21.4 Nature of the Mughal State

The nature of the Mughal state has been a subject of debate and interpretation among historians over the years. Various historiographical perspectives have emerged, each offering unique insights into the structure and functioning of the Mughal Empire. In this module, we will explore the different historiographies on the nature of the Mughal state, ranging from colonialist perspectives to more recent interpretations that have shaped our understanding of this historical period.

Major Developments and Trends in Mughal Historiography

Colonialist Historiography

The early interpretations of the Mughal state by imperialist theorists portrayed pre-British India as a stagnant entity, attributing dynamic changes and progress to the arrival of the British. These theorists introduced the concept of Oriental Despotism, characterizing pre-British Indian rulers as despots with an effeminate demeanor. This view ignored the complexity and dynamism of Mughal society, which was marked by urbanization, flourishing trade, and commerce.

Marx’s Model of Asiatic Mode of Production (AMP)

Following colonialist historiography, Marx’s model of Asiatic mode of production presented a state-centric theory, asserting that the pre-British Indian state was highly exploitative, leaving no surplus for its subjects. According to Marx, this lack of surplus hindered class formation and precluded any possibility of class struggle in India. However, this theory overlooked the differentiated nature of Mughal society, with its thriving urban centers and commercial activities. Despite these nuances, the Mughal state was still characterized as despotic.

The Aligarh School

In the early 1900s, Indian nationalist historians from the Aligarh Muslim University challenged the colonialist and Marxian perspectives on the Mughal Empire. Scholars like Irfan Habib, Athar Ali, Noman Ahmad Siddiqi, Iqtidar Alam Khan, and Shireen Moosvi developed a counterview of the Mughal Empire, focusing on its administrative institutions. They argued that the Mughal Empire resembled a highly centralized and stable entity, similar to modern states. This perspective gained wide acceptance in and outside India by the 1960s, sidelining religious factors in the decline of the Mughal Empire.

Debates on Empire Formation

From the 1970s onward, new debates emerged concerning the nature of empire in India. Some historians questioned the Aligarh School’s idealized view of imperial institutions, emphasizing the fragmented and decentralized nature of early modern societies, not only in India but also in other parts of the world during that period.

Patrimonial-Bureaucratic State

Stephen Blake introduced the concept of a patrimonial bureaucratic empire to analyze the Mughal state. This concept draws from Max Weber’s ideas and suggests that rulers initially governed small states as if they were their patrimony or household realm. However, as territories expanded, a bureaucracy became necessary for effective governance. Despite this analysis, the focus remained on the state’s structure, neglecting the role of human agency and ignoring processes of change integral to the Mughal structure.

Processual Understanding of State Formation

In the late 1980s, Andre Wink emphasized the significance of understanding the processes involved in state formation. He highlighted the importance of alliance-making and alliance-breaking in the formation of early modern states. Informal networks of negotiations and conflicts, such as gift exchanges and matrimonial alliances, were seen as crucial in reproducing the state. However, this processual understanding de-privileged the state’s coercive apparatus, underestimating its constraining abilities.

A New Perspective

By the late 1990s, a new perspective emerged, viewing the Mughal Empire as less of a “medieval road-roller” and more like a spider’s web with varying strengths in different regions. This interpretation suggested that the empire had a fleeting impact on local societies and everyday life, shedding light on the need to consider regional phenomena between the strands of the empire.

Comprehending Mughal Power

Scholars have recently delved deeper into understanding the sources of Mughal power beyond administrative, military, and fiscal institutions. Farhat Hasan’s work, “State and Locality in Mughal India,” offers valuable insights:

1. The Mughal state had to “manufacture” obedience by integrating itself into local political, social, and economic networks of power.
2. Apart from tax collection, the Mughal state gained support by providing security and redistributing resources among powerful elements in Indian society.
3. The Mughal state was continuously molded and constrained by the society it governed.
4. The Mughal state was dynamic and continuously evolving, contrary to the static portrayal in imperial sources and traditional accounts.

Evolution Over Time and Variation Over Space

Early modern historians Muzaffar Alam and Sanjay Subramanyam called for scholarship on state formation in South Asia that acknowledges its “evolution over time” and “variation over space.” Recent works, such as Munis D Faruqui’s study on the role of princely households in Mughal state formation, provide alternative perspectives on how state formation took place in Mughal India.

The Mughal Empire and Its Decline

Factors contributing to the decline of the Mughal Empire

• Aurangzeb’s death in 1707 marked the end of the Great Mughals era, and within fifty years, the Mughal Empire disintegrated.
• Signs of degeneration were visible in the institutions and systems intrinsic to the empire’s cultural character and administrative policies.
• Weak successors of Aurangzeb failed to curtail the general rot that had begun during his reign, and recurrent wars of succession worsened the situation.
• The Mughal army was weakened by a dearth of able commanders and a lack of military reforms or new technologies.

The role of social power in the decline

• The historiography of the Mughal Empire has been characterized by elitism, focusing primarily on elite actions.
• Non-elite groups, such as the common infantry and logistical workforce, played significant roles in Mughal military campaigns but have been largely overlooked in historical accounts.
• Recognizing the contributions of these non-elite groups to the processes of war-making and territorial expansion challenges the view of the Mughal Empire as primarily an elite enterprise and highlights the broad-based, inclusive, and collaborative nature of Mughal state-formation and empire-building.

The impact of administrative centralization and imperial decline on trade and commerce

• The Mughal Empire’s efforts toward administrative centralization and subsequent imperial decline are debated in the context of the role and impact of commercialization and trade.
• The resilience of institutions during the decline of the Mughal Empire is evident from the developments of the early nineteenth century, which showed continuity with the eighteenth century and therefore with the earlier period.
• The expression of regional identity in regional literature and the growth of regional sentiment were also features of the eighteenth century, challenging the notion of the centralized structure of the Mughal Empire.
• The decline of the Mughal Empire did not necessarily correlate with economic decline in regions such as Punjab, where the rise of new powers and the decline of old ones can be seen as two aspects of the same process during this period.

The Mughal State and Local Networks of Power

The relationship between imperial sovereignty and local networks of power

• The Mughal state was characterized by a complex relationship between imperial sovereignty and local networks of power.
• Local elites, such as zamindars, played a crucial role in maintaining imperial control over vast territories by collecting taxes, maintaining law and order, and providing military support when needed.
• In return, the Mughal state granted local elites various privileges, such as land grants and titles, which allowed them to maintain their power and status within their respective regions.

Accommodation of local interests within the system of rule

• The Mughal state was able to maintain its power and control over diverse regions by accommodating local interests within its system of rule.
• This accommodation was achieved through a combination of negotiation, coercion, and patronage, which allowed the Mughal state to forge alliances with local elites and integrate them into the imperial administration.
• By incorporating local power networks into the imperial structure, the Mughal state was able to maintain a degree of stability and control over its vast territories.

The role of negotiation in the functioning of the Mughal state

• Negotiation played a crucial role in the functioning of the Mughal state, as it allowed the empire to balance the interests of various local power networks and maintain a degree of stability and control.
• The Mughal state engaged in negotiations with local elites to secure their loyalty and cooperation, often through the granting of land, titles, and other privileges.
• In some cases, the Mughal state also negotiated with local power networks to resolve conflicts and maintain order within the empire.

The Mughal State and Identity

The construction of Indian identity through historiography

• The Mughal Empire played a significant role in shaping Indian identity through its historiography, as it brought together diverse regions, cultures, and religions under a single political entity.
• The Mughal state promoted a policy of religious tolerance and cultural synthesis, which facilitated the development of a composite culture that incorporated elements from various traditions.
• Mughal historiography, particularly during the reigns of Akbar and Jahangir, focused on the idea of a unified and harmonious empire, which contributed to the construction of a shared Indian identity.
• The Mughal court patronized various forms of art, architecture, and literature, which further enriched the cultural landscape of India and fostered a sense of shared identity among its diverse population.

The role of British historiography in shaping Indian identity

• British historiography played a significant role in shaping Indian identity during the colonial period, as it sought to categorize and classify Indian society based on racial, religious, and linguistic divisions.
• The British colonial administration used historical narratives to justify their rule in India, often portraying the Mughal Empire as a period of decline and stagnation.
• This portrayal of the Mughal Empire as a despotic and oppressive regime served to legitimize British rule as a necessary and civilizing force.
• However, recent scholarship has challenged this colonial narrative and highlighted the achievements and contributions of the Mughal Empire to Indian history and identity.

The influence of socio-cultural identity on the Mughal state

• Socio-cultural identity played a crucial role in the functioning of the Mughal state, as it shaped the relationships between the imperial administration and various local power networks.
• The Mughal state was characterized by a diverse population, with various religious, linguistic, and ethnic groups coexisting within its territories.
• The Mughal emperors, particularly Akbar, adopted a policy of religious tolerance and cultural synthesis, which allowed them to forge alliances with local elites and maintain stability within the empire.
• The Mughal state’s ability to accommodate and integrate diverse socio-cultural identities contributed to its success as a political entity and its lasting impact on Indian history and identity.

Conclusion

The nature of the Mughal state has been a highly contested theme among historians, and various historiographical perspectives have contributed to our understanding of this historical period. While no single view can fully represent the complexity of the Mughal Empire, recent studies have provided nuanced insights into its nature, emphasizing its dynamic and evolving character shaped by various factors, including administrative institutions, local networks, and societal influences.