Through the Eyes of Travellers

The Kitab-ul-Hind was written by Al-Biruni in Arabic. It is a voluminous text divided into 80 chapters covering subjects such as religion and philosophy, festivals, astronomy, alchemy, manners and customs, social life, weights and measures, iconography, laws, and metrology.

Al-Biruni adopted a distinctive mathematical structure for the text. Generally, each chapter begins with a question, followed by a description based on Sanskritic traditions, and concludes with a comparison with other cultures (such as Greek or Persian). The language is simple and lucid, as Al-Biruni intended it for people living along the frontiers of the subcontinent.

Ibn Battuta (14th Century): He wrote as an excited traveler. His perspective was that of an outsider fascinated by the “unfamiliar.” He described things that were unique to him (like coconut and paan) to impress his audience in Morocco. He focused on the social life, efficiency of systems (like the postal system), and the grandeur of the Sultan, though he was largely uncritical of the political structure itself.

Francois Bernier (17th Century): He wrote from the perspective of an intellectual seeking to compare the East with the West. His account, Travels in the Mughal Empire, constantly compared Mughal India unfavorably to France. He focused on “deficiencies” in Indian society, such as the lack of private property in land, seeking to prove the superiority of European institutions.

Bernier described Mughal cities as “camp towns,” meaning they owed their existence and survival entirely to the imperial camp. He believed that these cities came into existence when the imperial court arrived and declined rapidly when it moved away.

He suggested that these cities did not have viable social and economic foundations but were dependent on imperial patronage. However, this view was likely an oversimplification. Bernier also described bustling market towns and manufacturing centres. He noted the existence of rich merchants and a variety of production centres (karkhanas), but emphasized that there was no strong middle class—only the incredibly rich ruling class and the extremely poor masses.

Ibn Battuta provides detailed evidence that slavery was rampant and socially accepted. He noted that slaves were openly sold in markets like any other commodity.

Key points include:

• Slaves were often used as gifts. Ibn Battuta himself bought horses, camels, and slaves to gift Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlaq.
• There was differentiation among slaves. Female slaves were used for domestic work and entertainment (singing/dancing).
• Some female slaves were employed by the Sultan to keep watch on his nobles (spies).
• Slaves were generally used for domestic labor and menial tasks (like carrying palanquins) rather than agricultural production.

Bernier provided a detailed and critical description of Sati (widow burning). The elements that drew his attention were:

1. Coercion vs. Consent: He noted that while some women seemed to embrace death willingly, others were forced onto the pyre by Brahman priests and relatives.
2. The emotional spectacle: He described a specific instance of a twelve-year-old widow who was trembling and weeping, eventually being bound and burned alive against her will.
3. Social pressure: He highlighted the role of the surrounding crowd and priests in ensuring the sacrifice was completed, treating it as a barbaric suppression of women.

Al-Biruni tried to understand the caste system by studying Sanskrit texts and engaging with Brahmanical scholars. His description was deeply influenced by his study of normative texts like the Vedas.

Description of Hierarchy: He accepted the Brahmanical description of the four varnas:

• Brahmans: Created from the head of Brahman, representing the highest spiritual order.
• Kshatriyas: Created from the shoulders and hands, responsible for protection.
• Vaishyas: Created from the thighs.
• Shudras: Created from the feet.

However, he noted that socially, the life of Vaishyas and Shudras was not very different.

Comparative Approach: Al-Biruni tried to show that social division was not unique to India. He compared it to ancient Persia, which also had four social classes (knights/princes, monks, lawyers/physicians, and peasants/artisans). By doing this, he suggested that social stratification was a global phenomenon.

Rejection of “Pollution”: While he accepted the caste hierarchy, Al-Biruni rejected the notion of pollution. He argued that everything which falls into a state of impurity strives to regain its original state of purity (e.g., the sun cleanses the air, salt cleanses the sea). He believed that if this were not true, life on earth would be impossible. Therefore, he considered the social concept of deep, permanent pollution to be contrary to the laws of nature.

Yes, Ibn Battuta’s account is extremely useful for understanding urban life in the 14th century, despite some limitations of his perspective as a foreigner.

Reasons for Utility:

1. Description of Cities: He provides vivid descriptions of cities like Delhi and Daulatabad. He described Delhi as a vast city with a massive wall (28 cubits wide) and multiple gates (Darwazas), giving us architectural insights.
2. Economic Prosperity: He described the markets (bazaars) not just as places of trade but as social centres. He noted that the markets were crowded and wealthy, indicating a prosperous economy fueled by trade with Asia.
3. Cosmopolitan Culture: His account reveals that Indian cities were multicultural, housing people from various backgrounds, religions, and professions. He describes the music/entertainment market in Daulatabad (Tarababad) specifically for singers, showing the richness of cultural life.
4. Communication Systems: He was amazed by the efficiency of the postal system (Uluq and Dawa), which allowed goods and information to travel rapidly between cities, essential for urban trade and governance.

Conclusion: While he sometimes exaggerated numbers or relied on hearsay, his focus on the sensory details—the crowds, the colors, the wealth, and the infrastructure—provides a dynamic picture of urban life that dry administrative records cannot match.

Bernier’s account is a mix of astute observation and ideological bias. While it provides valuable details, historians must read it with caution when reconstructing rural society.

Bernier’s Core Theory: He believed that the fundamental flaw in India was the lack of private property in land. He claimed that the King owned all the land and distributed it to nobles (Jagirdars). Because these nobles held land only temporarily, they had no incentive to improve it.

The Picture of Ruin: Bernier described rural society as ruined. He wrote of “pestilential marshes,” untilled fields, and a peasantry that was cruelly oppressed by the governors. He claimed that farmers were often forced to flee their villages due to tyranny.

Historical Assessment: Historians have used Bernier’s account but often contradict his broad conclusions:

• Contradiction of Surplus: India was a major exporter of cotton, silk, and sugar during this time. This implies that agriculture was actually quite productive and generated a surplus, contradicting Bernier’s image of total ruin.
• Land Ownership: Later research (and official Mughal documents) suggests that the state did not own all the land; private rights and hereditary claims (of Zamindars and peasants) existed.
• Social Stratification: Bernier missed the complexity of rural society (caste-based labor, headmen, zamindars), simplifying it into just “tyrant governors” and “poor peasants.”

Conclusion: His account is useful for understanding the *political* structure of revenue collection and the *potential* for oppression, but inaccurate regarding the actual legal status of land ownership and agricultural productivity.

1. Crafts mentioned in the passage:

• Making of muskets (guns).
• Fowling-pieces (light guns for shooting birds).
• Gold ornaments (goldsmithy).
• Paintings.

2. Comparison with descriptions in the chapter:
This passage presents a contradiction or a “moment of praise” in Bernier’s generally critical narrative.

In the General Chapter: Bernier usually argued that Indian artisans had no incentive to improve their craft because they were not allowed to keep the profits (due to the lack of private property and state oppression). He claimed they were ill-treated by the nobles (karkhanas) and worked only out of necessity. He generally depicted the production system as stagnant.

In this Passage: He openly admits to the superior skill of the artisans. He acknowledges that despite being “destitute of tools” (lacking European technology), they could manufacture items that rivaled or exceeded European quality. This suggests that the individual talent of Indian artisans was high, even if Bernier believed the *system* they worked in was flawed. This admission helps historians argue that pre-colonial Indian industry was actually quite advanced, contrary to the “ruined” picture Bernier tries to paint elsewhere.