The question asks why Mughal chronicles considered emperors as supreme sovereigns.
The correct answer is that the Vision of empire viewed the emperor as the sole ruler.
In the historical context of the Mughal Empire, royal chronicles often emphasized the central authority and the grandeur of the emperor. This approach was driven by the notion that the emperor was the singular, ultimate ruler providing stability and unity across the vast territories of the empire. Chronicles, serving both as historical records and instruments of legitimization, portrayed the emperor as the divine and supreme authority to reinforce this vision and ensure loyalty among subjects and nobility.
The Mughal state’s self-image—crafted by court historians—was that of a centralized, indivisible empire where the emperor alone embodied sovereignty. This ideological projection, rather than ground realities (e.g., rebellions, noble factions), dominated chronicles.
Example:
Abul Fazl’s Akbarnama erases dissent, portraying Akbar as the sole architect of empire—a deliberate political narrative.
Thus, the chronicles’ portrayal reflected the imperial vision, not necessarily the fragmented political realities of the time.
The imperial karkhanas
Bernier is perhaps the only historian who provides a detailed account of the working of the imperial karkhanas or workshops:
Large halls are seen at many places, called karkhanas or workshops for the artisans. In one hall, embroiderers are busily employed, superintended by a master. In another, you see the goldsmiths; in a third, painters; in a fourth, varnishers in lacquer-work; in a fifth, joiners, turners, tailors and shoe-makers; in a sixth, manufacturers of silk, brocade and fine muslins …
The artisans come every morning to their karkhanas where they remain employed the whole day; and in the evening return to their homes. In this quiet regular manner, their time glides away; no one aspiring for any improvement in the condition of life wherein he happens to be born.
How did Bernier’s description reflect the economic significance of the karkhanas in the Mughal empire?
The imperial karkhanas
Bernier is perhaps the only historian who provides a detailed account of the working of the imperial karkhanas or workshops:
Large halls are seen at many places, called karkhanas or workshops for the artisans. In one hall, embroiderers are busily employed, superintended by a master. In another, you see the goldsmiths; in a third, painters; in a fourth, varnishers in lacquer-work; in a fifth, joiners, turners, tailors and shoe-makers; in a sixth, manufacturers of silk, brocade and fine muslins …
The artisans come every morning to their karkhanas where they remain employed the whole day; and in the evening return to their homes. In this quiet regular manner, their time glides away; no one aspiring for any improvement in the condition of life wherein he happens to be born.
Analyse the relationship between the Mughal empire and its artisans.
The imperial karkhanas
Bernier is perhaps the only historian who provides a detailed account of the working of the imperial karkhanas or workshops:
Large halls are seen at many places, called karkhanas or workshops for the artisans. In one hall, embroiderers are busily employed, superintended by a master. In another, you see the goldsmiths; in a third, painters; in a fourth, varnishers in lacquer-work; in a fifth, joiners, turners, tailors and shoe-makers; in a sixth, manufacturers of silk, brocade and fine muslins …
The artisans come every morning to their karkhanas where they remain employed the whole day; and in the evening return to their homes. In this quiet regular manner, their time glides away; no one aspiring for any improvement in the condition of life wherein he happens to be born.
How did the crafts in the karkhanas reflect the cultural diversity of the Mughal empire?