OCR Specification focus:
‘The nature of Mughal rule in India under Babur; wars and instability under Humayun (1530–1540 and the restoration 1555–1556)’
The early Mughal Empire under Babur and Humayun reveals contrasting approaches to leadership, military success, and political stability, shaping India’s turbulent landscape between 1526 and 1556.
The Nature of Mughal Rule under Babur
Babur’s Consolidation of Power
Babur, founder of the Mughal Empire, established his rule after the Battle of Panipat (1526), defeating Ibrahim Lodi.
Mughal miniature of the First Battle of Panipat (1526), at which Babur defeated Ibrahim Lodi. The scene conveys cavalry, infantry and early firearms central to Babur’s success. Source
His authority was built on:
Military superiority, particularly the innovative use of gunpowder artillery.
Charismatic leadership, which secured loyalty among his followers.
Centralised control, though fragile, as the Mughal hold was more military than administrative in its early years.
Centralised control: A system of governance in which authority is concentrated in a single ruler or ruling body, limiting regional autonomy.
Babur, however, left behind a loosely established empire, heavily dependent on personal leadership. His limited time in India (1526–1530) prevented the creation of durable administrative structures.
Administrative Character
Babur’s reign highlighted:
Persian influences in court culture and governance.
Reliance on mansabdari (a system of ranking officials by their military and administrative role, developed more fully by his successors).
Strong emphasis on land revenue as the backbone of imperial power, though systems were inconsistent and regionally varied.
The Mughal identity was still forming, with Babur often viewing India as a conquest zone rather than his permanent homeland.
Humayun’s Rule and Early Instability
Humayun’s Accession (1530)
Humayun inherited the throne at 22. His reign was challenged by:
Weak foundations left by Babur’s short rule.
Hostility from Afghan nobles who resisted Mughal dominance.
The emergence of ambitious rivals, particularly Sher Khan Sur (later Sher Shah Sur).
Wars and External Threats
Humayun fought to consolidate Mughal authority but faced multiple conflicts:
Campaigns against Afghan chiefs in eastern India.
Struggles against Bahadur Shah of Gujarat.
Increasing opposition from Sher Khan, who used superior organisation and administrative reforms to strengthen his position.
His defeats culminated in the decisive Battle of Kannauj (1540), where Mughal forces were routed by Sher Khan. This marked the collapse of Humayun’s authority in India.
Map of the Sur Empire at its greatest extent under Sher Shah Suri, spanning Delhi, the Gangetic plain and Bengal. It contextualises Humayun’s defeats and the Afghan interlude (1540–1555). Source
Factors Behind Instability
Several causes explain the turmoil of Humayun’s rule:
Factionalism within the nobility, as Mughal aristocrats competed for influence.
Lack of administrative consolidation, with no efficient system of governance beyond military command.
Humayun’s personal weaknesses, including indecision and a tendency towards astrology and opium use, which undermined his authority.
Factionalism: Internal conflict or division within a ruling elite, often leading to political instability and weakened central authority.
This environment allowed Sher Khan to replace Mughal power with the Suri Dynasty, beginning a period of exile for Humayun.
Humayun’s Exile and Return
Years of Exile (1540–1555)
After his defeat, Humayun fled northwards, eventually seeking refuge in Persia under the Safavid ruler, Shah Tahmasp I.
Seventeenth-century fresco from Chehel Sotoun Palace showing Humayun received by Shah Tahmasp I (Isfahan, 1544). It supports the narrative of Persian assistance preceding Humayun’s return. Source
Key aspects of his exile:
Reliance on Persian support, which provided military aid in exchange for concessions.
Preservation of Mughal dynastic legitimacy, as Humayun remained recognised as emperor by loyalists despite losing territory.
Building alliances and waiting for opportunities to re-enter India.
The Restoration (1555–1556)
With Persian assistance, Humayun launched a campaign to reclaim lost territory. By 1555 he successfully recaptured Delhi and re-established Mughal rule.
However, this restoration was:
Fragile, as stability depended on foreign aid.
Short-lived, since Humayun died in 1556 after a fatal fall down the steps of his library in Delhi.
His death left the empire to his son, Akbar, who would redefine Mughal authority.
The Nature of Mughal Authority Under Humayun
Characteristics of Rule
Humayun’s reign (1530–1540 and 1555–1556) displayed features distinct from Babur’s:
A less militarily dynamic leadership, unable to defeat organised rivals.
Greater vulnerability to regional and Afghan challenges.
Dependence on Persian cultural and military influences, visible in court life and symbolism after his restoration.
Continuity and Fragility
Despite setbacks, Mughal authority under Humayun maintained certain continuities:
The imperial family retained legitimacy as the Timurid dynasty, claiming descent from Timur and Genghis Khan.
The notion of a centralised, imperial rule persisted, even if practically undermined.
Yet, instability during his reign exposed the empire’s fragility, highlighting the urgent need for durable administrative structures. These would only be developed under later rulers such as Akbar.
Key Takeaways
Babur’s rule was militarily effective but lacked long-term administrative depth.
Humayun’s reign was dominated by wars, instability, and exile, with failures at Kannauj pivotal in Mughal decline.
His restoration in 1555 was brief but ensured dynastic continuity, paving the way for future consolidation under Akbar.
FAQ
Humayun’s brothers, Kamran, Hindal and Askari, created significant internal instability.
Kamran Mirza controlled Kabul and Lahore, often acting independently and even allying with Humayun’s enemies.
Hindal Mirza rebelled in Agra in 1538, distracting Humayun from external threats.
These rivalries weakened Mughal unity, leaving Humayun vulnerable to Afghan opposition and Sher Shah Suri’s advances.
Humayun was deeply superstitious and often relied on astrological advice before military campaigns.
This sometimes caused delays or poor strategic choices. For example, he occasionally postponed action until astrologically ‘favourable’ dates arrived. Such hesitation gave rivals, particularly Sher Shah Suri, opportunities to strengthen their forces.
Sher Shah was an able administrator and strategist.
He built strong support among Afghan chiefs and disaffected nobles.
His reforms of revenue collection and efficient army organisation allowed him to field disciplined forces.
Unlike Humayun, he created a loyal base of governance, enabling him to replace the Mughals effectively.
During exile, Humayun absorbed Persian traditions.
He adopted Persian styles of dress, language and court ceremony.
Persian artists and scholars accompanied him back to India after his restoration.
This early influence prepared the way for the stronger Persianisation of Mughal culture under Akbar and later rulers.
India’s size and diversity posed challenges for a weak ruler.
The Gangetic plain allowed Afghan chiefs to regroup quickly after defeats.
Gujarat’s strategic ports gave rivals access to wealth and foreign aid.
The rugged terrain of Bengal and Rajputana hindered Mughal campaigns, stretching resources thin.
These geographical factors compounded Humayun’s leadership weaknesses, intensifying instability.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
In which year did Humayun lose the Battle of Kannauj to Sher Khan Sur, resulting in his exile?
Mark Scheme
1540 = 2 marks
Incorrect year but within correct decade (1530s or 1540s) = 1 mark
Any other answer = 0 marks
Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain two reasons why Humayun’s rule between 1530 and 1540 was unstable.
Mark Scheme
Up to 3 marks for each well-explained reason.
Reasons may include:
Factionalism within the nobility: Mughal elites competed for influence, undermining unity. (1 mark for identification; 2 marks for explanation of how it caused instability).
Humayun’s personal weaknesses: indecision, reliance on astrology, or opium use reduced his effectiveness as a leader. (1 mark for identification; 2 marks for explanation).
Afghan opposition: persistent resistance from Afghan nobles and rivals, particularly Sher Khan Sur, weakened Mughal control. (1 mark for identification; 2 marks for explanation).
Weak foundations left by Babur: limited administrative systems and fragile central authority meant Humayun lacked a strong base. (1 mark for identification; 2 marks for explanation).
