Assertion: François Bernier was a firm believer in the virtues of private property, and saw crown ownership of land as being harmful for both the state and its people. Reasoning: He argued that owing to crown ownership of land, the landholders could not pass on their land to their children. So they were averse to any long-term investment in the sustenance and expansion of production. The absence of private property in land had, therefore, prevented the emergence of the class of "improving" landlords (as in Western Europe) with a concern to maintain or improve the land.

Both Assertion (A) and reasoning (R) are correct and R is the correct explanation of A. Both Assertion (A) and reasoning (R) are correct and but R is not the correct explanation of A. Assertion (A) is true but Reasoning (R) is not correct. Assertion (A) is not true but Reasoning (R) is correct.

Both Assertion (A) and reasoning (R) are correct and R is the correct explanation of A.

According to Bernier, one of the fundamental differences between Mughal India and Europe was the lack of private property in land in the former. He was a firm believer in the virtues of private property, and saw crown ownership of land as being harmful for both the state and its people. He thought that in the Mughal Empire the emperor owned all the land and distributed it among his nobles, and that this had disastrous consequences for the economy and society. This perception was not unique to Bernier, but is found in most travellers’ accounts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.