Reference may be made to some of the points of criticism leveled against the Mughal Administrative System.
Demerits of Mughal Administrative System
(1) Mughal Administration was Foreign in its character:
It is contended that the Mughal administration was essentially foreign in its character. A critical examination shows that there is partial truth in this statement. The Mughals were foreigners to begin with and officials from Persia were everywhere given preference. But it cannot be denied that from the time of Akbar, the Mughal Emperors were born and brought up in India and died in India. Hence, it may not be proper to call them foreigners.
Moreover, while the high posts were reserved for foreigners, a very large number of smaller jobs were given to the Indians, Muslims and Hindus. Akbar was loved by his subjects on accounts of his policy of Sulh-kul. According to Travernier “Shah Jahan reined not so much as a king over his subjects, but rather as a father over his family and children.” According to Edwardes and Garrett, “Modern India owes much more than is superficially apparent to be administrative genius of the Great Mughal.”
(2) Economic and Social Results of Mughal Rule were Disastrous:
Another criticism is that the economic and social results of Mughal Rule were disastrous to the prosperity and happiness of the people of India. It is pointed that the Mughals left much richer than they found it when they came to this country. They did not send any money to any foreign country as the Britishers did. According to Professor Radhakamal Mukherjee, “Throughout the Mughal Age, India maintained a balance of trade in her favour.”
ADVERTISEMENTS:
According to Moreland, “Weavers, naked themselves, toiled to clothe others. Peasants, themselves hungry, toiled to feed the towns and cities. India, taken as a unit, parted with useful commodities in exchange for gold and silver, or in other words, gave bread for stones.
Men and women, living from season to season, on the verge of hunger, could be contented so long as the supply of food held out; when it failed, as it so often did, their hope of salvation was the slave-trader and the alternatives were cannibalism, suicide or starvation.
The only way of escape from that system lay through an increase of production, coupled with a rising standard of life, but this road was barred effectively by the administrative methods in vogue, which penalised production and regarded every indication of increased consumption as a signal for fresh extortion.”
However, this extreme view is not accepted by other writers. It is pointed out that the condition of the people was not as miserable as is depicted by Moreland. According to Manucci, “All things are in great plenty here, fruits, pulses, grain, muslin, cloths of gold and silver.” These things may have been bad in times of famine, but that was not always the case.
(3) Mughal Government was extremely limited and Materialistic:
According to J.N. Sarkar, “The Mughal Government was extremely, limited, materialistic, and almost sordid.” The socialistic activities of modern state were ignored by the Mughal rulers and left to the society or caste brotherhood. However, it is pointed out that such was not the case in actual practice. The administrative machinery did attend to the regulation of weights and measures and prices of commodities, control of sale and manufacture of intoxicating drugs, control of prostitution, prohibition of forced Sati, regulation of private income and expenditure, the control of morals with the help of Censors of Public Morals, prohibition of cow-slaughter and forced conversions, punishment for drunkenness, etc. Thus the Mughal State was not only a police state but something more than that. It did all that it could under the circumstances for the people.