Through the Eyes of Travellers — Perceptions of Society

Al-Biruni (973–1048 CE): • Abu Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni was a Central Asian scholar of extraordinary breadth — a polymath who wrote on mathematics, astronomy, physics, pharmacology, and history. • He came to India with Mahmud of Ghazni's campaigns (c. 1017 CE) and spent several decades in India, learning Sanskrit and studying Indian texts firsthand. • His masterwork, Kitab-ul-Hind (Book of India), written in Arabic, is one of the most remarkable works of comparative civilisational study ever written. Al-Biruni's Methods: • Systematic and comparative: Al-Biruni described Indian systems of thought, science, and society by comparing them with Greek and Islamic traditions — bringing a genuinely comparative perspective. • Learned from primary texts: He read Sanskrit texts directly (or with the help of pandits) rather than relying solely on hearsay. • Aimed for objectivity: He explicitly stated his goal was to describe what he found, not to praise or condemn. He wrote: 'I shall place before the reader the theories of the Hindus exactly as they are.' Subjects he covered: Hindu cosmology, mathematics, geography, calendar systems, caste, festivals, law, medicine. Limitations of Al-Biruni's Account: 1. Elite bias: Al-Biruni largely engaged with Sanskrit-educated Brahmanas and with Brahmanical texts. His knowledge of ordinary people, women, and lower castes is limited. 2. Language barrier: Despite learning Sanskrit, he acknowledges the difficulty of translation — certain concepts simply do not translate between Arabic and Sanskrit thought-worlds. 3. Own cultural assumptions: Despite his avowed objectivity, Al-Biruni sometimes interpreted Indian practices through the lens of his own Islamic and Greek intellectual formation. 4. Historical distance: He occasionally reproduces the views of the texts he reads rather than describing living practice — what Brahmanas prescribed was not always what ordinary people did. 5. Limited geography: His India was largely the northwest — the Punjab and Sindh. His knowledge of southern India and Bengal was limited.

Ibn Battuta (1304–c.1368 CE): • Muhammad ibn Battuta was a Moroccan scholar and traveller who undertook the most extensive journeys of any medieval traveller — covering some 120,000 kilometres across the Islamic world, Africa, India, Central Asia, and China over nearly 30 years. • He arrived in India in 1333 CE and served as a qazi (judge) in the court of the Delhi Sultanate under Muhammad bin Tughluq for about eight years. • His account, the Rihla ('The Journey'), was dictated to a scholar and is an invaluable source for 14th-century India. What the Rihla Reveals about 14th-Century India: 1. The Delhi Sultanate and Muhammad bin Tughluq: • Ibn Battuta gives a vivid portrait of Muhammad bin Tughluq — an intelligent but erratic ruler who lavished gifts on scholars but also punished perceived disloyalty with terrifying severity. • He describes the transfer of the capital from Delhi to Daulatabad and the brutal forced march this imposed on Delhi's population. 2. Cities and Trade: • Ibn Battuta was deeply impressed by the wealth of Indian cities — particularly Delhi, which he considered one of the largest and richest cities in the world. • He describes the bazaars, the diversity of goods, and the sophistication of the commercial economy. • He mentions the postal system (the dak system using horses and runners) as remarkably efficient — faster than anything he had seen elsewhere. 3. Social Observations: • He describes the practice of sati (widow immolation), slave markets, and Hinduism with a mixture of curiosity, amazement, and disapproval. • He notes the prevalence of coconut palms and their many uses in the south. • He describes the cities as having distinct neighbourhoods for different occupational and religious groups. 4. Dangers of Travel: • Ibn Battuta's account is also a record of the dangers of travel in medieval India — he was robbed, attacked by bandits, shipwrecked, and nearly executed on suspicion of disloyalty.

Francois Bernier (1625–1688): • Francois Bernier was a French physician and traveller who spent about 12 years in the Mughal Empire (1656–1668), serving as personal physician to the Mughal prince Dara Shikoh and later to Emperor Aurangzeb. • His account, Travels in the Mogul Empire, published in 1670 (dedicated to Louis XIV of France), became enormously influential in Europe. Bernier's Observations: 1. Mughal Court and Politics: • Bernier was present at the court during the War of Succession between Shah Jahan's sons (Dara Shikoh vs. Aurangzeb) and gives a vivid first-hand account of these events. • He describes the Mughal court's splendour, the emperor's absolute power, and the system of mansabdars (nobles). 2. The Question of Land Ownership — Crown Ownership Theory: • Bernier's most influential (and most debated) argument was that in the Mughal Empire, the emperor owned all the land — there was no private property in land. • He contrasted this unfavourably with Europe, where private landownership he argued was the foundation of prosperity, innovation, and civic society. • This claim was not entirely accurate — there were private landholders, temples with landholdings, and zamindars with hereditary rights. But Bernier's account shaped European ideas about 'Oriental despotism' for centuries. 3. Decline Narrative: • Bernier portrayed Mughal India as economically stagnant — the lack of private property discouraged investment and improvement, he argued. Cities were rich but their wealth was concentrated in the court. Influence on European Thought: • Bernier's work fed directly into Enlightenment discussions about property, government, and civilisation. • Montesquieu and later Karl Marx drew on Bernier's account in constructing their theories of 'Oriental despotism' and the 'Asiatic mode of production.' • These ideas had enormous consequences — they became part of the intellectual justification for European colonialism, which positioned itself as bringing progress to stagnant, despotically governed Asian societies. • Historians today are critical of Bernier's framework — his observations were filtered through his European, property-rights-based assumptions.