Bernier’s account is a useful but biased source for reconstructing contemporary rural society, as his descriptions were often driven by his desire to project the Mughal state as tyrannical. He intended his work to serve as a warning to Europeans about the absence of private property, which coloured his interpretation of social conditions.

Consequently, Bernier described Indian society as consisting of undifferentiated masses of impoverished people subjugated by a small, rich ruling class. He confidently asserted that there was “no middle state in India”, ignoring the existence of intermediate social groups.

Despite this bias, his descriptions occasionally hint at a more complex social reality. Historians can glean the existence of a prosperous merchant community engaged in long-distance exchange. The context also suggests a stratified rural society comprising big peasants, who used hired labour for commodity production, and smaller peasants, who barely produced for subsistence.

Furthermore, Bernier’s observations on the decline of manufactures due to state appropriation and his description of “camp towns” dependent on imperial patronage provide insights into the economic foundations of the time. Thus, while his general theory was flawed, his specific observations help reconstruct the nuances of the period.