Question

Explain the ways in which the European thinkers like Montesquieu and Karl Marx used Bernier's description of India.

Hint:

Both Montesquieu and Karl Marx used Bernier's biased travel descriptions not to understand India objectively, but to build theoretical contrasts to explain European political development and capitalism.

Answer 1

Step 1: Bernier's Core Thesis on India:
The $17^{\text{th}}$-century French traveler François Bernier argued that the fundamental defect of Indian (and eastern) society was the absolute lack of private property in land. He claimed that the Mughal Emperor owned all the land, renting it out to temporary crown-holders who had no incentive to maintain it. According to Bernier, this led to agricultural ruin, tyrannical exploitation of the peasantry, and a society of uniform poverty, except for a tiny, fabulously wealthy ruling elite.

Step 2: Montesquieu's Theory of 'Oriental Despotism':
The French political philosopher Montesquieu used Bernier's accounts to develop his influential political theory of Oriental Despotism. He argued that in Asia, due to the crown's total monopoly over land and the absence of private property, there was no hereditary nobility or independent middle class to check the ruler's power. Consequently, the sovereign held absolute, arbitrary power over all subjects. Montesquieu used this dark model of Eastern tyranny as a warning to European morchs, urging them to respect private property and the rule of law.

Step 3: Karl Marx's 'Asiatic Mode of Production':
In the $19^{\text{th}}$ century, Karl Marx drew heavily on Bernier's observations to formulate his concept of the Asiatic Mode of Production. Marx argued that before British colonial rule, Indian society consisted of self-sufficient, autonomous village communities. Within these villages, land was held commully, and there was a direct union of domestic industry (crafts) and agriculture. The surplus product was appropriated directly by the despotic central state as tax. Marx asserted that this economic structure made Asian societies completely stagnt, stable, and resistant to historical change until colonial intervention disrupted them.