This chapter examines the subcontinent through the writings of foreign travellers who visited India between the tenth and seventeenth centuries. These travellers, mostly merchants, envoys and religious pilgrims, left detailed accounts of the societies they observed, and their writings are among the most valuable sources for historians of the period. The three travellers studied in depth are Al-Biruni (eleventh century), Ibn Battuta (fourteenth century) and Francois Bernier (seventeenth century), each writing from a distinct perspective and with distinct purposes and limitations.
The chapter stresses an important lesson of historical method: every account is shaped by the author's background, language, religion and intentions. Al-Biruni wrote as a scholar and scientist from Central Asia; Ibn Battuta as a Moroccan legal scholar and world traveller; and Bernier as a French doctor and philosopher. Their perceptions of India were filtered through their own expectations, and the historian must read them critically, comparing their claims with other evidence rather than taking them at face value.
Abu Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni was born in 973 CE in Khwarizm, in present-day Uzbekistan. He was a brilliant polymath who knew Arabic, Persian, Hebrew, Syriac and, crucially for his India project, Sanskrit. He travelled to India with Mahmud of Ghazni's campaigns, which destroyed many temples in the north-west, including the famous temple of Somnath, an act Al-Biruni himself recorded and criticised. He spent several years in the Punjab, learning Sanskrit and studying Indian texts, and composed his great work, the Kitab-ul-Hind (Tarikh al-Hind), around 1030 CE.
The Kitab-ul-Hind is organised in 80 chapters treating topics as diverse as Indian religion, philosophy, astronomy, mathematics, social customs and literature. Its structure was deliberately modelled on the style of Islamic works of philosophy and science. Al-Biruni's method was scholarly and systematic: he cited Sanskrit sources extensively, quoted them in his translations, and tried to present Indian knowledge as objectively as possible, though he could not entirely escape the biases of his own age.
Al-Biruni's work is valuable to historians for several reasons. First, he preserved and explained Sanskrit texts, especially the Puranas and the Bhagavadgita, for a Muslim audience, translating passages with remarkable accuracy. Second, he made careful observations about Indian life, religion, caste and philosophy, often comparing Indian institutions with those of Greece and Islam, which gives his account a comparative perspective. Third, his systematic method set a standard for later writers.
But the Kitab-ul-Hind also has serious limitations. Al-Biruni was a prisoner of his own intellectual frame: he judged India from the standpoint of the rationalist science and philosophy of Islam, and his understanding of Sanskrit texts was affected by his background in Arabic scholarship. He wrote in Arabic, was addressed to an Arab or Persian audience, and never engaged with the lived popular religion of ordinary Indians, focusing almost entirely on the learned Brahmanical tradition. He also noted barriers to understanding, complaining that the Sanskrit language and Indian religious ideas were so different from his own that communication was difficult.
Ibn Battuta was born in Tangier, Morocco, in 1304, into a family of judges. At the age of twenty-one he set out on the hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca), and his travels, which lasted nearly thirty years and covered over 120,000 kilometres, took him across North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, India, the Maldives, China and beyond. He finally dictated an account of his journeys, the Rihla ("travelogue"), in 1355, in Arabic, at the court of the Sultan of Morocco.
In India, Ibn Battuta served as the chief qazi (judge) of Delhi under Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlaq for several years, and was also sent as the Sultan's envoy to China. Because he held an official position, he was in a uniquely privileged position to observe the workings of the sultanate, its court, its postal system and its economy. His account is one of the most detailed descriptions of life in the fourteenth-century Delhi Sultanate, and it is especially valuable for the perspective of an insider in official service.
Ibn Battuta's account is filled with remarkable observations. He described the postal system of the Sultanate, which had two components: the uluq, the horse-post run by royal couriers, and the dawa, the foot-post run by runners. He marvelled at the efficiency of the system, noting that the foot-post covered great distances faster than the horse-post. He also described the Indian cotton cloth, which was so fine that "a garment could be folded into the hollow of one's hand," a description that reveals the high quality and value of Indian textiles.
He also recorded the coconut, the paan (betel leaf), and many details of everyday life, food and travel. His account gives evidence about prices, wages and the availability of commodities. However, Ibn Battuta's account is not always reliable: he sometimes repeated anecdotes, superstitions and travellers' tales that he could not have witnessed himself, and his descriptions of miraculous events and saints are often uncritical. Historians therefore use the Rihla with care, checking its claims against other sources.
Francois Bernier was a French physician who travelled to India in the 1650s and spent about twelve years in the Mughal Empire, serving as physician to the Mughal prince Dara Shukoh. His travels in the empire, which he later recorded in Travels in the Mughal Empire (1656-1668), took him as far as Kashmir and even to the southern coast. Because he was a doctor in the imperial circle, he gained access to the court, its nobles, and their way of life, which he described in remarkable detail.
Bernier was a friend of the French philosopher Rene Descartes, and he brought to India the rationalist and scientific outlook of the European Enlightenment. He compared Mughal India with Europe, especially with France, and his comparisons were often unfavourable to India. He criticised the Mughal system of crown ownership of land, which he believed caused poverty and prevented the emergence of a strong middle class, and he condemned the lack of private property in land as the fundamental flaw of the Mughal economy.
Bernier argued that in the Mughal Empire the king owned all the land, and all other property was ultimately his, which he believed crushed all enterprise. He claimed this "defect" of crown ownership was the root cause of the misery of the Indian people, keeping them poor and preventing the development of a prosperous, independent middle class like the bourgeoisie of Europe. This comparison reflected Bernier's own political ideals, which were pro-private-property and critical of absolute monarchy.
However, historians have shown that Bernier's picture was exaggerated. Not all land in the Mughal Empire was owned by the king: there were zamindars with hereditary rights, and many regions were governed through local chiefs and intermediaries. Bernier's account, valuable though it is, was thus both observation and ideology, and his insistence on comparing India unfavourably with Europe influenced later European thinkers, including the French philosophers, who used his book to support arguments about the "despotism" of the East.
Ibn Battuta's description of the postal system (uluq and dawa) is a classic example of how his account supplies evidence not found in other sources. He describes how the postal runners carried letters, how horses were stationed at fixed distances, and how the system enabled rapid communication across the Sultanate. He also recorded the use of the horse-post by merchants and officials, and the lavish hospitality of the Sultan, including the payment of salaries in cash and kind.
His description of the coconut is equally valuable: he gives detailed botanical and economic information about the coconut palm, its oil, its fibre (coir) and its uses, evidence that shows his eye for economic detail. For historians of economy and administration, the Rihla is indispensable; for historians of religion and culture, it must be used with caution, since Ibn Battuta's descriptions of Sufi saints and shrines, while vivid, are often coloured by his piety.
The three travellers represent three different approaches. Al-Biruni was a scientist-scholar who tried to master Sanskrit learning and present it systematically, but stayed within the frame of his own culture. Ibn Battuta was a participant and an insider, who held official office and travelled for religious and personal reasons, but whose account mixes observation with credulous anecdote. Bernier was an Enlightenment rationalist who observed the Mughal court closely but interpreted what he saw through European categories and prejudices.
For the historian, this is precisely their value: each account is a product of its author's time, place and identity, and reading them comparatively reveals as much about the travellers and their worlds as about the India they described. The chapter repeatedly stresses that travel accounts are not neutral windows on the past; they are conversations between an observer and a society, in which the observer's own assumptions are always present.
The chapter concludes with practical advice on using travel accounts. A historian should ask who wrote the account, for whom it was written, in what language, with what purpose, and with what access to information. An insider like Ibn Battuta could observe the postal system and the court, but his piety coloured his view of religion; a scholar like Al-Biruni could translate Sanskrit texts but could not understand popular religion; a rationalist like Bernier could describe Mughal administration but misjudged its economic logic.
Moreover, travellers' accounts should always be checked against other evidence, such as inscriptions, coins, court chronicles and archaeological remains. When the sources agree, historians grow confident; when they conflict, historians must ask why. In this way, the subjective, partial, but often uniquely vivid accounts of travellers become one of the most rewarding bodies of source material for reconstructing the social and economic history of medieval India.
| Traveller | Period / Date | Origin | Key Work | Position in India |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Al-Biruni | c. 973-1048 CE | Khwarizm (Uzbekistan) | Kitab-ul-Hind (c. 1030) | Accompanied Mahmud of Ghazni; scholar |
| Ibn Battuta | b. 1304, travelled 1325-1354 | Tangier, Morocco | Rihla (1355) | Qazi of Delhi; envoy to China |
| Francois Bernier | Travelled 1656-1668 | France | Travels in the Mughal Empire | Physician to Dara Shukoh |
| Aspect | Al-Biruni | Ibn Battuta | Bernier |
|---|---|---|---|
| Language written | Arabic | Arabic | French |
| Focus | Sanskrit learning, philosophy, caste | Administration, economy, daily life | Mughal court, land ownership, despotism |
| Strength | Systematic translation of texts | Insider view of the Sultanate | Close observation of the court |
| Limitation | Could not grasp popular religion | Credulous, repeated travellers' tales | Judged India by European standards |
The writings of Al-Biruni, Ibn Battuta and Bernier are among the most fascinating and complex sources for medieval Indian history. Each account opens a window on the subcontinent, but each window is coloured by the glass of the observer's own culture, faith and purpose. Al-Biruni the scholar translated the learning of Sanskrit India; Ibn Battuta the insider revealed the working machinery of the Sultanate; Bernier the rationalist measured the Mughal Empire against his European ideals. Read critically and compared with other evidence, these travellers help us reconstruct everything from postal systems to cotton cloth, from crown ownership to caste, and remind us that the past is always seen through eyes that are both sharp and partial.