CBSE Class 12 · Through the Eyes of Travellers: Perceptions of Society (c. tenth to seventeenth century)

François Bernier and Mughal India: The 'Degenerate' East (Class 12 History)

Updated 15 October 2026 · Fact-checked

François Bernier, a French doctor in India from 1656 to 1668, compared Mughal India unfavourably with Europe. He blamed crown ownership of land for poor peasants, ruined agriculture and the absence of a middle class. Montesquieu and Marx built on his account, though Mughal records and his own observations show a more complex society.

Understand François Bernier and Mughal India

Why this topic matters. Bernier is the third traveller of Theme 5 and the one most often used in evaluation questions: his view of landownership, how European thinkers used it, and how his own writing reveals a more complex reality. NCERT sections 3, 6 and 7 with Sources 4, 11-14.

1. Who he was. Europeans wrote about India after the Portuguese arrived in about 1500 (Duarte Barbosa, Roberto Nobili); after 1600 came Dutch, English and French travellers such as Tavernier, and the Italian doctor Manucci, who settled in India. François Bernier of France combined three roles: doctor, political philosopher and historian. He spent twelve years (1656-1668) in India, first as doctor to Prince Dara Shukoh (Shah Jahan's eldest son) and then working as a scholar and scientist alongside Danishmand Khan, an Armenian noble of the Mughal court. He often travelled with the army (Source 4: the march to Kashmir).

2. Comparing 'East' and 'West'.

He dedicated his major work to Louis XIV and wrote many letters to officials and ministers.
He almost always presented India as bleak compared with Europe, an assessment that was not always accurate.
His Travels in the Mughal Empire is detailed and reflective but works on binary opposition: India as the inverse of Europe, ordered hierarchically so that India appears inferior.
He aimed to influence policy-makers and the intelligentsia in Europe.
Popularity: published in France in 1670-71, translated into English, Dutch, German and Italian within five years; reprinted eight times in French (1670-1725) and three times in English by 1684. Arabic and Persian accounts, by contrast, circulated as manuscripts and were generally not published before 1800.

3. The question of landownership.

Bernier saw the lack of private property in land as the fundamental difference between Mughal India and Europe. He believed the emperor owned all land and distributed it to nobles (a view found in most sixteenth- and seventeenth-century travellers).
His argument: since landholders could not pass land to their children, they avoided long-term investment; no class of 'improving' landlords emerged; agriculture was ruined, peasants oppressed, and living standards declined for all except the ruling aristocracy.
The poor peasant (Source 11): barren, thinly peopled land; good land untilled for want of labourers; peasants unable to pay rapacious lords lost their means of living and even their children (taken as slaves), and fled.
Society: undifferentiated masses of poor people ruled by a tiny rich class; he declared there was 'no middle state in India'.
A warning for Europe (Source 12): if European kings copied the Mughal model, they would become kings of 'beggars and barbarians', with ruined cities and fields full of bushes and marshes.

4. What the evidence actually shows.

No Mughal official document says the state was the sole owner of land. Abu'l Fazl called land revenue 'remunerations of sovereignty', a claim for protection, not rent. It was a tax on the crop, not rent or even a land tax; travellers may have mistaken high revenue demands for rent.
Rural society was differentiated: big zamindars with superior rights, big peasants using hired labour and producing for the market, small subsistence peasants, and 'untouchable' landless labourers (Theme 8).

5. How European thinkers used Bernier.

Montesquieu (eighteenth century): oriental despotism: Asian rulers had absolute power over subjects kept in subjugation and poverty; all land belonged to the king and private property did not exist.
Karl Marx (nineteenth century): the Asiatic mode of production: before colonialism, the state appropriated surplus; society was made of autonomous, internally egalitarian village communities under an imperial court; a stagnant system. NCERT notes this picture of rural society was far from true.

6. A more complex social reality (in Bernier's own account).

He thought artisans lacked incentive because the state took profits, so manufactures declined; yet he conceded that vast amounts of the world's gold and silver flowed into India in exchange for exports, and noticed a prosperous merchant community (Source 13: Bengal surpassing Egypt in rice, corn, silks, cotton and indigo).
Towns: he called Mughal cities 'camp towns', dependent on the imperial camp. In fact about 15 per cent of people lived in towns in the seventeenth century, higher on average than in Western Europe; there were manufacturing, trading, port, sacred and pilgrimage towns.
Merchants were organised in caste-cum-occupational bodies: mahajans led by a sheth; in Ahmedabad, the nagarsheth represented them. Professionals included hakims and vaids, pundits and mullas, wakils, painters, architects, musicians and calligraphers.
Imperial karkhanas (Source 14): workshops with separate halls for embroiderers, goldsmiths, painters, lacquer-workers, tailors, silk and muslin makers; artisans worked all day under a master, with 'no one aspiring' to improve his condition.

7. Women and sati. European travellers treated the treatment of women as a marker of East-West difference; Bernier described sati in detail, noting that some women seemed to embrace death while others were forced, and described a child widow burnt against her will. But women's labour was vital in agriculture and crafts; merchant women traded and even went to court. Travellers' observations were shaped by their own backgrounds, and much went unnoticed.

Key quotations

Short lines worth knowing by heart: who says them, when, and why they matter.

There is no middle state in India.
François Bernier (quoted in NCERT, section 6.1): His view of a society of the very rich and the very poor.
Shows his oversimplified binary picture of Mughal society.
remunerations of sovereignty
Abu'l Fazl, as cited in NCERT, section 6.1: Describing land revenue under Akbar.
Evidence against Bernier's idea of crown ownership.
kings of deserts and solitudes, of beggars and barbarians
François Bernier (Source 12, NCERT): His warning to European kings against the Mughal model.
Shows that he wrote to influence European policy-makers.
about 15 per cent of the population lived in towns
NCERT, Theme 5, section 6.2: Seventeenth-century urbanisation in India.
Contradicts Bernier's 'camp towns' view.

François Bernier and Mughal India: key facts

Bernier: French doctor, political philosopher, historian; in India 1656-1668; physician to Dara Shukoh; later with Danishmand Khan; Major work dedicated to Louis XIV; published 1670-71.
His method: 1.Compare India with Europe
2.binary opposition
3.India ranked inferior; Aimed at European policy-makers.
Crown ownership argument: 1.Emperor owns land
2.no inheritance
3.no investment
4.no improving landlords
5.ruined agriculture, oppressed peasants, decline; 'No middle state in India'.
Counter-evidence: No Mughal document claims sole state ownership
Revenue: 'remunerations of sovereignty', a tax on the crop
Differentiated rural society; Abu'l Fazl; Theme 8.
Who used him: Montesquieu: oriental despotism (18th century); Marx: Asiatic mode of production (19th century); Both pictures of a stagnant East were far from true.
Complex reality: Gold and silver inflow; prosperous merchants; 15% urban; many kinds of towns; mahajans, sheth, nagarsheth; karkhanas; He called cities 'camp towns'.

How to answer François Bernier and Mughal India questions

Boards ask 1-mark facts (his patron, years, idea of camp towns), 3-mark questions (crown ownership; how Montesquieu and Marx used him; condition of peasants), source questions (peasants, karkhanas, Bengal) and 8-mark evaluations of his account.

1Introduce him with dates and court connections.
2State his view and the reasoning behind it (crown ownership → decline).
3Show its influence (Montesquieu, Marx).
4Test it with evidence: Abu'l Fazl, differentiated rural society, 15 per cent urban, merchants, gold and silver inflow.
5Conclude on his purpose (influencing Europe) and the binary method that shaped his picture.

François Bernier and Mughal India in real life

The idea, met in an everyday situation. Answer the question in your own words, then compare with the model answer. The one-line hook is what to remember.

Binary comparison and its distortions

Suppose a student who has moved from a big city writes to friends that her new small town has 'nothing': no malls, no traffic rules, no culture, only very rich and very poor people.

Why might her description be unreliable, and how is it like Bernier's account?

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution

She judges the town only by her old city's standards.
She sets up opposites (city good, town bad) and misses shopkeepers, teachers and clerks in between.
Bernier compared India with Europe, presented it as the inverse, and claimed there was no middle state.

Answer: Both use binary opposition from their own background, which hides the middle groups and the town's real life; historians must check such accounts against other evidence.

Memory hook: Opposites hide the middle.

Writing to influence an audience

Imagine a journalist who wants a new law passed writes only about the worst cases of a problem, to alarm readers.

How does this resemble Bernier's description of Mughal peasants?

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution

The journalist selects evidence to support a goal.
Bernier wanted Europeans to value private property.
He stressed ruined fields and fleeing peasants as a warning.

Answer: Bernier, like the journalist, selected bleak details to persuade his audience; his description served his argument as much as it described India.

Memory hook: Know the writer's goal before trusting the picture.

Tricks to remember François Bernier and Mughal India

Short memory aids. Say each one aloud once, then use it on a question the same day.

B-12-D-D
Bernier: 12 years (1656-68), Dara Shukoh, then Danishmand Khan.
Use it when: His career in one line.
M-O, M-A
Montesquieu → Oriental despotism; Marx → Asiatic mode of production.
Use it when: Who used Bernier, for what.
No land, no middle, camp towns
Bernier's three errors: no private land, no middle state, only camp towns.
Use it when: Points to test against evidence.

François Bernier and Mughal India: solved examples

Ordered from board level to HOTS. Try each one before you open the solution.

Example 1: Bernier's patron · 1 mark · MCQBoard level

François Bernier served as physician to
(a) Emperor Akbar
(b) Prince Dara Shukoh
(c) Emperor Aurangzeb
(d) Muhammad bin Tughlaq

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution

He was physician to Prince Dara Shukoh, Shah Jahan's eldest son (1 mark).

Answer: (b) Prince Dara Shukoh

Example 2: Crown ownership of land · 3 marks · Short answerBoard level

Why did Bernier regard crown ownership of land as harmful? (3 marks)

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution

He believed the emperor owned all land and gave it to nobles, so landholders could not pass it to children (1 mark).
They avoided long-term investment; no 'improving' landlords emerged (1 mark).
Result: ruined agriculture, oppressed peasants, falling living standards except for the aristocracy (1 mark).

Answer: Bernier, a firm believer in private property, thought the Mughal emperor owned all the land and distributed it among nobles. Because landholders could not pass their land on to their children, they had no reason to invest in sustaining or expanding production, so no class of 'improving' landlords developed as in Western Europe. In his view this caused the uniform ruin of agriculture, severe oppression of the peasantry and a steady decline in living standards for everyone except the ruling aristocracy.

Example 3: Assertion and reason on Mughal records · 1 mark · Assertion-reasonHarder board level

Assertion (A): Mughal official documents describe the emperor as the sole owner of all land.
Reason (R): Abu'l Fazl described land revenue as 'remunerations of sovereignty'.
(a) Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A.
(b) Both A and R are true but R is not the correct explanation of A.
(c) A is true but R is false.
(d) A is false but R is true.

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution

No Mughal official document says the state was sole owner; Abu'l Fazl's phrase treats revenue as a claim for protection (1 mark).

Answer: (d) A is false but R is true.

Example 4: How Montesquieu and Marx used Bernier · 3 marks · Short answerHarder board level

How did Bernier's account shape the ideas of Montesquieu and Karl Marx about Asian societies? (3 marks)

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution

Montesquieu: oriental despotism; absolute rulers, subjugated poor subjects, no private property (1 mark).
Marx: Asiatic mode of production; state took surplus; autonomous egalitarian villages under the court; stagnant (1 mark).
Both relied on the idea of crown ownership; NCERT notes rural society was in fact differentiated (1 mark).

Answer: The eighteenth-century French philosopher Montesquieu used Bernier's account to develop the idea of oriental despotism: rulers in Asia had absolute authority, their subjects lived in subjugation and poverty, all land belonged to the king and private property did not exist. In the nineteenth century Karl Marx developed this into the Asiatic mode of production: before colonialism the state appropriated the surplus, and society consisted of autonomous, internally egalitarian village communities under an imperial court, a stagnant system. Both rested on Bernier's idea of crown ownership, but rural society was actually highly differentiated.

Example 5: Source-based: the imperial karkhanas · 4 marks · Source-basedHarder board level

Read the source (summarised for this page from Bernier's account in NCERT) and answer.

In large halls called karkhanas, artisans work under masters: embroiderers in one, goldsmiths in another, then painters, lacquer-workers, joiners and tailors, and makers of silk, brocade and fine muslin. They come every morning, work all day and go home in the evening. Their time passes quietly; nobody hopes to improve the condition of life into which he was born.

(i) What were karkhanas? (1)
(ii) What does the source show about the organisation of production? (1)
(iii) Bernier ends by saying that no artisan aspired to improve his condition. Is this consistent with what he says elsewhere about Indian manufactures and trade? (2)

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution

(i) Imperial workshops for artisans (1 mark).
(ii) Specialised halls by craft, supervision by masters, regular working hours (1 mark).
(iii) It fits his picture of stagnation and lack of incentive; but he also admitted gold and silver inflows and prosperous merchants, and towns were numerous, so the remark is a generalisation (2 marks).

Answer: (i) The imperial karkhanas were large workshops where artisans produced goods for the court. (ii) Production was specialised, with separate halls for each craft, supervised by masters, and run on regular daily hours. (iii) The remark that no one sought to improve his condition reflects Bernier's belief that, with profits taken by the state, artisans had no incentive and India was stagnant. It is not fully reliable: Bernier himself noted that the world's gold and silver flowed into India for its manufactures and that merchants prospered, and about 15 per cent of people lived in towns.

Example 6: Long answer: evaluating Bernier · 8 marks · Long answerHOTS / competency

"Bernier's account of Mughal India tells us as much about Europe as about India." Evaluate the statement. (8 marks)

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution

Who he was; dedication to Louis XIV; letters to officials; aim to influence Europe (1 mark).
Method: binary opposition; India as the inverse and inferior (1 mark).
Crown ownership and its consequences in his view (1 mark).
'No middle state'; the peasant source; warning to European kings (1 mark).
Influence: Montesquieu, Marx (1 mark).
Counter-evidence: Abu'l Fazl, tax on crop, differentiated rural society (1 mark).
His own hints of complexity: gold and silver, merchants, Bengal, 15 per cent urban, mahajans (1 mark).
Conclusion: valuable detail, but shaped by European debates and audience (1 mark).

Answer: François Bernier spent twelve years (1656-1668) in Mughal India as physician to Dara Shukoh and later with Danishmand Khan. He dedicated his major work to Louis XIV and wrote letters to European officials and ministers, so his intended readers were European policy-makers.

His method was comparison. He presented India as the inverse of Europe and ranked the differences so that India seemed inferior. Believing in private property, he argued that the Mughal emperor owned all land, so landholders would not invest, no improving landlords emerged, agriculture was ruined and peasants were oppressed and fled. He saw only a tiny rich elite and impoverished masses, declaring there was no middle state in India, and warned European kings that the Mughal model would make them rulers of beggars and barbarians. His account was hugely popular and shaped Western theory: Montesquieu's oriental despotism and Marx's Asiatic mode of production both rested on it.

The Indian evidence tells a different story. No Mughal document claims sole state ownership of land; Abu'l Fazl described revenue as 'remunerations of sovereignty', and it was a tax on the crop. Rural society was differentiated, from big zamindars to landless labourers. Bernier himself noted that the world's gold and silver flowed into India, that Bengal surpassed Egypt in produce, and that merchants prospered. About 15 per cent of people lived in towns, more than in Western Europe, in many kinds of towns with mahajans, sheths and professional groups, not merely 'camp towns'.

Bernier's detail is valuable, but his conclusions served a European debate about property and kingship. In that sense his account reveals European concerns as much as Indian realities.

Where students lose marks in François Bernier and Mughal India

The slips examiners see most often, and what to write instead.

Mistake: Accepting Bernier's claim of crown ownership as fact
It is vividly argued.
Wrong working
In Mughal India the emperor owned all the land.
Right working
Bernier believed this, but no Mughal document says so; revenue was a tax on the crop.
Do this: Attribute the claim and give the counter-evidence.
Usually costs: Evaluation marks.
Mistake: Mixing up Montesquieu and Marx
Two European thinkers.
Wrong working
Marx developed oriental despotism; Montesquieu the Asiatic mode.
Right working
Montesquieu: oriental despotism (18th century); Marx: Asiatic mode of production (19th century).
Do this: M-O, M-A.
Usually costs: 1 mark.
Mistake: Wrong years or patrons
Several Mughal names.
Wrong working
Bernier was Akbar's doctor in the sixteenth century.
Right working
He was in India 1656-1668, physician to Dara Shukoh.
Do this: B-12-D-D.
Usually costs: 1 mark.
Mistake: Ignoring the complexity in Bernier's own writing
Students present him as wholly negative.
Wrong working
Bernier saw nothing good in India.
Right working
He admitted gold and silver inflows, prosperous merchants and Bengal's fertility.
Do this: Add Source 13 to evaluations.
Usually costs: 1-2 marks.

Exam tips

Asked in: 2026 board paper 61/5/1 Q24 (3 marks, how Montesquieu and Marx used Bernier); 2023 board paper 61/4/1 Q25(b) (3 marks, why Bernier found crown ownership of land harmful); 2025 board paper 61/6/1 Q24(a) (3 marks, Bernier's observations and insights); 2025 board paper 61/7/1 Q32 (4-mark source on the karkhanas); 1-mark matching items such as 2024 61/3/1 (Travels in the Mughal Empire). Our answers are our own.
Pair every Bernier claim with NCERT's counter-evidence; that is the evaluation examiners reward.
Remember: 1656-1668, Dara Shukoh, Louis XIV, 'no middle state', 'camp towns'.
Link to Theme 8 for the actual structure of Mughal rural society.

Practice questions on François Bernier and Mughal India

Write each answer on paper first. Open the hint only if you are stuck, and the answer only when you have finished.

Q1 · 1 mark · MCQBoard level
What did Bernier mean by 'camp towns'?
(a) Towns built around army barracks
(b) Towns that depended on the imperial camp for their existence
(c) Pilgrimage towns
(d) Port towns
Hint
Imperial court moves in, town grows.
Answer
(b) Towns that came up when the imperial court moved in and declined when it left.
Q2 · 2 marks · Very short answerBoard level
Name the two persons Bernier was associated with at the Mughal court. (2 marks)
Hint
A prince and a noble.
Answer
Prince Dara Shukoh, eldest son of Shah Jahan, whose physician he was; and Danishmand Khan, an Armenian noble, with whom he worked as an intellectual and scientist.
Q3 · 3 marks · Short answerHarder board level
How did Bernier describe the condition of peasants in Mughal India? (3 marks)
Hint
Land, lords, flight.
Answer
He wrote that much of the land was sandy or barren, poorly cultivated and thinly peopled, and that good land lay untilled for lack of labourers, many of whom died from ill-treatment by governors. Peasants who could not meet the demands of rapacious lords lost their means of living and even their children, taken as slaves, so in despair they abandoned the countryside. He blamed crown ownership of land.
Q4 · 3 marks · Short answerHarder board level
What evidence suggests that Indian towns in the seventeenth century were more than 'camp towns'? (3 marks)
Hint
Percentage, types, merchants.
Answer
About 15 per cent of the population lived in towns, higher on average than in Western Europe. There were manufacturing towns, trading towns, port towns, sacred centres and pilgrimage towns, showing prosperous merchant and professional classes. Merchants were organised in mahajans under a sheth, and in Ahmedabad a nagarsheth represented them; professionals such as hakims, pundits, wakils and painters served many patrons, not just the court.
Q5 · 1 mark · Assertion-reasonHarder board level
Assertion (A): Bernier's writings were widely read in Europe soon after publication.
Reason (R): His works were published in 1670-71 and translated into several European languages within five years.
(a) Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A.
(b) Both A and R are true but R is not the correct explanation of A.
(c) A is true but R is false.
(d) A is false but R is true.
Hint
Print and translation.
Answer
(a) Both true; printing and quick translation spread his account.
Q6 · 3 marks · Short answerHOTS / competency
Suppose Bernier had read Abu'l Fazl's description of land revenue before writing. How might his argument have changed? (3 marks)
Hint
Remunerations of sovereignty.
Answer
Abu'l Fazl calls land revenue 'remunerations of sovereignty', a claim by the ruler for the protection he gave, not rent on land he owned. Had Bernier taken this seriously, he could not easily have built his case on crown ownership; he might have blamed high revenue demands instead, and might have seen that private rights and a differentiated rural society existed. His warning to Europe about the lack of private property would have lost its main support.
Q7 · 4 marks · Short answerHOTS / competency
Ibn Battuta was struck by novelty; Bernier by contrast with home. Illustrate this difference with examples from each traveller. (4 marks)
Hint
Novelty versus comparison.
Answer
Ibn Battuta described everything that impressed him by its novelty, such as the coconut, the paan, Delhi's ramparts and the postal system, to entertain and instruct his readers. Bernier belonged to a different tradition: he constantly compared India with Europe, focused on what he found depressing, and presented India as Europe's inferior opposite to influence European policy-makers. So Ibn Battuta's account is coloured by wonder, Bernier's by a comparative argument.

Test your recall

Answer in your head or on paper first, then open the card. Pulling an answer out of memory makes it stick far better than re-reading.

1.For how long was Bernier in India?Show answer
Twelve years, 1656-1668.
2.To whom did Bernier dedicate his major work?Show answer
Louis XIV, king of France.
3.What did Bernier see as the basic difference between India and Europe?Show answer
The lack of private property in land in India.
4.What idea did Montesquieu develop from Bernier?Show answer
Oriental despotism.
5.Roughly what share of India's population lived in towns in the seventeenth century?Show answer
About 15 per cent.
6.Who represented the mahajans of Ahmedabad?Show answer
The nagarsheth.

François Bernier and Mughal India: frequently asked questions

Who was François Bernier?

A French doctor, political philosopher and historian who lived in Mughal India from 1656 to 1668, serving as physician to Dara Shukoh and later working with Danishmand Khan.

What was Bernier's view of landownership in India?

He believed the emperor owned all land, which, he argued, discouraged investment, ruined agriculture and oppressed peasants. Mughal records do not support sole state ownership.

How did Montesquieu and Marx use Bernier's account?

Montesquieu built the idea of oriental despotism on it, and Marx developed the concept of the Asiatic mode of production, both picturing a stagnant East without private property.

Why is Bernier's account considered biased?

He compared India with Europe in a binary way, presenting it as inferior, and wrote to influence European policy-makers, while overlooking evidence of trade, towns and social differentiation.