Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, A.D. 1000–1800 c10: V. A. D. 1200-1400

Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, A.D. 1000–1800 c10

Language: English

V. A. D. 1200-1400

At the dawn of the thirteenth century, Turkish rule was established in northern India. Within fifteen years of Muhammad Ghori's occupation of Delhi, the Turks rapidly conquered most of the major cities of northern India. Their lightening success, as described by contemporary chroniclers, entailed great loss of life. Qutbuddin Aibak's conquests during the life-time of his master and later on in the capacity of king (c. 1200-1210) included Gwalior, parts of Bundelkhand, Ajmer, Ranthambhor, Anhilwara, as well as parts of U.P. and Malwa. In Nahrwala alone 50,000 persons were killed during Aibak's campaign.¹ No wonder that besides earning the honorific of Lakhbakhsh (giver of lakhs), he also earned the nickname of killer of lacs.² Bakhtiyar Khalji marched through Bihar into Bengal and massacred people in both the regions. During his expedition to Gwalior Iltutmish (1210-36) massacred 700 persons besides those killed in the battle on both sides. His attacks on Malwa (Vidisha and Ujjain) were met with stiff resistance and were accompanied by great loss of life. He is also credited with killing 12,000 Khokhars (Gakkhars) during Aibak's reign.³ The successors of Iltutmish (Raziyah, Bahram etc.,) too fought and killed zealously.

c10.3

¹ Ferishtah, *op. cit.* (II, n. 6) I, p. 62.

c10.4

² Minhaj Siraj, *Tabqat-i-Nasiri*, Bib. Ind. (Calcutta, 1864), p. 138. Also A.B.M. Habibullah, *The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India* (Allahabad, 1961), p. 91. Since most of the facts and figures for the period upto 1260 are from the *Tabqat-i-Nasiri*, references would be given only sparingly to avoid cluttering up the narrative.

c10.5

³ Ferishtah, *op. cit.* (II, n. 6) I, p. 65.

c10.6

During the reigns of Nasiruddin and Balban (1246-86) warfare for consolidation and expansion of Turkish dominions went on apace. Trailokyavarman, who ruled over Southern U.P., Bundelkhand and Baghelkhand, and is called 'Dalaki va Malaki' by Persian chroniclers, was defeated after great slaughter (1248). In 1251, Gwalior, Chanderi, Narwar and Malwa were attacked. The Raja of Malwa alone had 5,000 cavalry and 200,000 infantry and would have been defeated only after great loss of life. The inhabitants of Kaithal were given such severe punishment (1254) that they 'might not forget (the lesson) for the rest of their lives'. In 1256 Ulugh Khan Balban carried on devastating warfare in Saimur, and 'so many of the rebellious Hindus were killed that numbers cannot be computed or described'. Ranthambhor was attacked in 1259 and 'many of its valiant fighting men were sent to hell'. In the punitive expedition to Mewat (1260) 'numberless Hindus perished under the merciless swords of the soldiers of Islam'. In the same year 12,000 men, women and children were put to the sword in Hariyana.

c10.7

As a minister Balban was not soft-hearted. When he became the Sultan, he followed the policy of blood and iron, which means that his killings became even more sanguinary. His sphere of operations was, however, confined to the Ganga-Jumna Doab and Avadh, Katehar and Mewat. In Katehar large sections of the male population were massacred and, according to Barani, in villages and jungles heaps of human corpses were left rotting. During his expedition to Bengal, 'on either side of the principal bazar (of Lakhnauti) in a street two miles in length, a row of stakes was set up and the adherents of Tughril were impaled upon them'.

c10.8

Alauddin Khalji and Muhammad bin Tughlaq (c. 1296-1350) were great warriors and killers. Alauddin's conquest of Gujarat (1299) and the massacres by his generals in Anhilwara, Cambay, Asavalli, Vanmanthali etc., earned him, according to the *Rasmala*, the nickname of Khuni. His contemporary chronicler proclaims that Alauddin shed more blood than the Pharaohs did⁴. He captured Ranthambhor after very heavy casualties⁵. Chittor's capture was followed by a massacre of 30,000 people, after Jauhar had been performed and the Rajputs had died fighting in large numbers. When Malwa was attacked (1305), its Raja is said to have possessed 40,000 horse and 100,000 foot⁶. After the battle, "so far as human eye could see, the ground was muddy with blood." Many cities of Malwa like Mandu, Ujjain, Dharanagri and Chanderi were captured after great resistance. The capitulation of Sevana and Jalor (1308, 1311) were accompanied by massacres after years of prolonged warfare. In Alauddin's wars in the South, similar killings took place, especially in Dwarsamudra and Maabar. In the latter campaign Malik Kafur went from plce to place, and to some places many times over, and in his rage at not finding the fleeing prince Vira Pandya, he killed the people mercilessly⁷. His successor Mubarak Khalji once again sacked Gujarat and Devagiri.

c10.9

⁴ Barani, *op. cit* (II, n. 11) pp. 251-52. Isami, *op. cit.* (II, n. 31) p. 243. For detailed references see K.S. Lal, *History of the Khaljis*, 2nd Ed. (Bombay, 1967) pp. 69-71.

c10.10

⁵ For detailed references see *Ibid*, p. 94.

c10.11

⁶ *Ibid.*, p. 113.

c10.12

⁷ *Ibid.*, pp. 252-53.

c10.13

Under Muhammad Tughlaq, wars and rebellions knew no end. Even an enhancement of land-tax ended in massacres in the Doab. Many more perished on the way when the capital was shifted to Daulatabad. His Qarachal expedition cost him a whole army. His expeditions to Bengal, Sind and the Deccan, as well as ruthless suppression of twentytwo rebellions, meant only depopulation⁸. From all accounts it is certain that in the thirteenth and first half of the fourteenth century the loss of population was immense. For one thing, in spite of constant efforts no addition of territory could be made by Turkish rulers from 1210 to 1296, for another while the weapons of the Turkish period were not as sophisticated as those of the Mughal, the Turkish rulers were more ruthless in war and less merciful towards rebels, with the result their killings were heavy. Hence the extirpating campaigns of Balban, and the repeated attacks on regions already devastated but not completely subjugated. Bengal was attacked by Bakhtiyar, by Balban, by Alauddin, and by all the three Tughlaqs—Ghayas, Muhammad and Firoz. Malwa and Gujarat were repeatedly attacked and sacked. Almost every Muslim ruler invaded Ranthambhor until it was subjugated by Alauddin Khalji (1301, again temporarily). Gwalior, Katehar and Avadh regions were also repeatedly attacked. Rajputana, Sind and Punjab (also because of the Mongol invasions), knew no peace. In the first decade of the fourteenth century Turkish invaders penetrated into the South, carrying death and destruction. When the sultans of Delhi lost their hold on the South, Bahmani and Vijayanagar kingdoms came to grips with each other. The wars between these two kingdoms generally ended in massacres. Only one instance should suffice to give an idea of this. Mulla Daud of Bidar vividly describes the fighting between Muhammad Shah Bahmani and the Vijayanagar king in 1366 in which "Ferishtah computes the victims on the Hindu, side alone as numbering no less than half a million".⁹ According to Ferishtah, Muhammad "So wasted the districts of Carnatic that for several decades they did not recover their natural population."¹⁰

c10.14

⁸ Mahdi Husain, *Tughluq Dynasty* (Calcutta, 1963), pp. 195-257.

c10.15

⁹ Sewell, *op. cit.* (II, n. 21), pp 30-31.

c10.16

¹⁰ Ferishtah *op. cit.* (II, n. 6) I, p 295. Also Sewell, p. 38.

c10.17

Moreover, the Rajput chiefs who fought against the Turks, also never ceased fighting among themselves. Their love of war needs no detailed recapitulation. The Turks themselves were not a united people. Iltutmish had to give bitter fight to the Jandars for getting the throne. His campaigns against Yaldoz and Qubaicha were not bloodless. Under him and Raziyah, Shias and Sunnis fought and were killed in thousands even in the mosques and streets of Delhi, and she lost the throne because of Muslim armed opposition. Jalaluddin Khalji ascended the throne after destroying the Ilbaris, and Alauddin also waded through blood to the throne.¹¹

c10.18

¹¹ Minhaj, *op. cit.* (n. 2), p. 170.

c10.19

Add to this the demographic loss occasioned by the recurring Mongol invasions directed from Central Asia or Persia for almost a whole century. The Mongols had sacked and burnt Lahore in A.D. 1241, and they continued to occupy major portions of Punjab and Sind right up to the end of the thirteenth century. Alauddin Khalji (1296-1316) repulsed their attacks with great losses on both sides. Nevertheless, right up to the invasion of Tarmashirin (1325-29), thousands and thousands of Indians used to be killed in repelling their attacks.

c10.20

All these factors contributed towards irreparable shrinkage of Indian population. Nor should the ravages of famine on population be ignored. Throughout the medieval times, droughts, pestilences and famines were a common feature of Indian economic life. During this period too famines claimed their toll of victims. Throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries famines continued to occur off and on. Besides wars which brought famines and pestilences in their wake, drought, inundation, failure of crops, devastation of rural areas, and consequent loss of labour for fields, locusts and similar other causes were also responsible for scarcity. But the chief determinant of good crop was rainfall; and rainfall in India has never been regular. Hence there were intermittent occurrences of famines.

c10.21

Jamili, the author of *Siyar-ul-Arifin* writes about a famine in the time of Iltutmish (A.D. 1210-1236) in which many people in the capital city of Delhi itself died of starvation. The loss of life in the countryside too must have been great, but little is known about it. Ziyauddin Barani and Isami record a famine in 1291 which continued to rage for two years. During these years rainfall was so scanty in the region between Siwalik and Delhi that crops failed completely. A large number of people lay dead in the streets of Delhi every day and no remedial measures were any avail.¹² The peasants of Siwalik, "where not a drop of rain fell", flocked to Delhi to seek relief. But the acute scarcity in Delhi itself compelled them to decide on mass suicide. Both the writers say that every day, in batches of twenty or thirty they drowned themselves in the Jumma.¹³ A few years later Alauddin resorted to rationing in Delhi in seasons of drought;¹⁴ but he could do little about the rural areas where periodic visitations of this calamity would have carried away large numbers.¹⁵ During the reign of Muhammad bin Tughlaq Delhi, its environs, and the area of the Ganga-Jumna Doab were struck by "the most severe famine of which we have any records in India."¹⁶ According to Wolseley Haig it continued to rage for seven years, but "there is no doubt that famine lasted from 727 till 741 A.H. (A.D. 1326-27 to 1340) with slight interruptions and its of immense wealth and riches.²⁹ Ibn Battuta calls it a very fine city. In the fifteenth century Nicolo Conti speaks of it as a place fourteen miles in circuit. The whole of Gujarat (often written as Cambay) remained a "great Kingdom"³⁰ thoughout, though it was sacked in the time of Alauddin. Thus, both these visitors were greatly impressed by the riches and population of the port towns on the west coast, and are corroborated by Wassaf whose description of Gujarat is still more impressive.³¹

c10.22

¹² Isami, *op. cit.* (II, n. 31), pp. 212-213. Barani, *op. cit.* (II n. 11), p. 212.

c10.23

¹³ *Ibid.*

c10.24

¹⁴ Barani p. 309, Ferishtah *op. cit.* (II n. 6), I, p. 112; Lal, *Khaljis*, *op. cit.* (n.4) p. 203.

c10.25

¹⁵ Barani, pp. 308-09. Also Lal, *Khaljis*, p. 222.

c10.26

¹⁶ C.H.I., III, *op. cit.* (II, n. 25), p. 153. Also Nizamuddin Ahmad, *Tabqat-i-Akbari*, Bib. Ind. text, 3 vols. (Calcutta, 1927-35) I, p. 202; and Yahiya, *op. cit.* (II, n. 18), p. 107.

c10.27

²⁹ *Ibid.*, pp. 388-91

c10.28

³⁰ *Ibid.*, p 382.

c10.29

³¹ *Tarikh-i-Wassaf* (Bombay, 1877), IV, p. 447.

c10.30

Ibn Battuta was in India for six long years and moved about from Sind to Madura (and Ceylon) and in the east he went as far as Chittagaon and Kamrup. He visited about 75 cities, towns and ports,³² including Kanauj, Bahraich, Gwalior and Khajuraho. Basking under the favours of the king, he was carefree; being a globe trotter, he was optimistic. Therefore he has a good word for every place he visited. His impressions of south Indian port towns have been presently noticed. In North India he seems to have been impressed by every town, every city every region. According to him irrigation in the Indus valley was done on the pattern of the Nile valley, the overflow from the river being taken advantage of to irrigate the fields³³ To him Sivistan was 'a large city';³⁴ and Bukkar a 'handsome city'.³⁵ Uchch was a 'big city' on the banks of the Indus with fine bazars and new buildings.³⁶ Abohar was "small, handsome and thickly populated".³⁷ Sarsuti was a "big city", and Hansi "one of the finest and perfectly built cities which is most thickly populated"³⁸ Chanderi and Maabar (Malabar) were among the most fertile regions of India.³⁹ So was Kara-Manikpur, "one of the most prosperous parts" of the country⁴⁰ In short, in the words of al-Qalqashindi, "In the whole country towns are closely built".⁴¹

c10.31

³² Rizvi, *Tughlaq Kalin Bharat* (Aligarh, 1956), Pt. I., pp jklm.

c10.32

³³ Ibn Battuta, *op. cit.* (I, n. 1), p. 1. Also Al Istakhri, *Kitab-ul-Akalim*, E and D, I, p 30.

c10.33

³⁴ Ibn Battuta, p. 6.

c10.34

³⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 11.

c10.35

³⁶ *Loc. cit.*

c10.36

³⁷ *Ibid.*, p. 16.

c10.37

³⁸ *Ibid*, p. 23.

c10.38

³⁹ *Ibid.*, p. 45.

c10.39

⁴⁰ *Ibid.*, p. 40.

c10.40

⁴¹ *Subh-ul-Asha, op cit.* (II, n. 4), p. 18.

c10.41

There was a good reason for foreign travellers to have been impressed with Indian cities. With the establishment of Turkish rule-urbanization had received a fillip. Muslims are city-dwellers, and everywhere they have preferred to live in urban areas. In India, Muslim rulers and officers lived in important cities and carried on administration from there. Muslim immigrants also mostly stayed in the cities, they did not spread out in rural areas. In short Muslim rule helped in the rehabilitation of some old decaying cities and establishment new ones. As pointed out earlier, Delhi itself was an insignificant place right upto the eleventh century, but by the time of Ibn Battuta, "it was a magnificent place with strong and beautiful buildings. No city, Islamic or un-Islamic, was so great in the east as Delhi."⁴² Daulatabad, the second capital, was equally impressive, and Ibn Battuta and Shihabuddin Ahmad speak about it in glowing terms.⁴³ Lahore probably still bore the scars of Mongol ravage and occupation, but Kanauj had completely recovered from the early eleventh century ravages.⁴⁴ According to al-Qalqashindi it had become 'the Cairo of India and the biggest place there.'⁴⁵ Somnath too had borne the brunt of Mahmud's invasion, but was now once again a renowned centre of pilgrimage and a place of active trade according to Marco Polo,⁴⁶ who, ironically enough, visited it only four years before its (once again temporary) destruction by Alauddin Khalji's forces. A new important town was Bahraich which was visited by Ibn Battuta in the company of Sultan Muhammad Tughlaq.

c10.42

⁴² Ibn Battuta, *op. cit.* (I, n. 1) pp. 24-26.

c10.43

⁴³ *Ibid.*, p. 41. Also E and D, III, p. 575, and al-Qalqashindi, *op. cit.* (II, n. 4), p. 30.

c10.44

⁴⁴ Ibn Battuta, *op. cit.* (I, n. 1), p. 159.

c10.45

⁴⁵ al-Qalqashindi, p. 40.

c10.46

⁴⁶ *Ser Marco Polo, op. cit.* (n. 22), II, p. 389.

c10.47

There is therefore no wonder if Ibn Battuta was impressed by India's towns and cities. However, he had not failed to notice those agencies of affliction which adversely affected the population of the country. Because of the shifting of the capital, he noted that Delhi, "the greatest city in the world had the fewest inhabitants."⁴⁷ In Sivistan he saw large number of skins of people flayed alive. He witnessed famines.⁴⁸ He came across deserted villages.⁴⁹ He witnessed the cruel executions by the king,⁵⁰ and saw Indian slaves being taken out of the country.⁵¹ Why the mountains on the north-west are called 'Hindu Kush' (Hindu killer) is because thousands and thousands of Indian captives perished on them while being carried away out of the country. If Ibn Battuta does not specifically mention any demographic set-back, his narrative nevertheless contains indirect reference to it.

c10.48

⁴⁷ E and D, III, p. 585.

c10.49

⁴⁸ Ibn Battuta, *op. cit.* (I n. 1), pp. 84-85, 117, 142-43, 164-65.

c10.50

⁴⁹ *Ibid*, 155-56.

c10.51

⁵⁰ *Ibid.*, pp. 91, 93, for example.

c10.52

⁵¹ *Ibid.*, p. 71.

c10.53

But knowledgeable people in India itself were aware of a demographic decline, so that by the time Muhammad bin Tughlaq died, it had become obvious that the population had greatly dwindled because of constant warfare, foreign invasions, famines and pestilence.⁵² That is why when during Firoz Tughlaq's reign (A.D. 1351-88), no Mongol invaders crossed the Sindh,⁵³ and the sultan himself renounced the path of war and destruction, his contemporary chronicler Shams Siraj Afif, noticed a rise in population. He writes, "the subjects of the Sultanate increased to such an extent and there was such increase in population that in every *iqta* and *pargana*, a village was established (inhabited) at every four *kos*."⁵⁴ The Sultan's water-courses and canals gave the benefit of extended cultivation to hundred of miles. His bringing under cultivation waste or "dead" land, his clearings of old fields and new settlements lent a helping hand in demographic recovery.⁵⁵

c10.54

⁵² How destructive to population can be the effect of a combination of intermittent warfare, foreign invasions, famine and pestilence, is brought home from the example of Srinagar in Kashmir in the nineteenth century. "Moorcroft, who visited the city in 1823, estimated the population at 240,000; the judicious and cautious Elphinstone (*Account of Caubul*, p 507), in the early part of the present [nineteenth] century, at '150,000 to 200,000'. By another authority (Von Hugel, II, p 258) the population of Srinagar was subsequently computed not to exceed 40,000. Vigne (II, p. 118), as well as Cunningham, estimate the population at 80,000. This appalling reduction of the population in so brief a period has been the combined effect of oppression, pestilence, and famine".\ Thornton, *op. cit.* (I, n. 7), IV, pp. 540-541.

c10.55

⁵³ Afif, *op. cit.* (II, n. 15), pp. 124-131.

c10.56

⁵⁴ *Ibid*, pp. 264-65, 321.

c10.57

⁵⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 99.

c10.58

Afif does not write about this rise of population in a casual way. He was so much impressed by the fact that he repeats his statement at another place, when the population seems to have grown still more. "In the reign of this monarch (Firoz Shah)", says he, "the population was greatly increased throughout the Doab, from the hill of Sakrudih and Kharla to Kol, not one village remained waste, even in name, nor one span of land uncultivated. In the Doab there were fifty-two parganas flourishing, and a similar (state of prosperity) prevailed......in every fief (iqta) and district (shiqq). Thus in the district of Samana there were four prosperous villages within one *kos*..."⁵⁶ And these villages were not merely a collection of a few hutments; in each village there were two to three hundred inhabitants.⁵⁷

c10.59

⁵⁶ *Ibid.*, p. 293. Also trs. in E and D, III, p. 345.

c10.60

⁵⁷ *Ibid.*, p. 95.

c10.61

It is refreshing to note that a medieval chronicler like Shams Siraj Afif does not only gloat over a rise of population, he seems to have known the principles of demographic rise also. During Firoz's reign major wars were few, but minor campaigns used to be mounted against Hindu Zamindars every now and then. However, minor losses in these campaigns used to be soon made up by the natural growth of population. The statement of Afif that "the inhabitants of Dar-ul-Harb were ruined and destroyed every year, (but) the destruction of the region was (soon) more than made up and the region repopulated..." only confirms the well-recognised principle that recovery from minor demographic setbacks is rather quick.⁵⁸

c10.62

⁵⁸ *Ibid.*, p. 180 says "*ahl dar harb ra harsal ntheb wa taraj mikardand wa har mahalli ki az dar harb nihab shudi az ancha bud ziyadat tar abadi shudi*".

c10.63

On the basis of the evidence set forth above, it would be reasonable to conclude that at the time of Muhammad bin Tughlaq's death (about the middle of the fourteenth century) the population may have come down to about 160 million; at the time of Firoz Tughlaq's death (A. D. 1388) the number was probably 170 million.

c10.64

There is a basis for arriving at this conclusion. The total revenue of Firoz Tughlaq's empire was 67,500,000 tankahs. Since the revenue collected was, on the average, one third of the total produce, the total produce of food-grains in his dominions would have been of the value of 202,500,000 tankahs. From the price schedule of Firoz's time, it is gathered that the average cost of a *man* of food-grains was 5 jitals⁵⁹. A tankah in the fourteenth century was approximately equal to about 50 jitals (48 jitals to be precise)⁶⁰. A *man* in those days was equal to 14 *sers* of today⁶¹. Therefore one tankah (or 50 jitals) bought 10 *man* (of 14 *sers* each) or 3½ maunds of 40 *sers* each in Firoz's time.⁶² At this rate the total agricultural production in Firoz Tughlaq's time would have been about 202.500,000 × 3½ = 708,750,000 maunds.

c10.65

⁵⁹ Wheat was 8 *jitals per man*; barley, paddy and pulses were 4 jitals *per man*. See Thomas, *Chronicles of the Pathan Kings of Delhi* (London, 1871), pp. 160, 260, 283.

c10.66

⁶⁰ According to Ferishtah the ratio was 50 jitals, according to Wright 48. Nelson Wright, *The Sultans of Delhi, their Coins and Metrology* (Delhi, 1936), p. 32.

c10.67

⁶¹ Thomas, *Chronicles*, op. cit. (n. 59), pp. 160-163.

c10.68

⁶² For all these calculations see Lal, *Khaljis*, op. cit. (n. 4) pp. 198-200.

c10.69

Out of this, two-thirds may safely be set aside for non-eatable agricultural products like cotton; damage caused by rodents, birds and animals habituated to nibbling in the fields; and for the consumption of large number of bullocks, horses, elephants and many other animals, indispensable to medieval husbandry, soldiery, nobility and even royalty, because they comprised sources of energy and means of transport. Therefore the quantity consumed by the people was ⅓ of this figure or about 236,250,000 maunds.

c10.70

Today, for a population of 500 million, India requires about 100,000,000 tonnes of cereals every year. In other words, every individual consumes about 200 kilograms, 220 *sers*, or 5½ maunds of foodgrains in the course of a year. Taking this average as holding good for the medieval times also,⁶³ the number of people who consumed 236,250,000 maunds was (236,250,000 ÷ 5½ =) about 43 million.

c10.71

⁶³ Under Alauddin Khalji's rationing system, each household was given half a *man* of grain per day. "Half a *man* (approximately 6 or 7 modern *sers*) per day was a reasonable quantity in those days for a normal family with one or two servants." Lal, *Khaljis*, op. cit. (n. 4) pp. 203-204.

c10.72

Firoz Tughlaq's empire included the Punjab, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, major portions of Gujarat and Malwa and northern Bihar.⁶⁴ In the absence of precise knowledge of the area which came under the revenue regulations in Malwa. we may, for convenience's sake, take into account the whole of present Bihar state and drop Malwa. Thus the total area of Firoz's dominions approximated to the following.

c10.73

⁶⁴ Sind was incorporated after the revenue figures had been settled by Wazir Khwaja Hisamuddin Junaidi, who after an extensive tour of the deminions for six long years had fixed the total revenue after careful calculations. Afif, *op. cit.* (H, n. 15) pp. 93-94.

c10.74

Table 1

c10.75

| *Approximate area of Firoz Tughlaq's empire* | | | |
| Punjab (undivided) | 253,000 | sqr. | Kilometers |
| Delhi | 1,500 | ,, | ,, |
| Uttar Pradesh | 293.800 | ,, | ,, |
| Gujarat | 187,100 | ,, | ,, |
| Bihar | 174,000 | ,, | ,, |
| Total | 909,400 | Sqr. | Km. |

c10.76

The total area of India before partition (or the India of medieval times minus Kabul and Qandhar) was 4,052,950 sqr. km. Firoz's empire comprised approximately one fourth of this area, and contained 43 million inhabitants. The population of the whole of India, therefore, was roughly four times this number or 172 million. But since the empire of Firoz had within its dominions rather thickly populated regions, the total popultion of India was probably a little less than 172 million, say approximately 168 to 170 million.

Cites (3)

Tārīkh-i Firishta — Muḥammad Qāsim Hindū Shāh Firishta 1606, Persian
تحفة النظار في غرائب الأمصار وعجائب الأسفار — Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, Arabic
Tārīkh-i Fīrūzshāhī — Shams-i Sirāj ʿAfīf, Persian