• Tuesday, June 25, 2019

Watch "Why did the Mughal Empire Collapse?" on YouTube

Discussion in 'Pakistan History' started by Ahmad Sajjad Paracha, Dec 7, 2018.

  1. Ahmad Sajjad Paracha

    Ahmad Sajjad Paracha FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    405
    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2014
    Ratings:
    +0 / 289 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  2. Ahmad Sajjad Paracha

    Ahmad Sajjad Paracha FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    405
    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2014
    Ratings:
    +0 / 289 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    So most of the indian people are saying that it was maratha that devasted the mughal empire,they weakened the afghans and that marathas were the superpower at their peak. How truth is in this and how strong was the mighty maratha empire? comments sre to be unbaised and billateral.
    @Indus Pakistan @Indus Priest King @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @war&peace @Saif al-Arab@HannibalBarca @Ahmad Sajjad Paracha @Ahmet Pasha @iqbal Ali @newb3e @AfrazulMandal @Zuraib Qasit Khan Deccani @Luffy 500 @M.R.9 @Kambojaric @Army research @Champion_Usmani @Clutch@Areesh @Zibago@django @Horus @Mentee @maximuswarrior @Imran Khan @Reichsmarschall@Talwar e Pakistan @ThanatosI @Windjammer @RiazHaq @WebMaster @TMA @DESERT FIGHTER@Desert Fox @waz@Mugwop @Albatross @RealNapster @Dalit @Ocean @Starlord @hussain0216@AZADPAKISTAN2009 @Azadkashmir @Taimoor Khan @Cobra Arbok.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  3. Big Tank

    Big Tank SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,404
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Ratings:
    +2 / 3,886 / -1
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    lol
     
  4. Indus Pakistan

    Indus Pakistan ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    14,760
    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Ratings:
    +185 / 40,397 / -8
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    All empires collapse eventually. But the Mughal Empire was weak structuarly and did not last for very long - in particular the high water mark was just a blip in history. The Mughal Empire was always fragile. The main reasons were -

    • it had no constituency or core population
    • it managed to rule a large area because the Hindu population was stratified along caste and ethnic cleavages
    • it was corrupt, decadent and debaucherous
    • it was almost a mega-scale mafia that extorted the population
    • it was like man balancing bricks on his head. One wrong push or shove and it would come crashing down bevause of it's inherent contradictions. A Turkic Muslim dynasty from Uzbekistan ruling South Asia, using Persian language over a patchwork of ethnic groups most of whom were Hindoo.
    If you look at other empires they always had a core group that provided the foundation for everthing. The Ottomans relied on the Turks of Anatolia, the Romans on Roman citizens, the British Empire on English etc.

    The Mughals never had a core group that could sustain and anchor the empire.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 5
  5. AfrazulMandal

    AfrazulMandal FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,950
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Ratings:
    +0 / 1,116 / -1
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    The Mughals were more interested in ruling and extorting money rather than plant the flag of Islam in the subcontinent, barring exceptions. They always faced resistance from the non Muslim population. Even then no major effort was made to actually bring them within the fold of Islam.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  6. Osiris

    Osiris BANNED

    Messages:
    1,599
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2015
    Ratings:
    +0 / 1,470 / -13
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    United States
    They are the reason, we have people like you in our country, isn't that enough?
     
    Osiris
    This message by Osiris has been hidden due to negative ratings. (Show message)
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • Negative Rating Negative Rating x 1
  7. Ahmad Sajjad Paracha

    Ahmad Sajjad Paracha FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    405
    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2014
    Ratings:
    +0 / 289 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Thank you so much for your valuable input. What maratha empire what's their history how much they fought with mughal empire, what was their condition after battle of panipat3 in which they were defeated by Ahmad Shah Abdali and how much is it true that they defeated mughals in the end of 1700s and let the mughal act as the puppet ruler ?

    Sent from my SM-G900F using Defence.pk mobile app
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  8. Indus Pakistan

    Indus Pakistan ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    14,760
    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Ratings:
    +185 / 40,397 / -8
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    But who said they were flying flag of anything? If it was any flag it would be "power, money, greed, wealth". Pure and simple.

    This 'Maratha' bullshat is tripe. It's mostly revisionist history designed to bloat Hindoo pride. I have come across cheap fanboi maps that show Marathas power extended even upto Peshawar. The truth is it just about touched Punjab. And if Marathas were half big as the Hindoo fanbois make them - why did they not crush a few 'gorahs' working for a trading company from a million miles away??
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 7
  9. 313ghazi

    313ghazi SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    4,990
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2017
    Ratings:
    +25 / 8,435 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    It's always been interesting how empire has so much in fighting between sons of the kings.

    The ottoman solution was to kill their own brothers when they took the throne. Savage really.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  10. Indus Pakistan

    Indus Pakistan ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    14,760
    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Ratings:
    +185 / 40,397 / -8
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Not at all. Pleased to reply to your post.

    Moghuls were no better. The Turkic linkage was obvious in their actions. Killing was normal part of succession. Locking up your dad like a animal was okay as well.

    Shah Jahan survived his wife until 1666, but the last eight years of his reign were marked by his imprisonment, ordered by his son, in 1658. This son, Aurangzeb, had his father seized and locked him up at Fort d'Agra, overlooking the Taj Mahal.
     
  11. 313ghazi

    313ghazi SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    4,990
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2017
    Ratings:
    +25 / 8,435 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Yeah, it's always been the way with kings. Happened in the Europe too, but i think it was definitely more common in Asia.

    Power is such an addictive drug. Imagine being the king of the brother. Huge access to wealth, respect, no responsibilities - yet, they'll kill for the top seat. At the same time, Kings with all the power and authority in the land, still fearful of their own kin usurping it will resort to murder too.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  12. AUSTERLITZ

    AUSTERLITZ SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    6,030
    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    Ratings:
    +175 / 9,926 / -0
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    The video is very generic and doesnt delve into the real factors as much.More of a narration of events.

    There are both historical actors as well as structural factors responsible for the fall of the mughals.

    The primary structural factor is the Jagirdari crisis.
    The mughal empire basically ran on a vast patron client network with the emperor as the supreme patron.The nobility were loyal to the centre in return for jagirs(estates) given to them and recieved a significant part of the revenues of these jagirs with which to sustain themselves and provide upkeep for their followers.This system worked well when the empire was expanding,lots of land available and number of nobility was small.But as the noble households multiplied through birth and through incorporation of local elites(for stability) the amount of available jagirs were drying up,leading to great infighting and personal insecurity among mughal elites for jagirs.This was because even though their numbers were increasing,number of profitable jagirs were more or less static.But to maintain their status among the elite a nobleman had to maintain a certain level of lifestyle which wasnt possible with poorer frontier area jagirs or with no jagirs.This led to secondary problems.

    Land revenue was the main source of income of the state.While akbar and his land revenue minister raja todarmal had laid down an efficient land survey and collection system.But this system was not updated with proper regional surveys by shahjahan,jahangir or aurangzeb who rested on the laurels of akbar.The increasing commercialization of agriculture(where land revenue was now collected in cash,rather than crop) led to rise of agrarian middlemen and further distortions.These distortions were not properly corrected leading to revenue shortfalls.Instead of dealing with this critical administrative problem which became acute from midway into shahjahans' reign,mughals spent huge sums on luxury,monument building,succession wars and wild far flung campaigns such as shajahan to central asia,aurangzeb to deccan and assam.

    Now with land revenue system already in disarray what jagirdari crisis did was now the jagirdars who recieved ever small jagirs or were unsure how long they would hold on to one became downright oppressive on the peasantry.The general mughal philosophy of land taxation was leave the peasants just enough income to provide sustenance for him and his family,and provide a small social surplus(so he can perform yearly festivals,weddings etc).The desperate and greedy jagirdars first started eating into the social surplus and then into their very sustenance.This combined with religious instability of aurangzeb's late years created a volatile situation among the peasant communities and created amongst them a feeling that mughals were after their religion and their lives.Thus the peasantry which was earlier aloof from power games of delhi now became enemies of the mughal state.Hence we see a fusion of religious and agrarian protest revolts in this time amongst primarily agricultural communities of punjab and doab.Thus we see beginning of people's war among the jats,sikhs,satnamis,bundelas.

    The other thing was jagirdari crisis reduced the efficiency of mughal army.With the revenue from jagirs the jagirdars were supposed to maintain a certain number of armed soldiers for local policing and central service.Once their purses felt the pinch,the jagirdars began to reduce the actual number of paid and equipped soldiers they and under them.Instead on inspection days they would hire locals ,dress them up in their retinue and thus show they had the prescribed amount of soldiers under their command while in reality the actual soldiers were far less to save money for their personal lifestyle.

    2nd structural factor was decline in mughal army's relative strength.The mughal empire in final analysis depended on military strength for survival.The primary reason why mughals were successful at establishing their empire was 1.Horse archery 2.Near monopoly on gunpowder weapons and 3.(After conquest of fertile northern plains and their revenue) Sheer weight of numbers.
    Horse archery by the time of aurangzeb was slowly becoming redundant and in any case mughals had become a settled community and lost their proficiency at it.From the end of aurangzeb's time mughal armies could no longer win significant battles against the maratha light cavalry.
    By aurangzeb's time mughals also no longer had monopoly on gunpowder weapons.Portugese and dutch traders supplied firearms to anyone with money and trained the gunners too.This meant regional forces now had access to matchlock muskets and even cannons,this made it much more difficult for mughals to impose and maintain central control.The proliferation of firearms into the indian countryside reduced mughal technological superiority.
    Finally mughal manpower was affected by - jagirdari crisis side effect as noted earlier,loss of revenue due to large prosperous areas in revolt,regional subadars slowly breaking away after aurangzebs death,loss of rajput manpower to aurangzeb's policy and finally massive losses in the 27 yr deccan campaign against marathas.

    3rd structural factor is the weakness inherent in the timurid monarchical tradition.Unlike in european monarchies where law of primoginature was paramount,legitimized by the church and succession was smooth,in islamic sultanates like mughal and even ottoman there was no clear succession law.This led to series of succession wars and mass instability.Jahangir revolted against his father and was pardoned,shahjahan revolted against him and nur jahan,aurangzeb kille dhis brothers and imprisoned shahjahan,aurangzeb's one son revolted and died in exile ,the other was imprisoned for suspected conspiracy.His son's fought it out and one lived.There were 2 further wars in the same decade(1710-1720) with factions constantly changing sides.The instability allowed the sbedars in frontier areas to consolidate their power and eventually become nominally all but independent.For example in return for their support to a candidate an ambitious subadar would want both the military and revenue collection powers of a subah to be allowed to be concentrated in his person.This removed the primary check on his power,the main seperation of power between finance and military responsibility that kept regional subadars in check and under control.Now these subadars while proclaiming nominal loyalty to delhi would make arrangements with local muslim elites,hindu zamindars and bankers and create a new regional elite.This is how the nawabi of awadh and bengal were formed.Hyderabad was similar but with more violence involved.

    Now to historical actors,aurangzeb is primarily responsible.As well as the succession of weak luxury loving fools that followed him.
    Aurangzeb's primary problem was a lack of balance despite being brave and incorruptible himself.He didn't have the balance between iron fist and velvet glove that akbar displayed.A list of his mistakes are enough.
    He became increasingly puritan and rigid as he aged.While he was flexible earlier in his reign ,his intolerance increased in his later years.Taxes,impositions,destructions basically ended the 'feel good' sul i kul(peace for all) idea that akbar had tried to propagate for internal stability.

    He brutally killed the sikh guru and his sons,and thus transformed what was a largely peaceful religious reform movement asking for autonomy into an all out military community at war with the mughal state.Guru govind singh transformed the sikhs into an armed militia with the formation of the khalsa in this time.

    His foolish interference in internal affairs of rajput states led to breakdown of rajput alliance and loss of the military manpower and bureaucratic officials they provided.When the king of marwar who was a highest rank mughal general died with no heir.Aurangzeb annexed marwar on this pretext to be turned into a jagir.Now the queen gave birth to the late king's son soon,but aurangzeb refused to recognize him and sent his own man to rule.He willed that he would only recognize the boy if he should raise him and he convert to islam.This led to war with marwar led by durgadas rathore with mewar supporting him.Thus of the 3 main rajput states mewar and marwar were lost to the mughals and akbars rajput policy broke down.Aurangzeb should have remembered it was the rathore cavalry that had sacrificed itself against the uzbeks in the central asian campaign where he failed, to save the retreating mughal army.It was also a rajput general jai singh who had been the only mughal commander able to check shivaji,his own father in law shaista khan fled back to delhi minus his fingers and his army.So the rajput allince was gone and akbar's work undone.

    Finally aurangzeb's greatest mistake was his deccan campaign.He made 3 main mistakes in the deccan.
    First he underestimated shivaji as a petty chief and didn't reconcile with him when he was at agra .
    Second,he destroyed the deccan sultanates because he believed they were secretly backing shivaji and because he hated them as shias.This suddenly extended the empire far to the south creating administrative overextension , removed all local checks from the marathas.He also made the mistake of integrating the deccan elites from the now defunct sultantes into his administration increasing number of jagirdars.But instead of distributing most of the new lands as jagirs he declared bulk of it as khalisa lands(royal lands) with revenue to be used for conduct of deccan campaign.He thus worsened jagirdari problem.
    Third he brutally killed shivaji's successor shambaji by torture and mutilation after capturing him with treachery.He thought this would scare the marathas into submission,if he cut off the head the body would die.Instead the body grew several heads like a hydra and ignited a people's war.The brutality of the execution basically ensured it would be endless war with no chance of a settlement.He spent 27 years in the deccan trying to defeat the marathas.But ultimately failed and died there in 1707.In just last 10 years the campaign cost over a million mughal casualities(many to famine and disease) and bankrupted what was the richest state in the contemporary world.Basically the financial and military backbone of the mughal state was broken in the deccan and never truly recovered.The demoralized nobility began to make backdoor deals with maratha raiders to save their own estates/armies.The myth of mughal invincibility was also shattered.Within 10 years of his death,the sayyid brothers were putting emperors on the throne of delhi backed by maratha military support.

    The other historical actors in the story of the fall of the mughals are ofcourse the rise of the marathas,who serve as the primary antagonist from the mughal point of view.Just as mughal leadership declined dramatically,marathas
    in this historical time period were a force on the rise.They had a succession of very capable leaders shivaji, shambhaji, tarabai,balaji vishwanath,bajirao and mahadji scindia.By 1737 they had reached delhi and by 1772 permanently occupied it(despite panipat in 1761),only to be dislodged by the british in 1805.They developed an army and tactics far more cunning and unscrupulous than the rajputs mughals had encountered in north india and were unable to cope with it.

    Combined with the other structural factors these cumulatively brought down the mughal empire.Ultimately all empires rise and fall,its a cycle of history.


    Maratha defeat at panipat is a decisive defeat,but not because marathas were destroyed never to rise again.But it did led to them disappearing from north idnian politics for a crucial gap of 10 years,and in this gap british cosnoldiate dtheir power in bengal and awadh with no one to stop them when they were still weak.
    Marathas returned to North India in 10 years later under Mahadji scindia and by 1772 maratha flag was flying in red fort and mughal emperor was a puppet.Najibullah rohilla -the main architect of the anti maratha coalition -marathas attacked and destroyed rohilkhand as a power and destroyed najibullah's grave and bones.So scindia- a survivor of panipat had his revenge.The afghans themselves were not a problem either -they were checked and then pushed back by the sikhs.The problem was the british.The marathas needed 10 years to recover their strength .During these years there was a power vaccuum which the EIC exploited.
    They won at buxar 1764 and took over all of Bengal,the richest province of India then and Bihar which had the great saltpeter mines,as well as parts of awadh.With carnatic already theirs and eastern coast acquired from nizam(1768) in return for protection from marathas after defeat in 1763.With their technical advantage the british now had the resources to take on any indian power.Had marathas won at panipat this could not have happened ,as orders to the maratha army were after repulsing abdali go to bengal and deal with british who had just won plassey.
    Even then when they fought united they were able to hold the british off to a draw in first anglo maratha war,but in 2nd war in 1805 they were disunited.British were much stronger territorially and also had a certain great general called welleslley(future duke of wellington of waterloo fame) at their service.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 6
  13. waz

    waz MODERATOR

    Messages:
    12,502
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Ratings:
    +55 / 27,491 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Don’t care much for them, aside the start they fu*ked up royally (pun intended).
     
  14. Imran Khan

    Imran Khan PDF VETERAN

    Messages:
    48,215
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Ratings:
    +38 / 87,243 / -39
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    PPP ki waga se:lol:

    pesa -possy -power fights
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  15. Ahmad Sajjad Paracha

    Ahmad Sajjad Paracha FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    405
    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2014
    Ratings:
    +0 / 289 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Thank you my brother it was quite informative so battle of panipat didn't destroy marathas completely but from the northern punjab. It is said that marathas had three fronts fighting at the time of panipat 3 so what about other 2 fronts what happend to them. And how much was strenght/influence of marathas after this battle?. I know that durranis and sikhs had fought a lot battles in present kpk and this assisted britain a lot and even sikhs sided with britain to fight against durranis and sikhs and britain were toghether for quite a time. And lastly how did marathas end and what about their battles with mughals prior to the death of aurangzeb ?
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1