Through the Eyes of Travellers (Perceptions of Society c. 10th–17th Century) — Practice

Question 1

Identify: (i) The traveller who wrote 'Kitab-ul-Hind.' (ii) The traveller who described Muhammad bin Tughlaq's postal system. (iii) The traveller who argued that the Mughal Emperor owned all land in India.

Accepted Answer

(i) AL-BIRUNI — Central Asian scholar who came to India with Mahmud of Ghazni (c. 1017–1030 CE). He wrote Kitab-ul-Hind in Arabic, studying Sanskrit texts and Indian philosophy. (ii) IBN BATTUTA — 14th century Moroccan traveller who visited during Muhammad bin Tughlaq's sultanate (c. 1333–1342 CE). He described the Dawa (postal relay) system in his Rihla. (iii) FRANÇOIS BERNIER — 17th century French physician and philosopher who visited the Mughal court (1656–1668 CE). He argued in 'Travels in the Mogul Empire' that the Emperor's ownership of all land was the cause of India's economic stagnation — the 'oriental despotism' thesis.

Question 2

What were the limitations of Al-Biruni's account of India in the Kitab-ul-Hind?

Accepted Answer

Al-Biruni's Kitab-ul-Hind is an extraordinary work of scholarship, but it has significant limitations as a source for understanding India as a whole: (1) BRAHMANICAL BIAS: Al-Biruni learned about India primarily through BRAHMANICAL SANSKRIT TEXTS — the Vedas, Puranas, and philosophical works. His account therefore reflects the Brahmanical, upper-caste perspective on Indian society. He knew very little about the lived experiences of lower castes, Shudras, or untouchables. (2) LIMITED CONTACT WITH ORDINARY PEOPLE: Because Al-Biruni depended on texts and the scholars who interpreted them, his India was a TEXTUAL INDIA — not the India of villages, markets, or lower-caste communities. (3) NO KNOWLEDGE OF VERNACULAR LANGUAGES: Al-Biruni knew Sanskrit, but India's regional languages — Tamil, Telugu, Kannada — were outside his reach. This meant the rich literary traditions and social life of southern India were largely absent from his account. (4) FOCUS ON PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE: Al-Biruni was particularly interested in Indian mathematics, astronomy, and philosophy. He spent less time on political events, social conditions, or economic life. (5) COMPARATIVE FRAMEWORK: He consistently compared Indian ideas to Greek philosophy — which, while intellectually rich, sometimes imposed Greek categories on Indian thought rather than letting it speak for itself.

Question 3

What was Bernier's view of the Mughal economy and Indian society? To what extent was his account accurate and objective?

Accepted Answer

BERNIER'S VIEWS: François Bernier visited the Mughal court as a physician (1656–1668) and wrote 'Travels in the Mogul Empire.' His central economic argument was that the MUGHAL EMPEROR OWNED ALL LAND — there was no private property. Nobles (mansabdars) held jagirs (land revenue assignments) only at the Emperor's pleasure, which reverted to the crown on their death. Farmers and artisans therefore had no security of tenure and no incentive to invest in improvement. Bernier described Indian cities (Agra, Delhi) as prosperous in the centre near the court, but with no 'middle class' of merchants and craftspeople comparable to European towns. He observed widespread poverty, famines, and what he described as economic stagnation — and attributed all of this to the absence of private property in land and the 'tyranny' of the Mughal Emperor. He explicitly COMPARED India to Europe, arguing that Europe's prosperity rested on secure private property, whereas India's 'oriental despotism' suppressed economic enterprise. ACCURACY AND LIMITATIONS: (1) INCORRECT ON LAND OWNERSHIP: Later historians, notably IRFAN HABIB (in 'The Agrarian System of Mughal India'), showed that there WAS significant private land ownership in Mughal India. Peasants had heritable occupancy rights; merchants owned property; there were complex land market transactions. Bernier's 'no private property' thesis was WRONG as an empirical claim. (2) IDEOLOGICAL MOTIVATION: Bernier was a French Enlightenment philosopher writing for a EUROPEAN AUDIENCE and making an argument for EUROPEAN LIBERALISM — specifically, that private property and limited government were the keys to prosperity. His description of India served this ideological purpose more than it described Indian reality. (3) SELECTIVE OBSERVATION: Bernier spent most of his time at the Mughal court, in major cities, and in the company of the Mughal elite. He had limited access to rural agrarian society, the temple economy, or non-Mughal areas. (4) INFLUENCE AND DISTORTION: Despite its inaccuracies, Bernier's account was enormously influential — it shaped European (and later, Marx's) ideas about 'Asiatic despotism' and 'Oriental stagnation.' These ideas then fed into colonial ideologies justifying British rule as 'liberating' India from despotism. CONCLUSION: Bernier's account is valuable as a first-hand description of the Mughal court, its rituals, its wealth, and its politics. But as an economic analysis, it was shaped by ideology and limited by access — and its most influential claim (no private property) was factually incorrect.

Practice — Through the Eyes of Travellers (Perceptions of Society c. 10th–17th Century)

Sign in to save attempts to your dashboard and track your accuracy over time

Find a verified tutor

Join a live course

Browse coaching centres

About

Categories

Support

Documentation

Get Study Tips & Updates

Download Our App

Download for iOS

Download for Android

Popular Cities