How does Bernier convey a sense that although there was a great deal of activity, there was little progress?
Bernier conveys this sense through two key observations. First, he describes Mughal cities as "camp towns" that owed their existence and survival to the imperial camp. These towns emerged when the imperial court moved in and rapidly declined when it moved out. They lacked viable social and economic foundations and were entirely dependent on imperial patronage.
Second, in his account of the imperial karkhanas (workshops), Bernier describes large halls where artisans—embroiderers, goldsmiths, painters, and others—worked busily under supervision. However, he notes that artisans had no aspiration for improvement in their condition of life. Their time "glided away" in a quiet, regular manner, with no one seeking to better the circumstances they were born into. Thus, despite visible activity, there was stagnation rather than progress.
Explanation
The question asks how Bernier portrayed activity without progress. The textbook provides two clear examples: (1) camp towns that were active but dependent on imperial patronage and lacked independent foundations, and (2) karkhanas where artisans worked daily but had no aspiration to improve their condition. Both examples show activity without meaningful development or progress.