Bernier's Analysis Of Understanding North Indian Society Under Mughal Rule

Bernier’s account certainly has utility when tasked with understanding North Indian society under Mughal rule, but it only provides a snapshot in time and cannot be used as data for extrapolating what North Indian society under Mughal rule was entirely like. In understanding Bernier’s account, it is paramount to remember that Bernier is describing the two capital cities of the Mughal empire. These cities are unrepresentative of all North Indian society and do not capture life for those who lived on the periphery of the Mughal empire. It is also worth noting that Bernier wrote his letter in Delhi in 1663 during the reign of Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb’s rule is unrepresentative of the history of Mughal rule, as he was only one of many Mughal rulers.
Bold statements like this that painted India as a place where copious amounts of wealth were available for the taking created a rosy picture for Bernier’s largely European audience that was misleading at best. Delhi’s wealth, however, was unrepresentative of the wealth in North India or India as a whole. The city where a king lived was often wealthier than other cities in the kingdom in part because it received greater attention from the king due to its proximity to his court. While Delhi certainly had a far greater concentration of wealth than some periphery state in North India would have, not everyone shared in the wealth. The concentration of wealth in Delhi was concentrated at the top. Bernier provides evidence for this with his comment on the inequality he saw, even declaring that “In Delhi there is no middle state. A man must either be of the highest rank or live miserably” (Archibald Constable 252). Bernier’s description of the inequality, although likely exaggerated, certainly holds
He goes on clarifying, however, that the “defects would soon be corrected if they possessed good masters, and were instructed in the rules of art” (Archibald Constable 255). Bernier’s comments on art in Delhi invite discussion about patronage of the arts under Aurangzeb. While “musicians and men of literary talent were released from service to the emperor,” leading to a decline in patronage from the king, there was “a dispersal of patronage from the imperial center to many regional centers” (Asher and Talbot 230). Thus, Bernier’s commentary on art in Delhi would have one mistakenly believe that the arts suffered under Mughal rule. It is noteworthy, however, that Bernier is describing art in Delhi during the time of Aurangzeb’s reign. This was a time when patronage of the arts in Delhi declined but increased elsewhere. Aurangzeb’s predecessors were far more interested in promoting artistic culture and so the patronage of the arts under Mughal rule was not as austere as Bernier’s account makes out. Such examples highlight the fact that Bernier’s account is not one of an ethnographer or sociologist but of a foreign traveler. His account should be understood more as a sensationalized account of North India meant to entertain European readers than as an objective description of North Indian