage tradition was based on the fragmentation
of tribes, which resulted in division of sovereignty and therefore decentralisation.

Abul Fazl’s elucidation of the principle of sovereignty is contained in the copious

Akbarnama which has preserved events for 47 regnal years. It has a huge appendix
in the form of three volumes of Ain-i-Akbari which is regarded as the official manual
and gazetteer. The chapter on rawaiyi rozi in the Ain discusses the theory of kingship
and this allowed Akbar to weaken the hold of the religious elite over political
matters. Abul Fazl’s view regarding kingship is quite clearly demonstrated in this
26 passage from Ain which forms a part of Akbarnama.
‘Kingship is the gift of god, and it is not bestowed till many thousand grand requisites 18th Century Successor
have been gathered together in an individual. Race and wealth and the assembling States
of a mob are not enough for this great position. It is clear to the wise that a few
among the holy qualities (sifat-i-qudsi) are magnanimity, lofty benevolence, wide
capacity, abundant exuberance, exalted understanding, innate graciousness, natural
lineage, justice, rectitude, strenuous labour, proper conduct, profound thoughtfulness,
laudable overlooking and acceptance of excuses….Thanks be to god! The holy
personality of Shahinshah (Akbar) is a fount of perfect qualities and a mine of holy
principles.’

This document was submitted to the Emperor in 1595. It represents a masterpiece

containing not only useful information but decorated with miniature paintings and
calligraphy which enhance its significance. Akbarnama may be placed in the category
of Indo-Islamic court panegyric however more elaborate than many others. This
official chronicle was based on contemporary records, no longer available, and
discussions with contemporary observers and those associated with the contemporary
events. The details mentioned in the work contain an underlying ideology of power
and validity. The eulogy is intended to illustrate covertly or overtly with hyperbolic
tools the personality of Akbar as superior to ordinary men. Abul Fazl tries to
demonstrate that Akbar’s authority over the populace did not emanate merely from
the principles of coercive power, suppression, conquest and force but it was based
on veneration which Akbar’s personality commanded.

The nature of kingship under the previous Indo-muslim rulers was centred on religious
validation. The reading of the khutba in the name of the king and the sanction of the
khalifa were important for the rulers to get acceptance and legitimacy to rule. But
none of the kings before Akbar could lay claim to infallibility. The faultless and the
impeccable qualities of the king put him above ordinary people and as a consequence
close to God and the truth or the ultimate reality. Akbar was perceived as possessing
indescribable brightness and glow, which could be noticed only by men who had
mystical and spiritual leanings. Abul Fazl’s brother, the poet Faizi in his eulogistic
quatrains (rubaiyat) says ‘He (Akbar) is a king on account of his wisdom, we call
zuf unun (possessor of the sciences) and our guide on the path of religion. .....
Although kings are the shadow of god on earth, he is the emanation of god’s light.
How then can we call him a shadow?’

It was considered that Akbar’s mystical and spiritual accomplishments surpassed the
authority and wisdom of interpreters of sharia (Mujtahid of the age), the sufi saint
(pir) or the charismatic saviours (mahdi). According to J.F. Richards ‘Akbar’s assertion
of the right of final judgment between the various interpretations of the sacred law
resulted from his long struggle with the conservative ulema holding state positions
in the 1560s. The final resolution of this appeared in the much discussed testimony
(mahzar) of 1578. This document signed under duress by the chief Qazi and the sadr
of the empire stated that the rank of the sultan is higher in the eyes of God than of
a mujtahid.’
Akbar imbibed in his person lustrous power which had been bestowed upon him by
the creator of the world. Thus Akbar incorporated in his personality the supernatural
and complex traits which shaped his foresight and idealism, the source of his
dominance and authority.
The manuscripts of Akbarnama are adorned with beautiful miniature paintings, the
contribution of artists who had lent support to Abul Fazl in building up the pictoral
image of Akbar which corresponds to his description in the text. The miniature
paintings of Akbar depict him as a divine, forbearing, balanced, enlightened personality
at variance with the vast, undisciplined, unmanageable masses. The techniques used
by the painters do not project flamboyance or grandeur. Simple colours and dress
together with definite, identifiable features (curves, lines etc.) presented Akbar as an
infallible patron who guided his subordinates and subjects. 27
State in Medieval Times Abul Fazl in his Akbarnama devotes several passages explaining Akbar’s lineage
and ancestry. He starts with Adam, the ancestor of mankind and refers to fiftytwo
human generations before illumination dawned upon Akbar. He describes Akbar’s
forefathers as having come from heaven as ‘kings, kings of kings, kingdom bestowers
and king makers (who) governed the world by god-given wisdom and true insight’.
Abul Fazl mentions nine Mughal (or Mongol) kings and Mughal khan, the son of a
Turk, is considered by him as the founder of the dynasty.

Abul Fazl attributes divine origin to Akbar. He gives a fascinating story of the birth
of Akbar and his forefathers. A supernatural light or illumination (divine) was
responsible for the birth of Akbar and his forefathers. The important Turko-Mongol
rulers mentioned by Abul Fazl are Chingiz khan and Amir Timur Gurgan of
Samarkand. He does not speak highly of Chingiz Khan. However Amir Timur is
regarded as the lord of conjunctions of the planets (Sahib Qiran) and the propounder
of Timurid concept of sovereignty which was adopted by his descendants for
legitimizing their power. His conquest of central Asian lands in Balkh, Badakhshan
and Ferghana provided the spring board to his descendants from where they could
extend their rule in other directions. The divine illumination ‘….passed through
generation after generation until the shahinshah of mankind Akbar was born in
1542’.

The Timurid kings (especially Babur) established the tradition of beginning the
dynastic pedigree with Amir Timur. The tughra (engraved iron seals with calligraphy
bearing the Emperor’s titles) and the symbolic gold coins of the dynasty were an
expression of dynastic authority. Abul Fazl describes Babur as ‘the carrier of the
world illuminating light’. Humayun’s failures are projected as predestined and pave
the way for the impending arrival of Akbar. The exaggerations and metaphors applied
by Abul Fazl were drawn from the myth of the origin of the Mongols and the
illuminationist theosophy of Suhrawardi Maqtul, the Persian mystic and philosopher.
Mirza Muhammad Haidar Dughlat’s Tarikh-i-Rashidi is an important source which
Abul Fazl used for his dynastic account of the Mongols. The Tarikh-i-Hukama of
Shamsuddin Muhammad Shahrazuri is an Arabic biography of pre-Muslim and Muslim
mystics and philosophers. This account includes the biography of Shihabuddin
Suhrawardi Maqtul the teacher-philosopher of Shahrazuri who had established the
eastern or Ishraki school of Persian philosophy. The central theme in Ishraki school
of thought is that life and reality is light created by god. Abul Fazl uses the sufi
philosophy for eulogizing the Mughal emperor. Akbar’s esoteric and mystical
knowledge combined both love and strictness and it found clear expression or
manifestation in the doctrine of sulh-i-kul or peace for all. This belief is contained
in the Akbarnama and was not merely meant as a device to bridge the chasm between
the Hindus and the Muslims but it was conceived as a broad ideology of governance
for the imperial power to ease the strained relations between the subjects and the
rulers.

Akbar’s spiritual urge led him to search for a liberal and broad religious order. His
inclination towards sun worship fitted well with the dynastic ideology of the Timurids
which laid stress on illuminating light. This religious aspect of sun adulation found
acceptance among the official personnel, the landed aristocracy (zamindars) and
other local chiefs. Generally Akbar’s religious views have been explained in the
context of their affinity to the Zoroastrian, Sufi, Nath yogic or Brahmanical faith. His
divine faith has been regarded as an amalgamation of a myriad of beliefs and practices.
To understand Akbar’s religious ideas it is important to explain how Akbar deviated
from the conventional Islamic tradition and gave up the public prayer mode and
adopted a rational and reasoning attitude towards religious practices. Sun worship
before a sacrificial fire and the chanting of Sanskrit name for sun, religious discourse
with the mystics and saints of various creed and sect, restraint and self-denial in
social practices were to some extent based on Hindu belief of metempsychosis.
28 Blochmann who has translated the Akbarnama describes Akbar’s religious propensity
as Divine faith which was able to enlist as its followers a number of nobles and 18th Century Successor
courtiers. S.A.A. Rizvi disagrees with Blochmann and feels that the Divine faith States
served a more constructive purpose than simply creating a coterie of Emperor’s
favourites. It was able to mobilize the Imperial Disciples or votaries through the
ideological formula of Emperor’s connection with the sun and light. This methodology
(ideological training) was adopted to create a loyal and sincere group of nobles who
would strengthen the political foundation of the empire. Rizvi refers to four types of
devotion which were meant ‘to unify the new Mughal elite around the …throne.’
The four category of devotion were: the willingness to surrender one’s life (jan),
property (mal), religion (dar), and honour (namus) for the sake of the Emperor.
Babur’s nobility was bound by ethnic, hereditary, family bonds but Akbar was faced
with the problem of unifying the motley group of nobles of varied ethnic background
and religious persuasion. The diverse groups in the nobility had to be appeased and
balanced which could be attained by tying them to the imperial ideology. Emperor
was portrayed as possessing divine attributes. According to Richards ‘Popular
understanding of the Emperor’s assertions of divinely sanctioned ancestry, illumined
wisdom and spirituality clearly permeated among the populace of the court/camp and
other major urban centers of the empire. Ultimately this understanding became so
pervasive that a continuing memory of Akbar’s powers was even absorbed into the
folk culture of rural society within the various regions of the empire.’

It has been pointed out by scholars that Akbar’s administrative and political initiatives
were closely linked to his personal traits or characteristics. Akbar’s public image was
shaped by the contemporary 16th century chroniclers, nobles at court, agents of
mansabdars sent to court, agents of rajas or merchant houses and secret agents of
the regional kingdoms. His approachable and open personality did not deter the
possibility of the creation of the halo of unbridled power. After 1580 when Abul Fazl
became a close associate of Akbar the unrestrained power of Akbar was justified
through an ideology which was a blend of dynastic traditions and religious beliefs
hinged on philosophical principles. Akbar’s decision to establish his capital at Fatehpur
Sikri and the large scale construction activity undertaken in his period was also a
manifestation of his desire to assert his power. The shift of the center of power from
Delhi (under Humayun) to Agra meant that Akbar did not wish to inherit the previous
stronghold of imperial power but desired assertion of a new dynastic authority by
building a new capital. The palace fortresses built by Akbar at Agra, Allahabad,
Lahore, Ajmer and the new capital (Sikri) were manifestations of a new political
order and statement. The choice of Sikri was also related to Akbar’s close association
with the Sufi mystic Shaikh Salim Chisti. Akbar’s capital had the mosque and tomb
(dargah) of the sufi saint the twin symbols of Indian Islam with mystical overtones.
Akbar’s despotism were reflected in the audience chamber (Diwan-i-khas) meant for
limited court audience and (Diwan-i-Aam) Hall of Public audience and the pillar and
platform in the hall of public audience. Mysticism was also a means to impart an
aura of greatness to the Emperor, which further helped in legitimizing imperial
authority. His close relations with Chishtiyya sufi order enhanced his charisma in
political life. Akbar’s esoteric proclivities were an asset in his ideological debates
with the obscurantist ulema. These debates were a pre-requisite to make the state
broad-based. As J.F. Richards points out ‘Thus by 1590 when Abul Fazl began a
systematic affirmation of Akbar’s claim to universal authority in the Akbarnama, he
included an anecdote which indirectly stated Akbar’s superiority over even the most
famed Chistiyya saint’.

10.4 NATURE OF STATE: VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS

Historians have given different interpretations for explaining the nature of the Mughal
state. The theory of sovereignty or kingship has been discussed which is indispensable
for an understanding of the Mughal state. A voluminous collection of historical
works is available on the Mughal state. W.H. Moreland’s study of the agrarian 29
State in Medieval Times system of the Mughals represents a major contribution towards the study of the
Mughal empire. The most important school of historical analysis in so far as the
Mughal state is concerned is the Aligarh school. Historians belonging to this school
have tried to evaluate the state mainly in the context of its economic organization.
According to the scholars belonging to the Aligarh school the main features which
characterized the Mughal state were its monetary (silver rupiya, gold muhr, copper
dam and paisa) and fiscal system, the Mughal ranking system (mansabdari) and
system of revenue assignments (jagirs). The flourishing overseas trade is also
considered as a hallmark of the Mughal period especially the development of ports
such as Surat, Thatta, Goa, Hughli, Balasore and Masulipatnam by historians like
J.F.Richards. According to T. Ray Chaudhury ‘the uncomplicated desire of a small
ruling class for more and more material resources explains most of the Mughal
state’s actions; in the case of the Mughals, he asserts ‘their’ economism was simple,
straight forward and almost palpable…there was no containing it until it collapsed
under the weight of its own contradictions’. A logical inference which can be drawn
from the above mentioned interpretations is that the state obtained the surplus from
the agrarian economy as land revenue which constituted a definite part of the produce
and the revenue demand varied from 1/3 to 1/2 or more of the produce. The essence
of the perspective of the historians like Habib, Raychaudhuri and Richards is that
during the period of Akbar (1556-1605) a cohesive and uniform or standardized
agrarian system came into existence and this view was largely drawn from the earlier
work of the British administrator historian W.H. Moreland. However, Habib’s
postulates are at variance with Moreland’s because of following:
1) The first is apparently the use of Marxist tools of analysis.
2) The second is greater use of Persian sources, Moreland’s application of theory
of Oriental Despotism was replaced by class antagonism, struggle and exploitation
postulate.
Irfan Habib regards the “Zabt system” (method of revenue assessment based on
measurement) which got its final shape in 1580 as the epitome of the unified
administrative system under the Mughals. He points out ‘In 1574-75 Akbar took a
series of important measures, which involved among other things, a new attempt to
work out revenue rates. Information on yields, prices and the area cultivated was
collected for each locality for a period of 10 years; 1570-71 to 1579-80. On the basis
of detailed information the revenue rates were now fixed directly in cash for each
crop. The provinces of Lahore, Multan, Ajmer, Delhi, Agra, Malwa, Allahabad and
Awadh were divided into revenue circles, each with a separate schedule of cash
revenue rates (dastur-ul-amals) for various crops…(These) sanctioned cash rates
were to be applied year after year with such revision only as might be decreed by
the administration in these rates from time to time’. On the basis of the sources of
the period it was suggested by these historians that the zabt system was operational
through the agency of a military cum bureaucratic system in the entire region from
the Indus to Ghagra and state demand fluctuated between one third and half of the
yield. A re-examination of the important contemporary sources on which the argument
is based brings forth certain lacunae in the interpretation of the sources used by the
historians. Ain-i-Akbari of Abul Fazl contains revenue related information in a concise
form. A detailed survey of field is not given. Therefore, on close scrutiny it appears
that the system was not applied to all the territories uniformly. Scholars like Muzaffar
Alam and Sanjay Subrahmanyam point out that towards the close of Akbar’s reign
many subas have no data on arazi (measured) land therefore in about 1600 about one
third of land revenue collection under the Mughals was done by methods other than
zabt. The subas where zabt was implemented were Allahabad, Awadh, Agra, Delhi,
Lahore and Multan. In 1600 in Malwa and Gujarat zabt was not adopted in totality
or even on a large scale and was seldom practiced. In Ajmer too a large portion of
land was with the chieftains who must have adopted methods other than measurement
for revenue fixation. It appears from the above discussion that the analysis of the
Mughal state as one based on uniform and unified administrative apparatus on the
30
basis of the compendium of revenue data of Ain is now being questioned by scholars. 18th Century Successor
The studies on population, urbanization and external trade are all based on the States
interpretation of the concise data given in the Ain and therefore they too are being
scrutinized afresh by scholars. The postulates of the Aligarh school are as follows
:
• They lay stress on the period from Akbar to Aurangzeb (1556-1707). Akbar and
Auranzeb’s reigns are given more importance and Ain-i-Akbari is regarded as
the most reliable source. It is suggested that the Mughal institutions were
established by Akbar, they continued to function under his successors but
developed cracks in Aurangzeb’s period. The pre-Akbar period and the post-
Aurangzeb period are neglected in their historical writings.
• The state is regarded as an extremely centralized and bureaucratized system.
This characterization is explained on the basis of the uniform revenue,
mansabdari/Jagirdari and coinage system etc.
• State is portrayed as an ‘insatiable leviathan’ which levied taxes and appropriated
revenue from the peasantry.
• The parasitic elite of the empire to a large extent consumed the surplus and did
not use it for productive purpose by adopting scientific techniques.
• Ideology is regarded as insignificant for analysis of historical texts and attitude
of various social groups especially the elite.
• Trade is considered relevant only in the context of providing imports for elite
use. The flow of precious metals (bullion) through trade is regarded as a cause
which brought about the price revolution or inflation in the 17th century which
had a negative impact on the economy.
• 18th century is regarded as a period of anarchy and decline especially by Athar
Ali and Irfan Habib. They feel that jagirdari crisis in Aurangzeb’s reign led to
peasant rebellions and anarchy in the 18th century and inflation aggravated the
crisis.
The Central Asian Legacy of the Mughals is not given sufficient emphasis in Mughal
historiography. The majority of writings on the Mughal state mainly lay stress on
two reigns: Akbar (1556-1605) and Aurangzeb (1658-1707). The period of Babur
and Humayun is not paid due attention in historical literature. However, some historians
like S. Nurul Hasan, Simon Digby, Ahsan Raza Khan, Mohibbul Hasan and I. H.
Siddiqi have tried to deal with the institutional structures of Afghan rulers (Lodis
and Surs) and early Mughals (Babur and Humayun). The phase (of Mughal rule)
preceding Akbar’s reign represents a not so well researched period of history just as
the period after 1707 had earlier been regarded in history as a dark period. Historians
regard the mansab and jagir system as the “steel frame” of the Mughal state and
therefore the importance given to Akbar as one who initiated the system and to
Aurangzeb who impaired it is quite logical.
Studies on Mughal institutions have failed to focus on the continuities which existed
between the structures laid down by the Afghans and the Mughals. If such a
comparison is drawn it would be possible to delineate the similarities and contrast
between the Afghan and the Mughal system. It is interesting to note that the Lodi
Afghans believed in the concept of distribution of power and sharing of sovereignty.
Bahlul Lodi in pursuance of the tribal ideas of egalitarianism treated his nobles or
aristocracy as equals. However under Sikandar Lodi the loosely knit conglomeration
of tribal chiefs was made subordinate to the authority of the king without antagonizing
the nobles. This practice was pursued with greater rigor by Ibrahim Lodi who crushed
the power of the nobles and tried to establish indivisible sovereignty, which would
not disturb the unity of the empire. The social and tribal traditions based on
fragmentation of authority and egalitarian clan and kin ties also initially influenced
Afghan polity. However, these had to be set aside for establishing a strong state. The
analysis of Afghan fiscal system by Moreland, Nurul Hasan and I.A. Khan suggests
that the pioneering efforts in the sphere of fiscal and land revenue administration 31
State in Medieval Times were the contribution of Afghan rulers particularly Sher Shah. Reference to rupiya
as a coin is initially found in Sher Shah’s period (1538-45) and the rai (schedule of
crop rates) prepared by Sher Shah was the harbinger of the Mughal revenue reforms.
An important contemporary source material for Sher Shah’s period is Abbas Khan
Sarwani’s Tarikh-i-Sher Shahi written in Akbar’s reign. The territories where zabt
system prevailed in 1600 were those which had been in the possession of the Afghan
leader Sher Shah and the newly annexed territories of Gujarat, Bengal, Berar and
Khandesh continued with their separate revenue system. Another important
contribution of Sher Shah was in the sphere of construction of roads. Sarwani points
out ‘(Sher Shah) built road sarais (rest houses) which commenced from the fort that
he had constructed in the Punjab and it ran upto the town of Sonargaon which lay
situated on the edge of the Bay of Bengal (dariya i-shor). He built another road that
ran from the city of Agra to Burhanpur on the borders of the Deccan. He made
another road which ran from the city of Agra to Jodhpur and Chittor. He then built
still another road with Sarais which ran from the city of Lahore to Multan. In all he
built 1700 sarais on the roads which lay in various regions and in every sarai he built
apartments for both Hindu and Muslims.’ The sarais served as commercial centers
and the road construction activity of Sher Shah played an important role in integrating
the economy of Bengal with other parts in north India. The Afghans state under Sher
Shah was created due to the availability of ‘military labour market’ in the 16th
century India. Loose confederacies comprising of ethnic identities such as Rajput
and Afghans were bound together in a complicated network of alliances which were
necessary for rulers like Sher Shah and Humayun for state formation. The basis of
Sher Shah’s power was the peasant retainer who formed an important part of the
armed contingents. Discipline, proper recruitment, branding of horses, regular pay
and loyalty were the pillars of military power under Sher Shah. The seizure of power
by Sher Shah is attributed to his army organization (consisting of various ethnic
groups viz. Rajputs, zamindars and Afghans) and the subsequent consolidation of
power under him was on account of the organization of the revenue resources of the
territories under his control which provided a regular source of revenue for sustaining
the empire. On the ideological level he kept himself at a distance from ulema and
believed in heterodox eclecticism. Sher Shah’s kingship was not based on horizontal
alliances with Afghan chiefs and other groups but on a vertical hierarchical relationship
between king and the loyal retainers. Treasures he had acquired as soldier/commander
or otherwise also helped him in his political ambition.
Analysing the ideology of the Mughal empire J.F. Richards has pointed out two basic
features:
1) Illuminationist theory (Farr-i-izadi) and the Tauhid-i-ilahi (kind of royal cult).
These formed the crux of the Mughal theory of kingship and sovereignty.
2) This notion of sovereignty made it possible to deviate from the orthodox shariat
principles and also to counter the orthodox ulema.
Kingship continued to be divinely ordained under Jahangir and Shahjahan. Sir Thomas
Roe the emissary from the king of England to the Mughal Emperor Jahangir says that
the latter ‘Falling upon his father’s conceipt, hath dared to enter farther in, and to
professe himselfe for the Mayne of his religion to be a greater Prophett than Mahomett;
and hath formed to himself a new law, mingled of all…’. Mirza Nathan, a khanzada
(Persian noble) served as an imperial mansabdar in Jahangir’s time and made use of
terminology like pir-o-murshid (sufi saint of virtue) and qibla (The western part of
the mosque in front of which prayer is offered). The western part of mosque in front
of which prayer is offerred for Jahangir. This shows that the king’s image was placed
equal to that of a sufi saint.
In Shah Jahan and Jahangir’s period there was a shift in ideology and the ‘divine
faith’ received a setback. Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi, a Naqshbandi sufi saint, tried to
promote Islamic revivalism in Jahangir’s period. He believed that Shariat principles
should be strictly followed. The Naqshbandi, Shattari, Chisti and other sufi sects
32
were resorting to Islamic revivalism and orthodoxy in the period of Jahangir and 18th Century Successor
Shahjahan. Sufi ideology was permeated with orthodoxy and it tried to influence States
politics by enlisting nobles as disciples and encouraging Islamic revivalism.
Growth of fiscal system and expansion of trade was an important characteristic of
the 17th century. An important development which took place in this period was the
growth of the agency of bankers to remit revenue from the provinces to the centre
and the integration into the economic system of the trade related and monetary
aspects. The 17th century was also marked by the involvement of the nobility and the
rulers in commerce and trade. Scholars like Muzaffar Alam and Sanjay Subrahmanyam
are of the opinion that ‘Shahjahan’s trade was part of an implicit bullionist orientation
in Mughal state policy in the period’. As the Dutch Company employee Gerard
Pelgrom writes in 1655, ‘ Were the king not to constrain his subjects to go through
with the said passage with force there would be few or perhaps even no traders to
be found who would willingly risk their goods therewards, all merchants being made
by his majesty by a certain order to send a specified number of packs (of textiles)
perforce to Mokha, even though the king very well knows that the owners will
thereby gain but little interest, trying by these means to keep his view on increasing
the textiles that one made in Gujarat and Hindustan (where most of his subjects live)
and by the same means to bring a considerable sum of Spanish reels and ducats into
his realm, as he otherwise has no gold or silver mines, on account of which it is also
deemed necessary that the Moors continue in this trade, for otherwise the artisans
will be impoverished’. In the period of Jahangir and Shahjahan fiscal dispatches
were conducted through the medium of bankers and hundis (bills of exchange).
These were used for financial transfers although cash transfer (coin and bullion) by
the imperial agents and armed bearers also continued to be practiced.

Many dasturul amals or the revenue documents which were used by historians as
source material and evidence of the centralized character of the Mughal state are
dated to the middle of the 17th century. It needs to be emphasized that Shahjahan’s
and Aurangzeb’s reigns are also noted for the efforts on the part of the imperial
authority to bring more and more land under khalisa. Several changes were introduced
in the time of Shahjahan in the sphere of mansabdari. We have already referred to
the systemic postulate propounded by the Aligarh scholars who feel that the
administrative system (agrarian structure, mansab, jagirdari) was initiated and made
impeccable by Akbar but this has been questioned by other scholars. It seems that
these administrative arrangements developed and grew in the late 16th century and
reflected to some extent a continuation of the earlier institutional arrangements and
ceaselessly evolved into the 17th century. Therefore it is important to stress the
evolutionary aspect with regard to the development of administrative structures. No
single ruler can be credited for perfecting these institutions.

Expansion of agriculture by cutting the forests is an important development of Shah

Jahan’s period as given in the Haqiqat-i-suba-Bihar: ‘from the time of Shah Jahan
it was customary that wood cutter and ploughmen (tabrdaran wa tishadaran wa
qalbaha) used to accompany the troops so that forests might be cleared and land
cultivated. Ploughs used to be donated by the government at the rate of one anna per
bigha in the first year. Chaudharis were appointed to keep the riaya happy with their
considerate behaviour and to populate the country…..There was a general order that
whosoever cleared a forest and brought land under cultivation such land would be
his zamindari’. Thus the period between middle of the 17th and the beginning of 18th
century was notable for the growth of trade, fiscal system and agricultural expansion.

The increasing compilation of dastur ul amals in Shah Jahan’s and Aurangzeb’s

period reflect the greater stress on formalism and emphasis on procedure and propriety
with focus on measurement (by inspection and survey). The Akhbarat (news letters
of the imprerial court) were used as a medium to ensure the smooth communication
between the centre and the provinces. Aurangzeb’s official position is reflected in the 33
State in Medieval Times corpus of royal letters, orders and communication to his officials. The bulky corpus
of views of Arabic legal experts contained in the Fatwa-i-Alamgiri and the farmans
issued to Muhammad Hashim and Rasikdas (Mughal officials) were a clear indication
of Aurangzeb’s efforts to delineate a definite legal procedure (based on Hanafite
law) for the provinces or territories under the Mughals. The ‘canonization’ efforts of
Aurangzeb might have contributed to the insurrections and revolts but the crisis
which took a definite shape in the period of Aurangzeb was also a consequence of
the problems confronting the economic and bureaucratic system and also reflected
the desire of the local and the regional elements for a greater share in political power
and greater autonomy (self determination). The nature of Mughal religio-legal scheme
has to be analysed and the role of the Qazi and the other judicial officials in the
settlement of religious and other types of discord have to be studied. Sharia served
as a reference point (to some extent especially in judicial matters) in governance but
it continued to be interpreted in accordance with the political needs.

R. P. Tripathi suggests that the Afghan polity and the Timurid polity were basically
decentralized. The Mongol features inherent in the Timurid polity especially the
decrees of Chingez Khan laid stress on division of sovereignty through division of
tribes which encouraged creation of an appanage system. This did not allow the
emergence of a bureaucratic system and a strong ruler which were the essential
prerequisites of centralization. It is argued by scholars like I. A. Khan that Humayun
had to contend with the power of the nobility and his brothers but Akbar was able
to avoid this obstacle and adopted the practices of the Turkish rulers of 13-14th
centuries and was able to establish a strong absolutist state. D. Streusand also accepts
this view. However on the basis of recent evidence (Jean Aubin’s work on Timur)
it is suggested that the Timurid polity was transformed from a not so cohesive system
to a tightly knit despotism. This is deduced on the basis of the belief that Timur
based his empire on the combination of divine sanction and Chingez Khanid traditions.
More emphasis was placed on divine aspect which gave legitimacy to despotism.
Streusand contends that the Persian bureaucratic traditions were adopted by the
Timurids which further disproves the decentralized contention of scholars. Sanjay
Subrahmanyam suggests that it is important to study Mirza Hakim’s (Akbar’s half
brother) position and the threat posed to Akbar by him. This would enable us to
understand that succession always posed a problem, whether in Humayun or Akbar’s
case or in the time of Aurangzeb and after his death. Partition and appanaging was
an issue in succession and the idea of ‘linear succession’ could not always be easily
implemented. Scholars feel that partition and appagnage formation tradition counters
the centralization perspective.
Some scholars feel that the institutions which were established under Akbar, paved
the way for centralization. However it is important to note that the jagir or mansab
had their origin in the earlier periods (similar to the wajah of Lodis, tuyul of Babur
and Humayun) and they represented an evolutionary institutional system and were
not the creation of Akbar’s genius. M. Hodgsons’ ‘gun powder empires’ proposition
lays emphasis on the role of fire arms in the establishment of centralized empires like
Mughal. Struesand regards the Mughal state as an admixture of Islamic (at the
center) and Hindu (at the periphery) ideals. This view is quite close to Burton Stein’s
segmentary state theory. It is suggested that though it was centralized in Akbar’s
period, but in the post Akbar period, several factors viz. (crisis in jagir system)
contributed to decentralization.
Stephen Blake analyses the Mughal state as a patrimonial bureaucratic empire. This
concept is borrowed from Weber and applied to the Mughal state. This postulate is
based on the premise that in small states, the ruler governed as if it was his patrimony
or household realm. With the expansion of territory and emergence of large states a
bureaucracy has to be recruited for effective governance. This was the basis of
patrimonial bureaucratic empire.

34
 18th Century Successor
States

Map 4: The Mughal Empire in 1601

Source : An Atlas of the Mughal Empire, Irfan Habib 35

State in Medieval Times Contemporary Europeans like Dutch merchant Francisco Pelsaert (1595-1630) and
French physician Francois Bernier (1620-1688) refer to the Mughal state in the 17th
century as having its own limitations. Bernier refers to the ‘agrarian crisis’ due to
the problems in the jagirdari system. This view was adopted by W. H. Moreland and
later M. Athar Ali and Irfan Habib. The non-existence of private property in land in
this period is mentioned by Bernier. He divided the Mughal state vertically into two
parts: the overarching super structures headed by the Mughal tyrant and the other
part dominated by the native princes placed below the absolute Mughal sovereign.
Recently scholars like Chetan Singh have tried to assess the Mughal state in the
context of the various regions embodied in it. The study of regions enables us to
understand their dynamics separately and helps us to understand the Mughal state
not as a monolithic entity but as a variegated whole comprising of several regions
which had their own peculiarities.
It would be reasonable to assume that the centralized perspective of the historians
needs to be reassessed in the light of researches which have brought forth new ideas
and perspectives on the basis of fresh evidence.

10.5 DECLINE
The decline of the Mughal empire meant the crumbling of the edifice of the state.
Therefore, an analysis of the decline or weakening of the empire would inevitably
mean scrutinizing the degeneration which had crept into the main pillars of the state
system i.e. the agrarian and mansab-jagir system. This would help us to understand
better how the state system functioned and what were its strengths and weaknesses.
A number of eminent historians have tried to understand the process of Mughal
decline through their works. These works - Satish Chandra’s Parties and Politics at
the Mughal Court, Irfan Habib’s Agrarian System of the Mughal Empire, M. Athar
Ali’s The Mughal Nobility under Aurangzeb and N. A. Siddiqi’s Land Revenue
Administration under the Mughals offer a single explanation of this crisis which has
been summed up by P. Hardy as follows:

‘From these works it is possible to draw a diagram of tensions between monarch

(padshah), military or service noble (mansabdar), landholder (zamindar) and peasant
(raiyat) which when maintained in equilibrium were creative of order and stability
but which if allowed to pull free were creative of disorder and impotence. Such a
free pull occurred when the Marathas as zamindars forcibly jerked against the bit of
Mughal control and resisted domestication with the Mughal system. The efforts of
the Mughals to muster the resources in revenue and men to overcome the Marathas
led to strains within the nobility and insupportable pressures upon both zamindar and
peasant who if they did not revolt actively at least resisted the Mughal revenue
collector passively. A combination of over lavish appointments by the emperor and
the military success of the Marathas created a shortage of assignments (jagirs) of
areas of land productive of income for the nobles. Thus resources wherewith to
support the military contingents which were the condition of receiving appointments
were rendered inadequate. Consequently the number and effectiveness of the Mughal
forces fell off and the Mughal military machine (which was essentially an instrument
for the internal military occupation of India) became progressively incapable of
controlling the autochthonus military and rural aristocracy (the zamindars of various
degrees) of the subcontinent’.

M.N. Pearson points out that the link between the Emperor and the imperial mansabdar
(whom he regards as constituting the empire) was based on the victories attained in
wars. The bond of fidelity was not related to ethnicity or religion. He characterizes
the empire as a war state which rested on the basic principles of conquest and
annexation. The attachment between the Emperor and the imperial officers was
personal which led the latter to believe, in Pearson’s words, ‘it was not their empire
36 that was failing it was Aurangzeb’s’.
J.F. Richards is of the opinion that due to the extension of khalisa the land to be 18th Century Successor
assigned in jagir decreased. However he feels that this problem could have been States
overcome by consolidating the southern frontier of the empire. He also argues that
Aurangzeb did not provide backing to or promote the Hindu warrior aristocracy in
the Deccan (Maratha, Gond, Bedar or Telegu chiefs). Earlier traditional interpretations
of decline gave a central place to Aurangzeb’s policies (bigotry) which were regarded
as a reversal of Akbar’s endeavours. Peter Hardy summarises the arguments of
Richards and Pearson as follows: ‘the progressive inability of the dynasty to assure
its agents a competence if not wealth to control the terms of service by those agents
and to control the manner in which the elite extracted the resources of the empire
from the producer so that in the end the dynasty was unable to withstand the Marathas,
Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Abdali’. Hardy suggests that this problem could have
been countered and solved by adopting the model of “Weberian bureaucracy” which
entailed the principles of direct administration and cash payments. The other factors
responsible for weakening the military cum administrative edifice was the difference
between estimated revenue (jama) and revenue actually collected (hasil) and therefore
the inability of the mansabdars to sustain and support the requisite armed contingents.
(The mansabdars were supposed to maintain the specified troops on the basis of the
estimates of revenue (jama). However in actual practice the hasil or actual realisation
was much less.) The economic and administrative crisis posited by the Aligarh
school is acceptable to Pearson and Richards also. This postulate is based on inferences
arrived at after a detailed study of the writings of contemporary writers viz. Abul
Fazl, Mamuri, Bhim Sen and Khafi Khan.

Bermier’s Travels in the Mogul Empire throws light on Shivaji and the Maratha
problem Manucci in his Storia do Mogor, (translated by William Irvine, Vol II,)
portrays the picture of political chaos in Mughal times caused by zamindar rebellions
and the connivance of the Mughal officials in the acts of defiance by local magnates;
Mamuri and Khafi Khan refer to decrease in paibaqi lands (lands to be assigned in
jagir); Bhim Sen narrates the Deccani campaigns and refers to the ‘failure to keep
up the sanctioned strength of their contingents.’

The issue of disintegration of Mughal state as an effect of decreased hasil and the
consequent reduced contingents has to be reassessed in the light of fresh look at the
history of military techniques. It is felt that the Mughals lagged behind the Persians
with regard to innovations in military technology and the lightly equipped armed and
dressed Maratha cavalry proved formidable for the heavy Mughal cavalry. Certain
other insights into the local price situation and an analysis of Aurangzeb’s personality
would help in deducing a more acceptable and convincing approach for characterizing
the decay of the Mughal state.

10.6 SUMMARY
From the above analysis we can summarize that the Tuko-Mongol origin of the
Timurid dynasty had influenced the Mughal idea of empire and concept of kingship.
Babur’s ideas of sovereignty and kingship had direct linkage with the principles of
the tribal Mongol tradition and the Islamic tradition in which he was brought up.
Akbar made innovation in the Mughal theory of sovereignty by introducing a rational
element. M.Athar Ali explains that this rational concept demanded obedience in
fulfilment of a mutual, contractual duty and helped ‘to justify the sovereign’s absolute
claims over the individual subject. The strength of this theory lies in its secular
character on alleged social needs’. The Mughal emperor was the supreme authority
within the empire commanding absolute loyalty of all his subjects. To counterbalance
the threat from the heterogeneous nobility to the imperial authority the Mughals
developed a novel mechanism of checks and balances. In the conflict among the
nobles over sharing of power and agrarian surplus the Mughal emperor ensured his
position as a superior arbiter. 37
State in Medieval Times In analysing the nature of the Mughal state some historians have classified it as a
highly centralized bureaucratic empire. The Aligarh historians have stressed on the
systemic perspective and the fiscal/resource management of the Mughal empire in
order to explain the nature and crisis of the empire. Irfan Habib has used the term
‘medieval Indian system’, a system characterised by the growing tendency of a
highly centralized bureaucratic state apparatus to appropriate the surplus and exploit
the peasantry. While scholars like Blake and Pearson have described the Mughal
authority as essentially personal and patriarchal than despotic. Muzaffar Alam and
Sanjay Subrahmanyam focus on the persistence of differences from region to region
rather than the centrally imposed uniformity as suggested by some historians. Chetan
Singh is also of the opinion of a regionalization of the administrative functionaries
of the Mughal state. Decline of the Mughal empire was not a sudden collapse of the
imperial administrative apparatus, nor an individual ruler could be held responsible
for the crisis, but the crisis in imperial structure because of economic and political
reasons resulted in a shift of political and military power from the centre to regions.
Emergence of successor and other states in the 18th century was the indication of this
declining trend of the imperial polity.

10.7 EXERCISES

1) Analyse the important features of the Mughal theory of sovereignty.

2) Explain the nature of the Mughal state giving references to the views of different
historians.

38