Ans. Jadunath Sarkar rightly observed that Nadir Shah’s invasion was more a symptom of the Mughal Empire’s decay than its direct cause. The 1739 Battle of Karnal saw Nadir Shah, the Persian monarch and founder of the Afsharid dynasty, inflict a humiliating defeat on the Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah ‘Rangila’ in under three hours. What followed was the plundering of Delhi, the looting of the Peacock Throne and the Koh-i-noor diamond, and a massacre that exposed the military and administrative vulnerabilities of a once-powerful empire.

Strategic and Tactical Factors Behind Nadir Shah’s Victory

1. Nadir Shah’s Military Genius and Experience

Known as the “Napoleon of Persia”, Nadir Shah was a seasoned commander.
He had already defeated the Ottomans, Russians, and Afghan tribes, demonstrating his battlefield adaptability.
His campaigns had sharpened his army's experience in diverse terrains and combat scenarios.

2. Use of the Khyber Pass and Swift Advance

After capturing Kandahar in 1738, Nadir Shah entered India through the Khyber Pass, historically used by invaders like Alexander and Timur.
His advance was swift and strategically timed, exploiting Mughal administrative lethargy.

3. Discipline and Modern Warfare Tactics

Though smaller in number (55,000 troops), his army was highly disciplined, well-drilled, and used superior tactics.
He employed mobile artillery, cavalry maneuverability, and coordinated formations.
His battle plans were based on deception, encirclement, and decisive strikes.

4. Weakness and Disunity Among Mughal Commanders

The Mughal army was numerically larger but suffered from internal rivalries and poor coordination.
Key generals like Saadat Khan, Nizam-ul-Mulk, and Khan Dauran acted independently and failed to present a united front.
The leadership lacked initiative and modern strategic understanding.

5. Poor Intelligence and Preparation

Mughal forces underestimated Nadir Shah’s speed and strength.
Their response was reactionary and disorganized, leading to confusion and an early collapse during the battle.

6. Psychological and Technological Edge

Nadir Shah’s use of psychological warfare, including swift and brutal punishment of opposition, demoralized the Mughal ranks.
His troops were equipped with more advanced muskets and cannons, providing a technological edge.

The Battle as a Reflection of Mughal Military Weakness

1. Structural Decline of the Mughal Army

The empire's army had become overdependent on outdated feudal levies, lacking a standing professional force.
Cavalry-based tactics without modernisation proved ineffective against Nadir Shah’s firepower and mobility.

2. Administrative Decay and Fiscal Bankruptcy

Mughal revenue administration was failing to sustain the military, resulting in underpaid, unmotivated soldiers.
Corruption and decentralisation had reduced the Emperor’s real control over regional forces.

3. Failure of Centralised Command

Unlike Nadir Shah’s single command structure, the Mughals had multiple semi-autonomous commanders unwilling to obey central orders.
This led to disjointed battle planning and execution.

4. Symbolic Exposure of Imperial Fragility

The loss of Delhi, the Peacock Throne, and the Koh-i-noor not only symbolised military defeat but exposed the hollow core of imperial grandeur.
It undermined the moral and political legitimacy of Mughal rule across India.

The Battle of Karnal was not just a military defeat—it was a turning point that exposed the Mughal Empire’s inability to defend its sovereignty. As noted by Dalrymple and Anand, Nadir Shah left Delhi with the wealth of eight generations, leaving the Mughal treasury depleted and incapable of funding governance or military restoration.

Over the next century, this weakness would deepen, with Mughal authority shrinking to a mere ceremonial presence, culminating in the formal end of the Empire by the British in 1857. Thus, Karnal symbolised the collapse of military credibility and hastened the political fragmentation of the Indian subcontinent.

Useful Links

Quick Links