Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, A.D. 1000–1800 c11: VI. A. D. 1400-1600

Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, A.D. 1000–1800 c11

Language: English

VI. A. D. 1400-1600

The demographic recovery noticed by Shams Siraj Afif was short-lived. After Firoz there was a spectacular decline in India's population. His successors fought a long-drawn out civil war for one full decade in which "the people were dispersed and the learned scattered."¹ Timur invaded the country in 1398-99 and swept everything before him. His invasion resulted in a loss of thousands of people killed and captives carried away. But while the trend of the population was only downward in the late fourteenth century, there was progressive depopulation throughout the fifteenth.

c11.3

¹ *Afif*, *op. cit.* (II, n. 15), p. 185.

c11.4

The fifteenth century was a period of political disintegration. The states into which the country broke up, fought against one another with revenge and zeal. On a study of Muhammad Bihamid Khani's *Tarikh-i-Muhammadi*, one is forced to conclude that in the times of the later Tughlaqs even small towns like Kalpi had taken to warfare after the fashion of big States. It appears that medieval people fought just for the sake of fighting.² Whether it were the successors of Timur directing the pillage of the Punjab; or a Rai Sumer, a Jasrath Khokhar or a Tuhghan Rais defying the authority of the Sultanate; whether it was the constant warfare between Delhi and Jaunpur, the triangular contest between Malwa, Gujarat and Rajputana, or the Bahmani and Vijayanagar kingdoms were testing their strength, it only meant loss of population and that too on a large scale. Writing about the warfare among the states into which Bahmani kingdom had been divided, Nuniz says : "There is little faith among the Moors, and they bite one another like dogs, and like to see one after the other destroyed."³

c11.5

² *Tarikh-i-Muhammadi*, British Museum Ms., fols. 406a to 481a, and Hindi translation of the same by A.A. Rizvi in *Tughlaq Kalin Bharat*, Pt. II (Aligarh, 1957), pp. 221 to 240 and *Uttar Timur Kalin Bharat*, pt. II (Aligarh, 1959), pp. 27-47.

c11.6

³ Cited in sewell *A Forgotten Empire*, *op. cit.* (II, n. 21) p. 326. Also in K.S. Lal, *Studies in Medieval Indian History*, (Delhi, 1966) p. 136.

c11.7

This is a very brief description of a very unhappy political situation up to about 1556. The loss of population during these hundred and fifty years was colossal. In terms of figures, it must not have been less than many millions.

c11.8

Some of this loss was made up by the large scale immigration of the Afghans during the fifteenth century. From the inception of Muslim rule, individual scholars, saints and enterprizing adventurers had come to India and settled down here. During the Mongol invasions in the thirteenth century and after, some soldiers from the invading armies also had stayed on in this country. In the time of Balban a few thousand Afghans manned the forts in the turbulent regions like Mewat.⁴ And yet this immigration was little as compared with the Afghan arrivals during the time of the Saiyyads and Lodis (A.D. 1414-1526), who invited them in large numbers to help them stay in power, and they poured into India year after year "like ants and locusts."⁵ The actual numbers that arrived and settled down here is not known but it should have been considerable. With time they must have multiplied. Another factor which would have helped in the recoupment of population was the good administrative system of Sher Shah (1540-45), with the safety of roads and care of the peasantry, and still better and benign administration of Emperor Akbar (1556-1605).

c11.9

⁴ Minhajus Siraj *Tabqat-i-Nasiri*, English trs. by Major H.R. Raverty (London, 1881), p. 315.

c11.10

⁵ K.S. Lal *Twilight of the Sultanate*, (Bombay, 1963,), pp. 126, 328-30.

c11.11

Political history provides good guidelines for population assessment But the notices of a large number of foreign visitors in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries help even more in estimating the population of the country during this period. Their accounts share the weakness of Ibn Battuta's narrative. They could not possibly notice any striking change in the demographic scene. But their narrative is very important in two respects. They usually write in some detail about the kingdoms and regions they visit, and often also compare Indian cities with those of Europe, and since the number of inhabitants of many European towns is now known, it helps in fixing the size of the population of Indian regions and cities in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.⁶

c11.12

⁶ For population of European cities See Lach Tables in Appendix B.

c11.13

Some important names among those who visited India in the fifteenth century (1400-1499) are Nicolo Conti, Abdur Razzaq, Athnasius Nikitin, Santo Stefano and Josafat Barbaro. Nicolo de Conti was in Vijayanagar in 1420. He visited both South and North and returned to his native Italy in 1441. Kamaluddin Abdur Razzaq bin Jamaluddin Ishaq us Samarqandi was an ambassador from Shah Rukh of Persia to the court of Vijayanagar. He visited many places; at Calicut he stayed from November, 1442 to April, 1443; and at Vijayanagar from April, 1443 to November of the same year. The Russian traveller Athnasius Nikitin was in India from 1470 (in which year he visited Golkunda)⁷ to 1474.⁸ Girolamo da Santo Stefano was a Genoese and was in Calicut in 1493. Josaphat Barbaro was an emissary from Venice. He visited "Calicuth" and returned to his homeland in 1478.

c11.14

⁷ R H. Major, *India in the Fifteenth Century* (Hakluyt Society, London, 1857), p. lxxvii.

c11.15

⁸ Sewell, *op cit.* (II, n. 21), p. 22.

c11.16

In the sixteenth century (1501-1600) many more foreigners came to India. The Italian Ludovico di Varthema came early in the century, and was at Calicut from 1504 to 1506. Duarte Barbosa, a Portuguese official in Malabar from 1500 to 1516, wrote his account around 1518. Pires, who wrote between 1512 and 1515, also stayed mostly in Malabar. Castanheda was here between 1528 and 1538. Paes wrote around 1520 and Fernao Núniz in 1536-37. Barros apparently never came to India himself but his Decada, based on Portuguese eye witnesses and therefore a very authoritative work on India, began to be published in 1552. Balbai, Sassetti, Fitch and Linschoten were in India during the decade of 1580's. Father Monserrate was in Goa in 1582 and in the court of Emperor Akbar for many years. Father Pinheiro was in India at about the end of the sixteenth century.

c11.17

Even this short catalogue contains a long list of names. Any detailed discussion of their impressions about the cities and towns of India is neither possible nor quite necessary from our view point. We shall therefore confine our study only to the remarks about the population of the regions and cities visited by them.

c11.18

In the extreme south, the Cape area was sparsely populated and infested with wild beasts. On the west coast, the Kerala region was full of people. It had the great ports of Quilon, Cochin, Cranganore, Calicut and Mahe. About Quilon a Jesuit visitor of 1569 says that in its environs are twenty-three villages and these are "heavily populated places"⁹ Near the city of Cochin there were a number of suburban villages.¹⁰ In the city itself in the two Jesuit elementary schools there were 270 students in 1570.¹¹ Besides Cochin is said to have had "houses like those of Rome".¹² Cranganore, as described by a priest of the name of Joseph, consisted of gentiles divided into three classes : gentlemen Nayars, farmers and fishermen.¹³ Pires affirms that there were 150,000 Nayars in Malabar.¹⁴ They had no other duty than to serve in war. Calicut, an important town from antiquity, was reported by Josafat Barbaro to be "of verie great fame, being as it were, a staple of merchants of various places.¹⁵ According to a letter of Girolamo Sernigi, sent to a colleague in Florence in July, 1499, Calicut was reported to be "bigger than Lisbon." and Calicut's population in 1500 may have been about 100,000 and in 1600, 150,000.¹⁶ The territory between Calicut and Cannanore is described as being cluttered with Moorish towns, one of which was Mahe. Barbosa gives the names of a large number of such towns well-populated with Nayars.¹⁷ The narratives of Barbosa and other Portuguese writers in the sixteenth century corroborate the impression of Ibn Battuta in the fourteenth that the Malabar coastal strip was very thickly populated. About Cannanore, “an international trading centre,” Castanheda says that “this is a large city with a fine bay.”¹⁸

c11.19

⁹ Lach, *op. cit.* (V, n. 24), p. 447.

c11.20

¹⁰ *Loc. cit.*

c11.21

¹¹ *Ibid.*, p. 448.

c11.22

¹² *Ibid*, p. 433.

c11.23

¹³ *Ibid.*, pp. 157-58.

c11.24

¹⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 362.

c11.25

¹⁵ Cited in Penrose, *Travel and Discovery in the Renaissance* (Cambridge, Mass., 1955), p. 26. Lach, I, p. 64.

c11.26

¹⁶ Lach, *op. cit.* (V, n. 24) I, p. 155. The population of Lisbon in 1527 was 58,860; in 1629 its inhabitants numbered 110,800. Since Calicut was bigger than Lisbon its population in 1500 may have been about 100,000 and in 1600, 150,000. Lach, I, bk. II, p. 665, n. Also Lach Tables in Appendix B.

c11.27

¹⁷ Barbosa, *The Book of Duarte Barbosa*, two volumes (Hakluyt Society, London, 1918-21), II, pp. 85-88.

c11.28

¹⁸ Castanheda’s account as translated in Richard Eden, *The First Bouk of the Historie of the Discoveries aud Conquest of the East Indies by the Portingals* (London, 1582), II, p. 425, cited in Lach, I, p. 350.

c11.29

Since the Malabar coast formed part of the Vijayanagar Empire, we may as well consider the situation in the major towns of the kingdom’s interior here only. Vijayanagar the capital was the greatest city. It caught the eye and the imagination of almost every visitor—Paes. Nuniz, A. Razzaq, Nikitin, Varthema, Barbosa etc. To Varthema it was a second paradise,¹⁹ to Barbosa its inhabitants were numerous beyond counting; the streets overflowing with the multitudes of them.²⁰ Santo Stefano observes that there were a thousand Christian houses in Vijayanagar.²¹ Using a co-efficient of five residents to one house, the Christians alone would be about 5,000. Paes says that Vijayanagar was as large as Rome.²² It is estimated by modern scholars that the city had a population of 500,000 in the first half of the sixteenth century.²³ Vijayanagar was perhaps the largest city in the world in the fifteenth century.

c11.30

¹⁹ Lach, I, p. 370.

c11.31

²⁰ Barbosa, *op. cit.*, p. 202.

c11.32

²¹ Major, *op. cit.* (n. 7), p. 5.

c11.33

²² “Paes also states (Sewell, p. 277) that there were more than 100,000 houses in Vijayanagar; this would mean a population of half a million or somewhat more. ..” Moreland, *op. cit.* (I, n. 8), p. 14n.

c11.34

²³ G.S. Dixit, “Economic Conditions in the time of Krishnadevaraya”, in the *Vijayanagar Sexcentenary Volume*, (Dharwar, 1936), p. 215.

c11.35

Other important towns in the Vijayanagar Empire were Bednur, Anegundi (compared by Nuniz with Lisbon), Adoni, Kurnool, Bezwada, Udaigiri, Seringapatam, Mysore, Trichnopoly, Tanjore, Madura, Devipatanam, Rameshvaram, Kanchi; and on the eastern coast Negapatam, St. Thome (Madras), Pulicat, Vellore and Malaipuram. The whole of the countryside was well-cultivated, which also shows that it was thickly populated. Portuguese accounts suggest that the Indians, unlike the Europeans, were relatively free from disease and pestilence.²⁴ Jan Van Linschoten also talks of the longevity of South Indians.²⁵

c11.36

²⁴ Lach, *op. cit.* (V, n. 24), I, p. 62.

c11.37

²⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 487.

c11.38

Returning to the West coast, we find that Goa was a great emporium, an impressive city, and a centre of maritime activity.²⁶ Its ruler (Sabaio) had large fleets, excellent fortifications and a sizable army. Emissaries reportedly came to his court from as far away as Aden and Cairo.²⁷ The College at Goa had 720 students in 1569.²⁸ Its population in 1640 is said to have amounted to 190,000.²⁹

c11.39

²⁶ *Ibid.*, p. 391.

c11.40

²⁷ *Ibid.*, p. 192.

c11.41

²⁸ *Ibid.*, p. 448. In September 1557 Goa suffered from an epidemic like influenza. Lach, I, p. 433.

c11.42

²⁹ Della Valle, *The Travels of Pietro Della Valle in India*, trs. by Edward Grey, two volumes, Hakluyt Society (London, 1892), I, p. 157 n.

c11.43

Further north, Dabhul is described as being "one of the most populous and maritime cities". The Portuguese sacked it in 1509, but Barbosa, who probably arrived at Dabhul after this event, reports that it "is now peopled and as prosperous as before, and wealthy."³⁰ The Portuguese bring out clearly that before they arrived at Chaul, ships from Ormuz, Cambay, and Malabar traded there regularly. The city itself in the trading months "is like a fair."³¹ There are similar references about Thana (Tana) and other neighbouring places. Salsette island in 1568 had a population of 200,000. The Christian converts alone numbered 2,000.³²

c11.44

³⁰ Barbosa, *op. cit.* (n. 17), I, p. 162.

c11.45

³¹ *Ibid.*, p. 163.

c11.46

³² Lach, I, p. 448.

c11.47

Gujarat was commonly known as Cambay to the Portuguese as well as Muslim writers. Castanheda calls it "the chief kingdom of India."³³ The Sultan of Gujarat is said to have jurisdiction over sixty thousand towns,³⁴ large and small, both along the sea coast and scattered throughout the interior. The important towns were Ahmedabad, Baroda, Broach, and Cambay. According to Castanheda Bahadur Shah of Gujarat had assembled in 1534, at the time of his entry into Mandu, a force of 150,000 cavalry and 500,000 infantry.

c11.48

³³ *Ibid.*, p. 396.

c11.49

³⁴ Castanheda in Pedro de Azevedo (ed.) *Historia do descobrimento e conquista da India pelos Portugueses*, 3rd ed. (Coimbra, 1928), II, p. 314, cited in Lach, *op. cit.* (V, n. 24), p. 401.

c11.50

Of the chief cities of Gujarat, Cambay and Ahmedabad probably were the greatest. In Cambay flourished numerous industries and crafts,³⁵ it was visited by "about three hundred ships of different countries every year".³⁶ The city had many great buildings and many fair houses, very lofty with windows.³⁷ It had a large population.³⁸ Pinheiro describes Cambay in 1595 as "the first city of Gujarat not dissimilar to Evora in Portugal.³⁹ When Castanheda was in India (1528-38) the city was reported to have had 130,000 hearths (about 650,000 inhabitants) within the city walls. The royal palaces, warehouses, and arsenals, which occupied as much space as Evora, were separate from the city.⁴⁰ It was so renowned in the sixteenth century that Queen Elizabeth I of England knew of Akbar as the "king of Cambaya."⁴¹

c11.51

³⁵ Barbosa, *op. cit* (n. 17), I, p. 141.

c11.52

³⁶ *The Itinerary of Ludovico di Varthema of Bologna*, ed. Sir Richard C. Temple (London, 1928), p. 46.

c11.53

³⁷ Barbosa, I, p. 141.

c11.54

³⁸ Lach, *op cit* (V, n. 24), I, p 405.

c11.55

³⁹ G.B. Peruschi, *Informatione del regno et stato del Gran Re di Mogor, della sua persona, qualita, & costumi, & congretture della sua conversione alla nostra santa fede* (Rome, 1597), p. 60, cited in Lach, I, p. 458.

c11.56

⁴⁰ Castanheda, *op. cit.* (n. 33), cited Lach, I, p. 398.

c11.57

⁴¹ Smith, *Akbar, op. cit.* (II, n. 32), p. 165.

c11.58

Ahmedabad, the capital of the province of Gujarat, was equally prosperous and populous. Founded by Ahmad Shah of Gujarat (1411-42), it rapidly developed into a great city. Abul Fazl's description that the city had 380 wards, "each of which is like a city", may be exaggerated.⁴² But Ali Muhammad Khan, the author of *Mirat-i-Ahmadi*, repeats the information of Abul Fazl and says that each of the 360 to 380 *puras* (residential quarters with bazars) was surrounded by a wall. He mentions 110 *puras* by name and gives details about their situation. Amin Ahmad Razi, the author of *Haft Aqlim*, completed in 1593, also praises it in glowing terms.⁴³ M.S. Commissariat also observes that "by the end of the sixteenth century...Ahmedabad came to be regarded as the largest city in Asia".⁴⁴ There is no doubt that the city and its suburbs had a very large population, but the arbitrary estimate of two to three millions by T. C. Hope in his *Architecture of Ahmedabad* (1866) is based on no authority.⁴⁵ Fedrici who returned to Venice in 1581 says that Ahmedabad was like Cairo.⁴⁶

c11.59

⁴² *Akbar Nama*, trs. H. Beveridge (Calcutta, 1948), II, p. 12.

c11.60

⁴³ Amin Ahmad Razi, *Haft Aqlim*, ed. by A.H. Harley, Maulvi Abdul Muqtadir, and M. Mahfuzul Haq, Bib. Ind. (Calcutta, 1939), pp. 86-87.

c11.61

⁴⁴ M.S. Commissariat, *History of Gujarat* (Bombay, 1938), I, p. 101.

c11.62

⁴⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 104. Ferishtah, *op. cit.* (II, n. 6), p. 183, however, says that not only in India but even in the world Ahmedabad probably had the largest number of inhabitants.

c11.63

⁴⁶ Lach, I, p. 470.

c11.64

Peruschi has to say many interesting things about the empire of Akbar. According to him it extended 600 by 400 leagues (or 2,400 by 1,600 miles), and its chief cities were Cambay, Delhi, Lahore, Multan, Mandu, Patna, Jaunpur, and Ahmedabad. Some of these cities were as large as Lisbon (whose population around 1600 was 100,000), and Mandu invited comparison with Rome⁴⁷ (whose population around 1600 was 109,000).

c11.65

⁴⁷ G.B. Peruschi as cited in Lach, *op. cit.* (V, n. 24) I, p. 454.

c11.66

Lahore was very populous. According to Monserrate, it was second to none either in Asia or in Europe, and "its population is so large that men jostle each other in the streets."⁴⁸ A little before the great Plague of 1616-24 William Finch noted it to be "one of the greatest cities in the east"⁴⁹ and Thomas Coryat (1612-17) considered it to be "larger than Constantinople."⁵⁰ He also says that Agra was not as large as Lahore but it was larger than Rome. The population of Constantinople in 1573 was over 300,000.⁵¹ Lahore therefore had 400 to 500,000 inhabitants in 1600.

c11.67

⁴⁸ Monserrate, *Commentarias*, trs. from Latin by J.S. Hoyland and annotated by S. N. Banerjee under the title of *The commentary of Father Monserrate* (Oxford, 1922), p. 159.

c11.68

⁴⁹ William Finch, *Early Travels in India* (1583-1619) in Purchas, IV, (pp. 1-77), p. 52.

c11.69

⁵⁰ Cf. Moreland, *op. cit.* (I, n. 8), p. 13.

c11.70

⁵¹ Lach Tables in Appendix B. While Professor Russel (p. 130) believed that this figure, derived from the report of a Venetian ambassador was highly exaggerated, Professor Omar Lutfi Barkan of the University of Istambul, estimated the number of Constantinople's inhabitants in the third decade of the sixteenth century as being 400,000. *Cam. Eco. Hist. Europe*, IV, *op. cit.* (II, n. 7), p. 39.

c11.71

Pires and Barbosa report about the Delhi of Sikandar Lodi's time and describe it as a "heavily populated country".⁵² More than a century later (1663) Bernier compares it with Paris. Paris in 1600 had 200,000 inhabitants.⁵³ Delhi's population in 1600 should be somewhere between 200 to 250,000. To Ralph Fitch (end of the sixteenth century) both Fatehpur Sikri and Agra were much larger than London. According to Jourdain, who was in India in 1608-09, Agra was one of the biggest cities in the world.⁵⁴ A year later Joseph Salbanke (1609-10) also says that Agra was as great as London, and "very populous".⁵⁵ In c. 1600 Father Xavier estimated the population of Agra at 500,000.⁵⁶

c11.72

⁵² Lach, *op. cit.* (V, n. 24), I, p. 419.

c11.73

⁵³ Lach, bk. II, p. 665. Also Lach Tables in Appendix B.

c11.74

⁵⁴ Moreland, *op. cit.* (I, n. 8), p. 13

c11.75

⁵⁵ *Loc. cit.*

c11.76

⁵⁶ *Jour. Asiatic Soc. Bengal*, New Series, Vol. xxiii, 1927, No. 1, p. 121.

c11.77

Fitch also says that "between Agra and Fatehpore are twelve (actually 23) miles, and all the way is a market ... as full as though a man were still in a town and so many people as if a man were in a market."⁵⁷ Similarly the Sikandara Road was also always crowded. From Agra to Sikandara, a distance of about five miles, there were markets and buildings on both sides. Therefore the total inhabitants of the region from Fatehpur Sikri to Agra and Agra to Sikandara should have been about 800,000 to 1,000,000.

c11.78

⁵⁷ H.C. Locke, *The First Englishman in India*, p. 103.

c11.79

The region from Delhi to Banaras and from Banaras to Patna had a very large number of towns and was very thickly populated. Further east, Bengal was a great kingdom as Orissa paid it tribute. Gaur was a large city and with suburbs spread in an area of 20 to 30 square miles. The city proper ran about 7.5 in length and 1 to 2 miles in width. Pires says that it had 40,000 hearths, and Barros rightly estimates its population at 200,000.⁵⁸ Fedrici visited Chittagong, "the great port of Bengal", in 1569. To Castanheda it was like Venice,⁵⁹ "with its numerous waterways and bridges". It was a city of great commerical activity. In 1563 Venice had a population of 168,627. Chittagong should have had about 150,000 inhabitants. Satgaon, according to Pires, was a city with 10,000 hearths (population 50,000), where many merchants concentrated.⁶⁰

c11.80

⁵⁸ Lach, *op. cit.* (V, n. 24) I, p. 414 and n. 567. A change in the course of the Ganga as well as its pillage in 1575 must have affected its population.

c11.81

⁵⁹ *Ibid.*, p. 417.

c11.82

⁶⁰ *Loc. cit.*

c11.83

Foreign visitors of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries have thus made copious comments on the population of towns, cities and regions, and if they have not given actual numbers of inhabitants, their comparison of Indian cities with those of Europe indirectly provides the requisite information.

c11.84

The impression of European travellers in the sixteenth century was that India was a very thickly populated country. Almost all of them hailed not from European villages but from its important and well populated cities. But they were invariably struck by the crush of the people in the Indian cities. The impression they leave is that India’s cities swarmed with people, and its population was probably larger than that of Europe. They would not have repeatedly and enthusiastically written about India's teeming numbers if her population would have been lower or even equal to that of Europe.

c11.85

A comparison by European visitors of some of the Indian cities with those of Europe indicates that the population of some important cities of India was in the following order around A.D. 1600.

c11.86

Table 2

c11.87

*Estimated population of some selected cities around A.D. 1600.*

c11.88

| Cities | Number of inhabitants |
| Agra⁶¹ | 500,000 |
| Ahmedabad⁶² | 300 to 400,000 |
| Cochin (1552)⁶³ | 100,000 |
| Calicut⁶⁴ | 150,000 |
| Cambay (c. 1540)⁶⁵ | 650,000 |
| Chittagong⁶⁶ | 150,000 |

c11.89

⁶¹ In c. 1600 Father Xavier's estimate. *Jour. Asiatic Soc. of Bengal*, xxiii, 1927, No. 1, p. 121.

c11.90

⁶² *Akbar Nama, op. cit.* (n. 42), II, p. 12. Commissariat, *op. cit.* (n. 44), pp. 101, 104. Fedrici, cited in Lach, *op. cit.* (II, n. 24), I, p. 470.

c11.91

⁶³ Letter of Antonius de Heredia to Loyola from Cochin, January, 1552, Lach, I, p. 433.

c11.92

⁶⁴ Josafat Barbaro and Girolamo Sernigi, quoted in Lach, I, p. 64. Also *ibid.*, II, p. 665. See also text vide notes 15-16 *op. cit.*

c11.93

⁶⁵ Castanheda, *op. cit.* (n. 34), in Lach, I, p. 398.

c11.94

⁶⁶ Castanheda in Lach, I, p. 417.

c11.95

| Cities | Number of inhabitants |
| Delhi⁶⁷ | 700,000 |
| Fatehpur Sikri⁶⁸ | 500,000 |
| Gaur⁶⁹ | 200,000 |
| Goa (1640)⁷⁰ | 190,000 |
| Lahore⁷¹ | 400 to 500,000 |
| Mandu⁷² | 100,000 |
| Patna (c 1640)⁷³ | 200,000 |
| Salsette (1568)⁷⁴ | 200,000 |
| Satgaon⁷⁵ | 50,000 |
| Vijayanagar (1565)⁷⁶ | 500,000 |

c11.96

⁶⁷ Bernier writing from Delhi in 1663 compares it with Paris Bernier, *Travels in the Mogul Empire* (Oxford, 1934), p 282 Paris in 1600 had a population of 200 000 and in 1700, 350,000 See Lach Tables Appendix B Also Moreland, *op cit* (I, n 8), p 13

c11.97

⁶⁸ "Ralph Fitch says that Agra and Fatehpur Sikri were each greater than London" Moreland, *op cit* (I, n 8) p 13 For Agra's population also see p 60

c11.98

⁶⁹ Barros in H Cidade and M Murias (eds ) *Asia de Joao de Barros* (Lisbon, 1945), IV, p 505, cited in Lach, I, p 414 n 567

c11.99

⁷⁰ Della Valle, *op cit*,, (n 29), I, p 157 n by the editor Edward Grey

c11.100

⁷¹ "Coryat says that Lahore was larger than Constantinople, and that Agra was not so large as Lahore" Moreland, p 13 Agra's population has been estimated at 500,000 (see n 61) Constantinople's population has been assessed at 400,000 *The Cam Eco History of Europe*, IV, *op cit*, (II, n 7), p 39 400 to 500,000 for Lahore may be an under rather than over estimate

c11.101

⁷² According to G B Peruschi, Mandu invited comparison with Rome (whose population around 1600 was 109,000) Peruschi cited in Lach, I, p 454 For the population of Rome see Lach Tables, Appendix B

c11.102

⁷³ Father Sebastian Manrique, *Travels of Manrique 1629-43* trs F Luard and H Hosten, Hakluyt Society (London, 1927), II, p 140,

c11.103

⁷⁴ Organtino de Brescia to Europe (December, 1568) Text reproduced in German translation in Anton Eglauer (ed ) *Die Missionsgeschichte spaterer Zeiten, order, Gesammelte Briefe der katholischen Missionare aus allen Theilen der Welt Briefe aus Ost-Indien* (3 vols Augsburg, 1794-95), cited in Lach, I, p 448

c11.104

⁷⁵ *The Suma Orietnal of Tome Pires* (London, 1944), p 91, cited in Lach, I, p 417 Also *op cit* text vide n, 15,16

c11.105

⁷⁶ G S Dixit, *op cit* (n 23), p 215. Also Moreland, *op cit* (I, n 8) p 14 n.

c11.106

The above assessment of the population of the country and some selected cities points to India being well-populated. European visitors, however, nowhere mention any rise or or fall in population. In this regard the country's political history provides the trends and, as said earlier, the numbers declined rapidly in the fifteenth century and rose again during Akbar's reign. (A D. 1556-1605). Even during the second half of the sixteenth century some regions lost in numbers like Vijayanagar, while Lahore and Agra, and the tract lying between the two, rose in prestige and population. From the notices of foreigners studied in the historical background of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the following picture of the population of the country emerges about the end of the sixteenth century.

c11.107

Kerala was very thickly populated. In fact the whole of the west coast up to Gujarat had a heavy density of population. Gujarat was full of people, so was more or less Malwa. Rajputana had known peace for the first time in many centuries, and its decimated population was now once again growing.⁷⁷ Sind countryside South of Multan was sparsely populated, but Punjab, whose numbers had suffered a fall during the fifteenth century, was coming up once again. At the end of the sixteenth century, "the route from Agra to Lahore...lay through a dense population, and the same statement holds good from Lahore as far as Multan".."⁷⁸ From Delhi eastwards up to Bengal and Orissa, the country was well stocked. For the Gondwana region, lying west of Orissa and south of eastern U.P. , Ferishtah observes that the kingdom of Garrah (Garrha-Mandla—Gondwana) was well populated on the eve of Akbar's invasion (1564).⁷⁹ The kingdom, 300 miles in length and 100 miles in breadth and ruled by Rani Durgavati, was so flourishing that in this territory there were 70,000 towns and villages, all well inhabited.⁸⁰ South India and the Deccan had large populations, although they were torn by constant wars.

c11.108

⁷⁷ Rajputana had constantly fought against the Turkish sultans of Delhi and lost great numbers. When Akbar gave it peace with honour, its population grew. But the kingdom of Mewar continued to fight against Akbar. One can get an idea of the loss and dispersal of population from war, which was Chittor's destiny, from a few examples of the sixteenth century. When Rana Sangram Singh had fought against Babur (1527), he had under him more than 100,000 soldiers (Rushbrook Williams, *An Empire Builder of the Sixteenth Century* (Longmans Green & Co. : London, 1918), p. 152. But such was the loss of Chittorites in battle that, when seven years later, Bahadur Shah of Gujarat launched an attack against Chittor, Sanga's widow Rani Hadi Karmeti could gather only 2,000 cavalry to oppose him. In Chittor's massacre by Akbar in 1567, 30,000 people were killed. Besides, the loss of life in *jauhar* in the first instance (1534-35) was 32,000 and in the second (1567) can only be imagined. Add to this the soldiers killed in battle. War continued and Chittor's population went on dwindling. No wonder that in the famous battle of Haldighat (1576 the force under Rana Pratap counted only 3,000 horsemen (G.N. Sharma, *Mewar and the Mughal Emperors* (Agra, 1954), pp. 55-57, 65-81, Lal, *Studies, op. cit.* (n 3), p. 171. In the seventeenth century, when Mewar was at peace with the Mughal Empire its demographic recovery was quick. In a battle against Aurangzeb (1679), the Rana of Udaipur had in the field 20,000 cavalry, 25,000 infantry and 1000 elephants. (G.N. Sharma, *op. cit.*, p. 170). According to Manucci, *op. cit.* (II, n 41), II, p. 433, the Rana of Udaipur had, about the end of the seventeenth century, under him 50,000 cavalry and 200 000 infantry.

c11.109

⁷⁸ Moreland, *op cit.* (I, n 8), p 12.

c11.110

⁷⁹ Ferishtah, *op. cit.* (II, n 6), I, p. 254.

c11.111

⁸⁰ Alexander Dow's trs of Ferishtah, II, p. 262.

c11.112

W.H. Moreland has estimated that the population of India at the time of Akbar's death (A.D. 1605) or about 1600 was a hundred million⁸¹—about 70 million in northern and 30 in southern India. He bases his computation on three sources, (i) impression of foreign visitors, (ii) the strength of the armies and (iii) the extent of cultivation.⁸² The design of Indian population as given by foreign visitors has been already discussed at length. Indian historians corroborate it; nay, they give even a brighter portrayal of the demographic scene. According to Nizamuddin Ahmad, the author of the voluminous but authentic work entitled *Tabqat-i-Akbari*, Akbar's empire contained 120 large cities and 3,200 small towns (*qasba*), each having under it a hundred to a thousand villages.⁸³ Wherefrom did Nizamuddin gather this information ? In the twentyfifth year of his reign (1581), Akbar had ordered a general census of his empire. An imperial mandate was issued", says Abul Fazl, "directing the *jagirdars*, *shikkdars*, and *daroghas* throughout the Empire to draw up, village by village, lists of all the inhabitants, specifying their names and occupations." Besides the general census, Akbar's *farman* listing the duties of the *kotwal* clearly lays down that ‘he should jot down the residents of every street from house to house as to what sort of men they are, how many of them are cultivators, how many professional men, how many sepoys, how many darweshes.’⁸⁵ No such records are extant now, but Nizamuddin certainly appears to have had access to them. At least the way in which he mentions the large and small cities shows that he was sure of what he was writing. However, it is not possible to estimate the population on the basis of the number of *qasbas*, because each *qasba* is said to have had a hundred to a thousand villages, and this big variation leads us nowhere. But, as seen earlier, the average population of a large Indian city was about 200,000 to 250,000 inhabitants. On this basis, the urban population in Akbar’s empire would have been 120 (cities) × 200,000 (inhabitants) = about 24,000,000 people. Now according to the census of 1961 the ratio of urban to rural population was 17.84:82.16.⁸⁶ Commercially and industrially the India of 1600 is said to have been more advanced than many European countries. At least it was not entirely agricultural and its cities were many and in a flourishing state. Therefore if this same urban-rural ratio could be taken as holding good for Akbar’s empire also, its total population would have been about 133 million. Add to this the 30 to 32 millions for the South (not included in Akbar’s empire) and the total for the whole of India in 1600 would come to about 165 million.

c11.113

⁸¹ Moreland, *op. cit.* (I, n. 8), p. 22

c11.114

⁸² *Ibid.*, p. 15.

c11.115

⁸³ *Tabqat-i-Akbari*, 3 vols (Calcutta, 1927-35), III, pp. 545-46.

c11.116

⁸⁴ *Akbar Nama*, trs. in E and D, VI, p. 61. It is interesting to note that Akbar’s contemporary in the Ottoman Empire, Sulaiman the Magnificent (1520-66), too had taken a census of the households of his empire. *Cam. Eco. History of Europe, op cit.* (II, n. 7), IV, p. 39.

c11.117

⁸⁵ *Mirat-i-Ahmadi*, English trs. by Lokhandvala, Oriental Institute (Baroda, 1965), p 144.

c11.118

⁸⁶ Sah Dev Varma, *Facts and Figures about 1961 Census* (Ashok Prakashan, Delhi, October, 1961), p. 7.

c11.119

The strength of Akbar’s army has been estimated by modern scholars at 4 to 4.4 millions, for in the second volume of *Ain-i-Akbari* Abul Fazl gives the figures of soldiers—horsemen and infantrymen—who could be called to service in Akbar’s empire, and the total of these figures comes to a little more than 4.4 millions.⁸⁷

c11.120

⁸⁷ R. P. Tripathi, *Rise and Fall of the Mughal Empire*, (Allahabad, 1960), p. 234. P. Saran, *Provincial Government of the Mughals*, (Allahabad, 1941), pp. 258-68. Elphinstone, *History of India, op. cit.* (I, n. 6), II, p. 304. *Report of the Indian Historical Records Commission*, Vol. V, 1923, pp. 58 ff.

c11.121

This army was organized on the quota system; each high officer or autonomous ruler being expected to produce on demand a fixed number of troops. This system was not very different from the one prevailing in the Vijayanagar empire which had more than a million troops of its own. Accordingly 4 to 4.4 million should not be considered to be too high for the extensive empire of Akbar. Therefore, as in the case of the South, its numerical strength should help form an estimate of population of the North. Calculating on the basis of this figure in the ratio of 1 : 30 (adopted by Moreland for the South), we get a population of about 120 to 132 millions for Akbar's empire. To this may be added 30 millions or a little more for the South and the tracts not included in Akbar's empire, and the total population of India in 1600 would again come to about 150 to 165 million.

c11.122

For an assessment of population on the basis of areas under cultivation, the estimate of Dr. Beni Prasad may be quoted at length. Dr Prasad says: "A comparison of the density of cultivation as revealed by the statistical figures in the *A'n-i-Akbari* with the present density shows the Western Gangetic plain as extensively cultivated and, therefore, presumably, as thickly populated as at present. The density of cultivation and therefore of population in the Eastern Gangetic plain to the border of Bengal appears to be far lower though one cannot believe with Mr. Moreland that it was as low as one-fifth of the present standard. Thus the Mughal empire minus Bengal and Gujrat and a few smaller tracts for which figures are not available contained over 60 millions of people The allowance of ten millions for the excluded areas by Mr. Moreland appears to be much too low. Something must be allowed for Gondwana. . . . On the whole, it seems that the Mughal empire excluding Afghanistan contained somewhat over 90 millions. The rest of the country, as we have seen, supported more than 30 millions. The total may have been somewhat more than 125 or or even 130 millions."⁸⁸

c11.123

⁸⁸ Beni Prasad, "India in 1605 A.C.", *Modern Review* (Calcutta, January, 1921) (pp 15-22), p. 16.

c11.124

It is thus evident that Moreland, who must be given credit for the pioneering work he has done in the field of medieval demography, has erred on the low side. The population of India in 1600 was much more than a hundred million. About the towns and cities of India, Moreland's assessment is about correct, and we are in agreement with his statement that "the greatest Indian cities were most probably of the quarter-million to half million standard, and that in any case their inhabitants were not to be counted by the million."⁸⁹ But his estimate on the basis of the strength of the armies, seems to be on low. Taking the Deccan kingdoms and the Vijayanagar empire together, he says, "it is not unreasonable to infer that this part of India could actually put something like a million men in the field."⁹⁰ And since, "France had arranged before the year 1914 to mobilise one out of 31, and Germany one out of 32, so that, if the recruiting organisation of the Deccan and Vijayanagar was as efficient as that of modern France and Germany, their united strength of a million would imply a population of about thirty millions, while the population would be greater if the efficiency was less."⁹¹

c11.125

⁸⁹ Moreland, *op. cit.* (I, n. 8), p. 13.

c11.126

⁹⁰ *Ibid.*, p. 18. Sewell, *op. cit.* (II, n. 21), pp. 142-45, however, has a much larger estimate, more than a million for Vijayanagar empire only.

c11.127

⁹¹ Moreland, *op. cit.*, p. 19.

c11.128

The efficiency was certainly less. As a matter of fact, the efficiency of every country was necessarily much less in the sixteenth century than in 1914. In medieval India in particular a very substantial portion of the population was exempt from military service. Even so Castanheda says that the Zamorin of Calicut was able "to raise a force of 30,000 men in a single day, and could even bring 100,000 men in the field, completely equipt for war in three days."⁹² Then there were the Nayars on the Malabar coast. The armies of the Bahmani and Vijayanagar kingdoms were in all probability more than a million each. Therefore, proportionately, a larger population than in Europe would have provided Moreland's 'one million' soldiers in South India. Moreland himself says that *"the population of southern territories was at least thirty millions, and probably substantially more"* (Italics mine).⁹³ One fact, however, militates against our having any high estimate of the number of regular troops, for in medieval times "the riff-raff and the rowdy" also used to join contending armies for the love of plunder.⁹⁴ This was as true of the South as of the North. Therefore, the rough ratio of 30 : 1 as suggested by Moreland as the ratio of the population to the armed forces may be adhered to.

c11.129

⁹² Castanheda, II, p. 350, cited in Lach, *op. cit.* (V, n. 24), I, p. 358.

c11.130

⁹³ Moreland, *op. cit.* (I, n. 8), p. 20. Also cf. Beni Prasad *op. cit.* (n. 88), p. 16, who says that the population of the country south of the Narbada was substantially over 30 million in 1565. "It may have slightly increased in 1605."

c11.131

⁹⁴ Afif, *op. cit.* (II, n. 15), p. 289, Ibn Battuta, *op. cit.* (I, n, 1), p 109.

c11.132

However, Moreland himself gives up this method for calculation about northern India because he believed, "that the strength of the Mogul forces is unknown". Such is not the case, and one wonders how he missed to take notice of the information in the *Ain-i-Akbari* and Elphinstone’s history. It is true that not all this army of more than 4 millions was ever called to fight at one single time, still its numerical strength should have helped him in estimating the population of the North as the strength of armies in the South had helped him in estimating the population of the South.

c11.133

Moreland’s low estimate of the population arrived at on the basis of areas under cultivation⁹⁵ has not been found acceptable either to Beni Prasad or Kingsley Davis. We have quoted Beni Prasad at some length. Davis also remarks that the population attributed by Moreland to some parts of northern India seems to be too small. Assam, Bengal, and Gujarat contained well over one-fifth of the whole population of India in 1911. If they had represented the same proportion in 1600, and if the total population would have been only 100 million, they would have had 20 million only. This seems too small a number for the ever thickly populated parts like Bengal and Gujarat. Davis adds, "the best policy seems to be to revise Moreland’s figure for 1600 upward to 125 million..."⁹⁶

c11.134

⁹⁵ Moreland, *op. cit.* (I, n. 8), pp. 21-22.

c11.135

⁹⁶ Davis, *op. cit.* (I, n. 9), p. 26.

c11.136

But if Moreland's estimate of 100 million seems to be certainly low, ours of 160 to 165 millions is too high because it is based on pure mathematical calculation on the basis of Nizamuddin's number of big cities and on the strength of Akbar's army which after all was never called to muster at one time. This calculation overlooks some patent political and economic phenomena of the medieval period. Although the political scene had changed with the establishment of Mughal rule, wars were as common as before and natural calamities like famines and pestilences constantly recurred throughout the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. All these served as brakes on any acceleration of demographic growth. Medieval means of transport and communication could not effectively mitigate the horrors of famine and contemporary writers bear witness to great loss of life during periods of scarcity. *Tarikh-i-Daudi* details measures which Sikandar Lodi (A. D. 1489-1517) took to ameliorate the condition of the people in times of drought, which shows that during his reign famines occurred frequently. In the Mughal period we have detailed and graphic accounts of some occurrences of scarcity and pestilence. The Coromandel Coast witnessed a severe famine in 1540. Abul Fazl and Badaoni record a terrrible famine in 1555-56 in northern India, caused by the failure of rains. It was followed by plague which spread through most of the cities of Hindustan.⁹⁷ The dearth lasted for two years and was particularly severe in the Agra-Delhi region.⁹⁸ As the famine raged, and people fleeing for life died in large numbers, the roads got littered with the dead. Some even resorted to cannibalism. Agricultural activity came to a standstill. Delhi was devastated and the mortality as enormous.⁹⁹

c11.137

⁹⁷ *Cambridge History of India*, IV, Ed. Sir Richard Burn (Cambridge, 1937), p 69.

c11.138

⁹⁸ Smith, *op. cit.* (II, n. 32), p. 28.

c11.139

⁹⁹ *Ibid.*, pp. 28, 288. Badaoni, trs. S.A. Ranking (Calcutta, 1898), I, pp 549-51. *Akbar Nama*, Persian Text, *op. cit.* (I, n. 2), II, p. 35. Also *Ain.* (see n 104), III, p. 475.

c11.140

The Italian traveller Caesar Frederic was an eye witness to a famine in Cambay between 1563 and 1567.¹⁰⁰ Sirhind was a scene of similar calamity in 1572-73, and its inhabitants migrated to neighbouring village and cities. In 1573-74 scarcity, accompanied by an epidemic, stalked for six months the otherwise fertile region of Gujarat.¹⁰¹ A deadly epidemic, probably a kind of malarial fever, ravaged Bengal in 1575, and was quite devastating in its effects.¹⁰² Abul Fazl records a famine in 1583-84, but neither mentions which provinces were affected nor what amount of damage was done, but it appears that the calamity was severe.¹⁰³ The innundation of the Megna delta in Bangla (Desh) in 1584-85 killed "nearly 200,000 living creatures.”[’^104] In 1587 and 1588 locusts destroyed crops in the Bhakkar country resulting in drought and migrations on a large scale. The story repeated itself in the same region a year later in 1589-90.¹⁰⁵ But the relentless drought which began in 1595 in northern India and lasted till 1598 was very devastating in its effects. “There was scarcity of rain throughout the whole of Hindustan, and a fearful famine raged continuously for three or four years…A kind of plague also added to the horrors of this period and depopulated whole houses and cities, to say nothing of hamlets and villages… Men ate their own kind. The streets and roads were blocked up with dead bodies ..”[’^106] The Jesuit missionaries witnessed famine and pestilence also in Lahore and Kashmir,¹⁰⁷ but neither they nor Indian writers give any figures of the dead. But the famine and pestilence of 1595-98, preceded by an almost unbroken chain of calamities from 1584 onwards, must have had a malevolent effect on the demographic scene ; and the population of India at the end of the century would have been far less than the high figure of 160 to 165 million. A realistic estimate would be about 140 million.

c11.141

¹⁰⁰ Purchas, *His Pilgrimes* by S Purchas (London, 1626), X, p. 90.

c11.142

¹⁰¹ Smith, *op. cit.* (II, n. 32), p. 93.

c11.143

¹⁰² *Ibid*, p. 289.

c11.144

¹⁰³ *Ibid*, p. 288.

c11.145

¹⁰⁵ Mir Masum, *Tarikh-i-Sind* (Poona, 1938), pp. 249-50.

c11.146

¹⁰⁷ C.H. Payne, *Akbar and the Jesuits* (London, 1926), pp. 77-78.

c11.147

*Besides being closer to the assessments of Beni Prasad (130 million) and Kingsley Davis (125 million), the estimate of 140 million is also sustained by the modern demographic picture of India, production and consumption of foodgrains in Akbar’s times, and also, though indirectly, in the studies of Davis and Clark.*

c11.148

The demographic pattern of India according to the 1931 census was like this. The total inhabitants of the country were 338,894,076.¹⁰⁸ Out of this the region not included in Akbar's empire had, in 1931, a population of 82,594,973 in the following order.

c11.149

¹⁰⁴ Abul Fazl, *Ain-i-Akbari*, 3 vols English trs. I, by H. Blochmann, ed. D.C. Phillot (Calcutta, 1939) ; II by H.S. Jarret, second annotated ed. by J.N. Sarkar (Calcutta, 1959) ; III by Jarret and Sarkar (Calcutta, 1948), II, p 123.

c11.150

¹⁰⁶ Nurul Haqq, *Zabd-ut-Tawarikh*, trs E and D. VI, p 193.

c11.151

¹⁰⁸ From the total population of 338,923,539, the figures of Andamans and Nicobars (29,463) have been deducted. Sikkim and Assam were also not included in Akbar’s empire, but their population has been taken into account to compound for the population of the region beyond the Indus extending up to Kabul and Qandhar (Akabar’s Subah of Kabul) not included in the 1931 Census.

c11.152

Table 3

c11.153

*Showing the population in 1931 of the region not included in Akbar's empire*

c11.154

| States and Provinces | Number of inhabitants |
| Hyderabad | 8,624,089¹⁰⁹ |
| Bombay | 11,994,702¹¹⁰ |
| Madras States (Travancore) | 6,754,484 |
| Coorg | 163,327 |
| Mysore | 6.557,302 |
| Deccan States | 1,760,962 |
| Total | 82,594,973 |

c11.155

¹⁰⁹ In 1931 Hyderabad had a total population of 14,436,148. But about 2/3 of its area in 1600 was outside Akbar's empire. Consequently only 2/3 of this figure is counted in "South".

c11.156

¹¹⁰ Bombay province's total population in 1931 was 17,992,053. But only 1/3 of its area was part of Akbar's empire. Therefore 2/3 of its population has been taken into consideration for the South.

c11.157

From the above Table it is apparent that in 1931 the population of the area not included in Akbar's empire (referred to as South) was approximately one fourth of the total population of the country. If in 1600 the South contained about 30 to 32 or ("substantially more") say 35 million inhabitants, the total population would have been about 140 million.

c11.158

The estimate of 140 million as the population of India at the time of Akbar's death is supported by another evidence. The revenue of Akbar's empire in A D. 1594 was "three *Arahs* sixty-two *krors*, ninety-seven *lakhs*, fifty-five thousand two hundred and forty-six *dams* (Rs 90,743,881) and twelve *lakhs* of betel leaves."¹¹¹ About the time of his death in 1605 the total revenue amounted to 17 *krors* and forty five *lakh* (174,500,000) rupees. This figure, given by President van den Broecke, is based on Akbar’s official accounts, and includes the collections from the Deccan provinces of Berar, Khandesh and Ahmadnagar, “which had not been annexed when the *Ain* was compiled.”

c11.159

¹¹¹ *Ain-i-Akbari, op. cit.* (n. 104), II, p 129.

c11.160

Taking the common rate of one-third as the chargeable revenue, the total value of food grains produced in Akbar’s time would be 52 kror and 35 lakh rupees, Akbar’s dam was 1/40 of his rupee and his *man* was of 28 *sers* of today.¹¹³ And although the prices of high class food items, like good quality rice, had gone up since the days of Firoz Tughlaq, the ordinary quality food stuffs were, by and large, cheap. On the average about 8(to 10) dams bought one *man* (of 28 *sers*) of foodgrains in Akbar’s time,¹¹⁴ and one rupee 5 mans (of 28 *sers* each) and 3½ maunds (of 40 *sers* each) of today.

c11.161

¹¹³ *Ain-i-Akbari, op. cit.* (n. 104), I, p. 32. Also Moreland, *op. cit.* (I, n. 8), pp. 53,55.

c11.162

¹¹⁴ See price schedule in *Ain-i-Akbari*, I, pp. 65-66.

c11.163

Following the same principle of calculation as was adopted for the reign of Firoz Shah Tughlaq, the money value of the one third of total agricultural production consumed by the people was Rs 174,500.000. Since one rupee purchased 3½ maunds of cereals, the total quantity of cereals should be 610,250,000 maunds.. With the average consumption of 5½ maunds per individual per year, the total number of inhabitants in Akbar’s empire should be (610,250,000)÷5½ =) about 110 million. Add to this the 30 to 35 million people of the South and the inaccessible tribal areas, and the estimate would again come to between 140 and 145 million.

c11.164

This conclusion is also indirectly supported by Kingsley Davis and Colin Clark. Davis says : “Prior to the censuses people guessed the population of India to be much less than it really was...As time went by and the Europeans became better acquainted with the territory they were administering, the estimates imporoved...Yet despite the steady improvement, we find that even as late as 1867... the all-India estimate was apparently far too low...The best policy seems to be to revise Moreland’s figure for 1600 upward to 125 million..."¹¹⁵ Colin Clark accepts the figure of 100 million for 1600 but for 1650 he estimates the population of India at 150 million.¹¹⁶ He has no explanation to offer for the rise in numbers by fifty per cent in half a century during which there was a visitation of a catastrophic plague in northern India followed by an equally devastating famine in southern. Surely if we accept his figure of 150 million for 1650 (after the great plague of 1616-24 and the great famine of 1630-33), the same numbers, or if not the same a little less, i. e. 140 million, should be a correct estimate for A.D. 1600.

Cites (8)

Tārīkh-i Firishta — Muḥammad Qāsim Hindū Shāh Firishta 1606, Persian
Kanchipuram
Thanjavur
Devipattinam
Seringapatam
Bezwada
Rameswaram
Adoni