Prosperity comparison

Source: TW

Marco Polo described the Pandyan kingdom as “the richest and the most splendid province in the world.“This is roughly two centuries before Babur.

The only parts of India that were comparatively poorer than the Middle East and Europe around 1000 AD were the Thar Desert, Rann of Kutch and Chota Nagpur Plateau. Also the High Himalayas (Ladakh, etc.), but the Himalayan regions were often listed as frontier area rather than India proper.

Certain parts of the Middle East such as 12th century Ayyubid Egypt were certainly very wealthy, though I am taking the average for the Middle East and the average for Europe around that time.

Almost any fertile and politically stable region of India during the 11th or 12th century, whether it be the central Gangetic Gahadwala dominion with some of the most lucrative cities on earth at the time (Varanasi, Kannauj, etc.), the Pala Empire in the East, the Chola and Pandyan South, or the Western Chalukya domains would have been wealthier, more urbanized, and commercially sophisticated than the average European kingdom around the same time.

The only possible exceptions would be the Caliphate of Córdoba (al-Andalus), the Republic of Venice, the Byzantine Empire and the Kingdom of Sicily.

But overall only Song Dynasty China could legitimately compare to India at a macroeconomic, systemic scale during that period.