Latest / Aurangzeb: The Emperor Who Expanded and Broke the Mughal Empire — Fexingo History / Aurangzeb's Execution of Sambhaji: The Killing That Fueled the Maratha War
Transcript
- Lucas: So we've talked before about how Aurangzeb's Deccan campaigns dragged on for decades, but there's one event that really turned the tide — the execution of the Maratha king Sambhaji in 1689. I think that single killing reshaped the entire war. Luna: Right, I remember you mentioned Sambhaji briefly in the Deccan forts episode. But what exactly happened at his capture and death? Lucas: Well, let's set the scene. After Shivaji's death in 1680, his son Sambhaji took over the Maratha kingdom. He was a complex figure — brilliant, erratic, and deeply suspicious of the Mughals. Aurangzeb had been trying to catch him for years, but Sambhaji was elusive, using guerrilla tactics and the rugged terrain of the Western Ghats. Lucas: The capture happened in early 1689 at a place called Sangameshwar, near the coast of what's now Maharashtra. Sambhaji was there with a small group of trusted commanders and his courtiers, probably planning a campaign. But his own people betrayed him. Luna: Betrayed by his own courtiers? Who? Lucas: There were a few — notably a Brahmin named Ganoji Shirke, who was actually Sambhaji's brother-in-law. He'd fallen out with the king and passed information to the Mughal commander, a Rajput officer named Mukhtiar Khan. The Mughals surrounded the camp at night. Sambhaji tried to fight his way out, but he was outnumbered and captured along with his chief minister, Kavi Kalash. Luna: So he was taken alive. Then what? The maasir i alamgiri surely has something to say about this. Lucas: Oh, absolutely. The official Mughal chronicle, the maasir i alamgiri, records that Sambhaji and Kavi Kalash were brought before Aurangzeb at his camp in Tulapur, near the Bhima River. Aurangzeb was in his seventies by then, but still deeply involved in the campaign. He had them paraded in chains, wearing ridiculous costumes — a kind of public mockery. Lucas: Then came the interrogation. Aurangzeb demanded that Sambhaji surrender his forts, reveal the Maratha treasure hoards, and convert to Islam. Sambhaji flatly refused. According to the chronicles, he insulted the emperor and the Prophet, which sealed his fate. But that's the Mughal version — we have to be cautious. The Maratha accounts naturally paint Sambhaji as defiant and heroic. Luna: What happened next was gruesome, I assume? Lucas: It was. For about three weeks, Sambhaji and Kavi Kalash were tortured — their eyes were gouged out, their tongues cut, their nails pulled. The idea was to make an example of them, to terrorise the Marathas into submission. Finally, on March 11, 1689, they were executed. The method is disputed: some say beheading, others say they were torn apart by dogs or elephants. The maasir i alamgiri simply says they were put to death. Luna: And that backfired, right? Instead of breaking the Marathas, it turned Sambhaji into a martyr. Lucas: Exactly. Within days of the execution, Sambhaji's half-brother Rajaram was crowned as the new Maratha king at the hill fort of Jinji, deep in the Tamil country. The Maratha resistance didn't collapse — it regrouped. And the guerrilla leaders like Santaji Ghorpade and Dhanaji Jadhav began using the memory of Sambhaji's sacrifice as a rallying cry. Luna: So Aurangzeb's cruelty actually prolonged the war. Lucas: Without a doubt. The Deccan campaign had already been dragging on for years, and after 1689 it became even more costly. Aurangzeb spent the rest of his life chasing the Marathas from fort to fort. He died in 1707, still camped in the Deccan, with the empire bleeding resources. Some historians argue that the execution was the turning point that led to the Mughal decline. Lucas: And there's another layer: the role of Aurangzeb's own son, Prince Muhammad Sultan. He had been captured by the Marathas years earlier and had actually converted to Islam to marry Sambhaji's daughter. That's a whole other story of betrayal and family drama. Luna: Wait — Muhammad Sultan was Sambhaji's son-in-law? And he converted? That's wild. Lucas: It is. Muhammad Sultan had been sent to the Deccan in the 1670s to fight the Marathas, but he was captured in battle. To secure his release, he married Sambhaji's daughter and converted to Islam — at least nominally. Later, when Sambhaji was captured, Muhammad Sultan was actually present in Aurangzeb's camp. Some accounts say he tried to intercede for his father-in-law, but Aurangzeb didn't listen. Lucas: So the execution was not just a military act; it was deeply personal, tearing apart family ties. And that's part of what made it so brutal — it was a public spectacle meant to humiliate, not just kill. Luna: Speaking of public spectacles and history — you know, this show exists because of listeners who support it. If you've been following along with these conversations about Mughal and Maratha history, and you'd like to help keep us ad-free, you can find us at buymeacoffee dot com slash fexingo. That's buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. No pressure, but every bit helps us keep digging into these stories. Lucas: Yeah, we really appreciate the support. And speaking of digging deeper — after Sambhaji's death, the Marathas under Rajaram and later his queen Tarabai fought on for another decade and a half. The siege of Jinji itself lasted eight years, from 1689 to 1698, and became a symbol of Maratha resilience. Lucas: The Mughals poured enormous resources into taking that fort, but the Marathas kept slipping out, raiding supply lines, and then returning. It was a classic guerrilla campaign. And all the while, the Maratha resistance was fueled by the memory of Sambhaji's execution. Luna: So in a way, Aurangzeb created the very enemy he spent the rest of his reign trying to destroy. Lucas: Exactly. The Mughal empire never really recovered from the Deccan wars. The treasury was drained, the army was stretched thin, and the emperor's personal prestige was undermined by his inability to crush the Marathas. By the time he died, the empire was already showing cracks that would widen into the 18th century. Luna: What about the European accounts? You mentioned Niccolao Manucci and François Bernier in earlier episodes. Did they write about this? Lucas: Manucci was still around in India during this period, and his 'Storia do Mogor' does mention the execution, though he wasn't an eyewitness. He reports that Sambhai was tortured and then beheaded. Bernier had died earlier, but other European travelers like John Fryer and the Dutch envoy also wrote about it, often with horror at the cruelty. Lucas: So we have multiple perspectives — the Mughal chronicle, the Maratha ballads, and European letters. They all agree on the basic facts: capture, torture, public execution. But they interpret it very differently. For the Mughals, it was justice. For the Marathas, it was martyrdom. Luna: And for us, it's a reminder that history isn't just about battles — it's about how those battles are remembered. Lucas: Exactly. And that memory — of a king who defied an empire and died horribly for it — shaped the Maratha identity for generations. It's one of those events that echoes far beyond its immediate moment. Lucas: So if you're interested in learning more about the aftermath — Rajaram's flight to Jinji, the role of Tarabai, and how the Marathas eventually rebuilt — let us know. We might do a follow-up episode. Luna: I'd love to hear that. And in the meantime, we'll keep bringing you these deep dives into Mughal India, thanks to listeners like you.