AURANGZEB RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DECLINE OF MUGHAL EMPIRE IN INDIA

The Mughal empire, one of the mightiest and largest empire in the world began to decline since the first half of the 18th century. There are divergence opinions with the regards to the downfall of the Mughal empire. To some, Aurangzeb was the main responsible for the downfall, where as other argued that no individual rulers could be held responsible for the downfall of the Mughal empire. Thus, there can be of various factors attributed for the downfall. In fact, the process of decay had began from the time of Aurangzeb.


Aurangzeb had often been labeled as a stern administrator who neither spared himself nor those close to him. Unlike his predecessors, Aurangzeb did not believe in holding discussion with his nobles. He attempts to utilized the Ulema and through them to rally the support of the Muslims was even less successful. His fanaticism towards the Islamic law and his intolerance towards other faiths did not help him to rally the Muslim to his side or generate a greater sense of loyalty towards a state based on Islamic law. On the other hand, it alienated segment of the Hindus and strengthened the hands of these sections which were opposed to the Mughal empire.

For many historians, Aurangzeb's religious policy was the reasons for the weakness of the Mughal empire. As an orthodox Muslim, he tried to remain broadly within the framework of Sharia law. He persecuted not only the Hindus but also the Shia Muslims. Many scholars believed that his campaign against the Deccan state was his attitude against the Shia states of Bijapur and Golconda. His policy of religious persecution of the Hindus, who formed the bulk of the population of the country contribute another factors. He re-imposed the most hated Jizya, pilgrim tax and trade tax on Hindu subjects, destroyed their temples along with their gods and goddesses. Besides, Aurangzeb distrust the loyalty of the Rajput and he persecuted the Sikhs. As a consequences, the Rajputs, the Sikhs, the Jats and the Marathas were roused against the Mughal rule.


The unending war in Deccan brought to the surface all the inherent weakness of the Mughal administrative system. His inability to solve the Deccan problem proves bankruptcy of the imperial treasury. He failed to understand the true nature of the Maratha movement and fail to unite the Deccan state against the Marathas. His hope of utilizing the Muslim kingdoms of the Deccan against the 'infidel' Marathas also failed. The annexation of Deccan state resulted crisis in Mughal administration, popularly known as Jagirdari crisis. The vastness of the empire, his prolong absence from the capital and weakness of the empire led to the rise of regional state. In short, VA smith rightly argued that, "The Deccan was the grave of his (Aurangzeb) reputation as well as of his body."

Despite the mistaken policy and some of the personal shortcomings of Aurangzeb, Satish Chandra argued that the Mughal empire was still powerful. He also argued that undue emphasis should not be given to religion as the cause of decline of the Mughal empire. He pointed that Jizyah was ewmoved within six years of Aurangzeb's death and restriction on building temple eased. But still these had no effect on the rapidly accelerating decline and disintegration of the empire that had set in the 18th century.


The Mughal empire survived almost 150 years after the death of Aurangzeb. Therefore, Aurangzeb was not solely responsible for the decline of the Mughal empire. Rather, we have to look at wider aspect of economic, social, political and institutional factors. Yet, by the time Aurangzeb came to the throne, the socio-economic force of disintegration was already strong. To conclude, let us borrow the argument of Satish Chandra, who stated "Aurangzeb was both a victim of circumstances, and helped to create the circumstances of which he became a victim."