The Rise of a Persian Conqueror and the Decline of Mughal Power

In May 1737, as Nadir Shah battled in Afghanistan, he dispatched an envoy to Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah (r. 1702-1748), marking the opening move in a geopolitical confrontation that would reshape South Asia. The Persian warlord’s complaint about Mughal border officials failing to arrest Afghan fugitives carried deeper implications – it revealed both the Mughal Empire’s weakening authority and Nadir Shah’s ambitions to follow in the footsteps of his idols Genghis Khan and Timur.

The Mughal Empire, founded in 1526 by Timur’s descendant Babur, had reached its zenith under Aurangzeb (r. 1658-1707), whose reign paradoxically marked both territorial maximum and imperial decline. Much like Qing China’s relationship with its Han majority, the Muslim Mughals ruled over a predominantly Hindu population through a delicate balance of alliances and military power. Aurangzeb’s religious policies and endless wars against the Maratha rebellion fatally weakened central authority, setting the stage for provincial governors to become de facto independent rulers.

A Kingdom Divided: The Fragmented Mughal State

Following Aurangzeb’s death in 1707, the empire descended into chaos. Twelve years saw eight emperors on the Peacock Throne as succession wars ravaged the dynasty. When Muhammad Shah finally achieved relative stability in 1719, his reign epitomized imperial decay. Contemporary chronicler Ghulam Hussain described him as “young, handsome, pleasure-seeking, and immersed in idle living” while the empire crumbled around him. By the 1730s, the Mughal realm had fractured into semi-independent provinces – Bengal, Awadh, and the Deccan all slipped from Delhi’s control as Marathas, Jats, Rohilla Afghans, and Sikhs carved out their own domains.

This political fragmentation created perfect conditions for invasion. Provincial governors like Saadat Ali Khan of Awadh and Nizam-ul-Mulk of the Deccan allegedly conspired with Nadir Shah, hoping to use Persian intervention to secure their own autonomy from Delhi. For Nadir Shah, whose primary enemy remained the Ottoman Empire, India represented not territorial ambition but financial necessity – the legendary wealth of the subcontinent could fund his western campaigns.

The Road to Invasion: Military Preparations and Diplomatic Maneuvers

After concluding the Kandahar campaign in May 1738, Nadir Shah marched east with approximately 100,000 troops. The invasion route followed historical conquerors’ paths through the Hindu Kush mountains. Key to his strategy was the neutralization of frontier defenses, achieved through both military force and psychological warfare. When Kabul governor Nasir Khan begged Delhi for back pay to motivate his troops, the cash-strapped imperial government failed to respond, prompting local elites to surrender without resistance.

The true military masterpiece came at the Khyber Pass in November 1738. Facing 20,000 defenders in the narrow defile where numerical superiority meant nothing, Nadir Shah employed a brilliant flanking maneuver through the little-known Chatchoobi path. His 10,000 cavalry emerged behind Mughal lines, achieving complete tactical surprise. Russian military historians would later hail this as a “masterpiece” of operational art.

The Battle of Karnal: Clash of Empires

By February 1739, the stage was set for decisive confrontation at Karnal, 110 km north of Delhi. The Mughals fielded a colossal force – 300,000 men by some accounts, including 2,000 war elephants and 3,000 artillery pieces. Yet this paper strength masked fatal weaknesses: obsolete equipment, poor coordination between units, and leadership riven by factionalism. Nadir Shah’s 55,000 veterans, though outnumbered six-to-one, possessed superior firearms, mobility, and cohesion.

Nadir Shah’s battle plan exploited Mughal vulnerabilities with surgical precision. He baited Saadat Khan’s contingent into overextending, then crushed them with disciplined musket volleys from his elite jazayerchi troops. When reinforcements under Khan Dowran arrived, concentrated artillery fire shattered their formations. The coup de grace came from Tahmasp Khan Jalayer’s flank attack – ironically led by a descendant of Mongol general Muqali, who had served Genghis Khan.

Casualty figures reveal the lopsided outcome: approximately 20,000 Mughals killed versus 1,100 Persian casualties. More devastating was the loss of 400 Mughal officers, decapitating the army’s command structure. As historian Axworthy notes, “Karnal was less a battle than a military catastrophe that permanently broke Mughal power.”

The Sack of Delhi: Loot, Massacre, and Imperial Humiliation

Following Karnal, Nadir Shah entered Delhi on March 20, 1739, in a carefully staged display of power. Initial correct treatment of Emperor Muhammad Shah gave way to violence when rumors of Persian defeat sparked rebellion. Nadir Shah’s response was characteristically brutal – six hours of systematic slaughter left approximately 30,000 dead, memorialized at the Khuni Darwaza (Bloody Gate).

The financial plunder dwarfed even the human tragedy. Persian troops hauled away treasures including the Peacock Throne and legendary diamonds Koh-i-Noor and Darya-ye Noor. Total loot reached an estimated 700 million rupees (equivalent to £8.2 billion today). Administrative changes were equally significant – western territories including Punjab were annexed, while Muhammad Shah became a Persian vassal.

Legacy of the Invasion: Reshaping South Asian Geopolitics

Nadir Shah’s campaign had far-reaching consequences. The Mughal Empire never recovered its authority, accelerating regional powers’ rise and creating power vacuums that the British East India Company would later exploit. For Persia, the invasion funded Nadir Shah’s subsequent campaigns against the Ottomans and Central Asian khanates, though his empire proved as ephemeral as his victories.

Cultural impacts reverberated through art, architecture, and courtly traditions. The stolen Mughal treasures influenced Persian aesthetics, while the trauma of invasion entered Indian collective memory. Military historians still study Nadir Shah’s operational brilliance at Khyber Pass and Karnal as exemplars of asymmetric warfare.

Perhaps most significantly, the invasion revealed how fragile even the mightiest empires become when burdened by internal divisions and complacent leadership – a lesson with enduring relevance for students of geopolitics and statecraft. As the Peacock Throne changed hands, so too did the balance of power in Asia, setting the stage for European colonial dominance in the century to come.