Decline of Mughal Empire
Discuss the decline of the Mughal Empire. To what extent do you agree that the downfall of the Mughal Empire was caused by the agrarian crisis of the 17th and 18th century?
AGRARIAN CRISIS OF MUGHAL EMPIRE by IRFAN HABIB: Various explanations are put forward for the revolts which brought about the collapse of the Mughal Empire. There has existed for a long time the thesis of “Hindu Reaction” as the main factor behind the revolts against Aurangzeb. Its proponents tent, however, to rely more on present sentiment than on contemporary evidence. Main concern is with what 17th and early 18th century texts have to say; and they, at any rate, put the greatest store by the economic and administrative causes of the upheaval and hardly ever refer to religious reaction or consciousness of nationality. The assignment system, as it was established and worked under the great Mughals, necessarily presupposed the prevalence of a certain type of economic order. The jagirs were divorced, as far as possible, from any permanent rights to the land, and were essentially assignments of revenue, assessed in terms of money. This suited best an economy where the cash nexus was well established; but that in turn meant that agrarian trade should have been both brisk and extensive. Both these conditions were present in Mughal India. At the same time, commercial activity could prosper best under an imperial system with its uniform methods of tax collection and administration and its control of the routes. In so far, therefore, as the assignment system strengthened imperial power it also reinforced the economic foundation of its own existence. Unlike the feudal lord of Western Europe, the Mughal jagirdar might not have needed to harbour any fear of money and trade undermining his power.
The unity and cohesion of the Mughal ruling class found its practical expression in the absolute power of the emperor. The jagidari as an individual member of the government class had
AGRARIAN CRISIS OF MUGHAL EMPIRE by IRFAN HABIB: Various explanations are put forward for the revolts which brought about the collapse of the Mughal Empire. There has existed for a long time the thesis of “Hindu Reaction” as the main factor behind the revolts against Aurangzeb. Its proponents tent, however, to rely more on present sentiment than on contemporary evidence. Main concern is with what 17th and early 18th century texts have to say; and they, at any rate, put the greatest store by the economic and administrative causes of the upheaval and hardly ever refer to religious reaction or consciousness of nationality. The assignment system, as it was established and worked under the great Mughals, necessarily presupposed the prevalence of a certain type of economic order. The jagirs were divorced, as far as possible, from any permanent rights to the land, and were essentially assignments of revenue, assessed in terms of money. This suited best an economy where the cash nexus was well established; but that in turn meant that agrarian trade should have been both brisk and extensive. Both these conditions were present in Mughal India. At the same time, commercial activity could prosper best under an imperial system with its uniform methods of tax collection and administration and its control of the routes. In so far, therefore, as the assignment system strengthened imperial power it also reinforced the economic foundation of its own existence. Unlike the feudal lord of Western Europe, the Mughal jagirdar might not have needed to harbour any fear of money and trade undermining his power.
The unity and cohesion of the Mughal ruling class found its practical expression in the absolute power of the emperor. The jagidari as an individual member of the government class had