A more complex social reality: crafts, merchants, towns

Detail

Who was Bernier, and why his testimony matters here

• François Bernier — French doctor, trained in medicine at the University of Montpellier. He sailed to the port of Surat and stayed in India roughly 12 years, 1658–1669. [2]
• He first served as personal physician to Dara Shikoh, eldest son of Shah Jahan, and later worked for Daneshmand Khan, a noble at Aurangzeb's court. So he watched the empire from close to the top. [2]
• His book came out in Paris as Histoire de la dernière révolution des états du Grand Mogol, 1670–71; the English version is Travels in the Mogul Empire. [2]
• He wrote long letters to people back in France, describing the economy, religion and social customs of north India. Remember this: he was writing for a French audience, comparing India with Europe — and France usually came out better. [2]

The contradiction at the heart of his account

• His claim: artisans had no incentive to improve manufactures. The reason he gave — the state grabbed the profit, so why work better?
• But he himself admitted the opposite:
• The world's precious metals flowed into India to pay for Indian manufactured goods.
• Gold and silver were, in his own words, "swallowed up, lost in some measure, in Hindustan".

• There was a prosperous merchant community running long-distance trade.

• Why this is a contradiction — break it down:

• If Indian crafts were poor and stagnant, nobody abroad would buy them.
• But the whole world was paying in gold and silver to buy them.

• So Indian crafts must have been good, in demand, and produced in bulk.

• Lesson for the exam: a traveller's description can be more reliable than his explanation. Use Bernier's facts, reject his theory.

• External support for the facts, not the theory:
• The 16th and 17th centuries saw European and non-European trading companies set up across the subcontinent, mainly to buy Indian goods wanted abroad; Indian regions were linked by a bigger overland and coastal trade network, which added to the internal stock of precious metals. [4]
• Surat was taken by the Mughals in 1573 and became the emporium of India, exporting cloth and gold; its main industries were textile manufacture and shipbuilding. It was sacked twice by the Maratha king Shivaji in the 17th century. [3]
• The English set up their first Indian factory (a trading post, not a mill) at Surat in 1612, and traded through the 17th century under Mughal grants. [4]

The imperial karkhanas — Bernier's unique contribution

• Karkhana = an imperial workshop. Bernier is perhaps the only historian to describe these workshops in detail. On this one subject there is no substitute for him.
• He saw large halls, each hall for one craft. The trades he listed:
• embroiderers, goldsmiths, painters, lacquer varnishers, joiners, turners (men who shape wood on a lathe), tailors, shoemakers,

• and makers of silk, brocade and muslin — the fine cloths that Europe wanted.

• The working day: artisans came in each morning, worked under a master, and returned home each evening.

• His judgement on them: "no one aspiring for any improvement in the condition of life wherein he happens to be born."
• Again — this is his opinion, shaped by his idea that caste froze people in place.
• The fact he records is large-scale, specialised, organised production under state patronage. That is the exam-usable part.

Towns: how urban was Mughal India?

• In the 17th century about 15% of India's population lived in towns.
• That figure was on average higher than Western Europe's at the same time. This is the single most counter-intuitive number in this section — learn it.
• Bernier's label: Mughal cities were "camp towns" — they depended on the imperial camp, grew when the court came and died when the court left.
• Why this is an oversimplification: Indian towns came in many types, each with its own reason to exist —
• manufacturing towns (craft production),
• trading towns,
• port towns (like Surat, a port, textile centre and shipbuilding centre at once) [3],
• sacred centres,

• pilgrimage towns.

• A town that lives off pilgrims or off a port does not vanish when the emperor moves. The variety itself is the counter-argument.

• These towns are an index of prosperous merchant and professional classes — they existed because trade and services supported them, not only because a king camped there.

The urban society Bernier's account misses

• Merchants were organised, not scattered individuals. They worked through caste-cum-occupational bodies — groups that were at once a caste network and a trade guild.
• In western India these were called mahajans.
• Each mahajan was headed by a sheth.

• In Ahmedabad all the mahajans together had one collective chief — the nagarsheth. Learn this term; it is a standard Prelims hook.

• A professional class existed too, with recognised titles:

• physicians — hakim (Unani) or vaid (Ayurvedic),
• teachers — pundit or mulla,
• lawyers — wakil,

• plus painters, architects, musicians, calligraphers.

• Who paid them? Not only the emperor.

• Some lived on imperial patronage.
• Many served other patrons — nobles, merchants, local chiefs.

• Many simply served ordinary customers in the bazaar.

• This spread of patronage is exactly what a "camp town" model cannot explain. If all skill depended on the court, bazaar customers would have had no one to hire.

Note: the scaffold's "camp town" point is Bernier's own description of Mughal cities and stands as NCERT gives it; the external sources above only add detail on Surat and on European trade, and do not dispute it. [3][4]

Prelims Hooks

• François Bernier — French physician; in India 1658–1669; first physician to Dara Shikoh, later with Daneshmand Khan. [2]
• His book was published in Paris in 1670–71; English title Travels in the Mogul Empire. [2]
• Bernier is the only traveller/historian to describe the imperial karkhanas in detail.
• Bernier's phrase for the drain of bullion into India: gold and silver "swallowed up, lost in some measure, in Hindustan".
• Around 15% of India's 17th-century population lived in towns — higher on average than Western Europe then.
• Bernier's dismissive label for Mughal cities: "camp towns".
• Mahajan = merchant body in western India; its head = sheth; the collective chief of Ahmedabad's merchants = nagarsheth.
• Professional titles to match: hakim/vaid = physician, pundit/mulla = teacher, wakil = lawyer.
• Town types listed in NCERT: manufacturing, trading, port, sacred centre, pilgrimage.
• Surat — Mughal conquest 1573; India's chief emporium exporting cloth and gold; industries textiles and shipbuilding; sacked twice by Shivaji. [3]
• First English factory (trading post) in India set up at Surat in 1612. [4]

Mains Points

• Travellers' accounts must be read for their evidence, not their verdicts. Bernier's own data — bullion inflow, rich merchants, huge karkhanas — destroys his own claim that Indian artisans had no incentive to improve. Use his observations, discard his framework.
• The "camp town" idea fails the test of variety. Port towns like Surat, sacred centres and pilgrimage towns had independent economic bases and did not rise or fall with the imperial camp [3]. The 15% urbanisation figure, above Western Europe's, points to towns rooted in trade and manufacture, not only in court demand.
• Mughal urban society had its own institutions, below and apart from the state. Mahajans headed by sheths, the Ahmedabad nagarsheth, and a paid professional class (hakim, wakil, pundit, calligrapher) serving nobles and bazaar customers show self-organising commercial groups. European companies plugged into this existing network from Surat (1612) rather than creating it [3][4].
• Why the European observer distorts: Bernier wrote letters home comparing India with France [2], so difference read to him as defect — caste became stagnation, state power became confiscation. This is the standard GS-I point on the limits of outsider accounts, and applies equally to Al-Biruni and Ibn Battuta.