Who is to Blame for the Decline of Nations: The Rulers or the People?
History is a fascinating record of the rise and fall of civilizations,
offering lessons that resonate across eras. Nations rarely sustain their glory
indefinitely; the seeds of decline often sprout during their zenith. While the
decline of nations is frequently attributed to societal degeneration as a
whole, a closer examination reveals that the ruling elite—the custodians of
power and resources—bears the primary responsibility for national
collapse.
The masses, bound by poverty and powerlessness, often have little influence
over the trajectory of a nation's ascent or descent. Let us explore how the
conduct and priorities of the ruling elite have historically determined the
fate of empires, focusing on two prominent examples: the Roman Empire and the
Mughal Empire.
The Roman Empire: A Story of Complacency and Corruption
The Roman Empire’s rise was fueled by military conquest, strategic
governance, and the disciplined might of Roman citizens who formed the backbone
of its early army. Roman generals, driven by ambition, sought to expand the
empire and secure wealth, prestige, and land for themselves.
However, as the empire grew, so did its reliance on enslaved labor and
foreign soldiers from conquered territories. This marked a significant shift:
the Roman elite increasingly prioritized personal luxury over national
stability. Wealth accumulated in the hands of the few, while the majority of
citizens faced economic hardship.
The erosion of military discipline and civic responsibility among the
ruling elite became evident when revolts broke out in conquered regions. For
instance, during the Boudicca rebellion in Britain, Roman forces crushed the
uprising but failed to sustain long-term control. Defensive measures like
Hadrian’s Wall symbolized the empire’s retreat into defensive postures rather
than expansionist ambitions.
By 410 CE, when Germanic tribes sacked Rome, the ruling elite had become so
consumed by self-preservation that they abandoned the city’s defense,
retreating to their countryside estates and leaving ordinary citizens to fend
for themselves. The Western Roman Empire collapsed, and with it, the
aristocracy faded into obscurity, unable to adapt to the changing tides.
The Mughal Empire: Luxury Over Responsibility
The Mughal Empire in South Asia offers another vivid example of how the
ruling elite’s priorities led to decline. During its peak, the empire was
characterized by immense wealth, architectural grandeur, and military prowess.
The Mughal nobility, known as mansabdars, lived in unparalleled opulence,
commanding vast resources and enjoying high social status.
Initially, this elite class played an active role in expanding and
consolidating the empire. Under Emperor Aurangzeb, for example, the nobility
supported military campaigns against Deccan states. However, cracks in their
effectiveness began to show. Instead of engaging in rigorous warfare, many mansabdars
preferred to bribe local rulers to surrender, avoiding prolonged conflict. This
not only drained the treasury but also emboldened adversaries like the
Marathas, who waged swift and relentless guerrilla campaigns.
The Maratha leader Shivaji repeatedly plundered Mughal territories,
including the port city of Surat, while the Mughals struggled to respond
effectively. Their slow-moving armies, burdened by the luxuries of their
traveling courts, were no match for the agility of Maratha forces.
After Aurangzeb’s death in 1707, the empire descended into chaos. Internal
power struggles among the nobility weakened central authority, leading to
widespread corruption and inefficiency. When external invasions by Nader Shah
and Ahmad Shah Durrani struck the empire, the aristocracy failed to mount an
adequate defense. Their focus remained on safeguarding their personal wealth
rather than protecting the state.
The People’s Perspective: Eternal Struggle Amidst Decline
While the ruling elite indulged in excess, the common people bore the brunt
of hardship throughout the rise and fall of these empires. Under both the
Romans and Mughals, the majority lived in abject poverty, with minimal access
to the wealth generated by their rulers.
For example, during the Mughal era, ordinary citizens lived in mud houses,
subsisting on basic diets of bread and chutney. They owned little more than the
clothes on their backs and often worked as laborers, receiving scant
recognition or benefits from the state.
The gap between the elite and the masses grew so wide that when the empires
eventually crumbled, the plight of the people remained unchanged. This
disparity underscores a critical point: when societies become deeply unequal,
they lose the cohesion necessary to withstand external and internal
threats.
Parallels Between the Roman and Mughal Decline
Both the Roman and Mughal Empires reveal a pattern:
1. Concentration of Wealth and Power: In both cases, the elite hoarded
resources, leaving the state ill-equipped to address crises or ensure equitable
development.
2. Erosion of Civic and Military Discipline: Luxury and complacency dulled
the ruling class’s ability to govern or fight effectively.
3. Neglect of the Common People: The masses were marginalized, reducing
their stake in defending or supporting the empire.
When external forces attacked, whether Germanic tribes or Maratha warriors,
the ruling classes’ inability to respond decisively sealed the fate of these
once-mighty empires.
A Broader Lesson for Modern Times
The lessons from history are clear: nations falter when their ruling elite
prioritizes personal gain over collective responsibility. Societies that allow
unchecked inequality to flourish become brittle, incapable of adapting to
challenges or harnessing the full potential of their people.
Whether in ancient Rome, Mughal India, or contemporary states, the
fundamental truth remains: a nation’s strength lies in the unity and equitable
development of its people. When rulers disregard this principle, they not only
jeopardize their own survival but also ensure the decline of the civilization
they are meant to uphold.
