Since, we are concerned with the Gangetic plains or to go a step further North India, we can treat the period between 1605-1707 as one, since no major political changes took place in the territory during this period. However, social, economic and cultural changes did take place and its the economic aspect that we are concerned with. The Mughal Empire had seen strong and largely stable rule between the reigns of Jahangir and Shah Jahan between 1605 CE to 1658 CE. The foreign policy persued by the Mughals, that took shape during the reign of Akbar and was followed in earnest, until at least 1620, with only minor temporary disturbances occurring then onwards, allowed for largely peaceful and profitable relations with neighbouring powers such as Safavids, Uzbeks and Ottomans. This meant that avenues for foreign trade were open and exploitable. Meanwhile, trade concessions given to various European companies also increased the demand for and opened up new markets to Indian goods.

However, some negative aspects of Mughal rule started to take shape and began to emerge more clearly by the end of Shah Jahan's reign, namely the structural problems of the Mansabdari system, the concentration of wealth in the hands of the nobility or Mansabdars, the lack of a system of succession which the Mughals had failed to put into place which made civil wars between the progeny of the dead or in cases still alive and ageing Baadshaah, all to common and a major disruption for trade and economic activity as well as political stability. Another problem of the Mughal Empire, was it's inability to absorb, via its emerging connection with European markets and nations, the latest in scientific and technological innovations or trends in administration and state management.

Therefore, the conditions of a peasant during this period in North India, were a culmination of all of these socila, political and military developments.

What did Indian peasant housing look like?

To answer this question we must first understand clearly what a "peasant" really meant in Mughal North India :

At the highest tier of the social heriarchy was the Badshah, immediately beneath him were the nobles often rulers of their own realms allied or a part of the Mughal Empire such as the Kingdom of Amber, who had risen to the highest offices in the state such as the Diwan or Wazir or Mir Bakshi or Mir-e-Atish often being connected to the Badshah through matrimonial or blood ties (these two being connected with one leading to another), next in the ladder were the numerous nobles who formed the direct administrative figureheads of the various Mughal Provinces and allied states such as Subehdars, Watan Jagirdars, or the Diwans or Mirs of the subahs as well as the highest ranking nobles and officers in the army at the central and provincial levels.

Next we arrive at the zamindars, who were hereditary rulers of large tracts of land, their rights being acknowledged by right of ancestral ownership of these lands and the support base of their caste brethren who were usually the dominant groups in the regions where these zamindars emerged. These men reserved the right to collect stipulated taxes from primary landowners and cultivators and landowners and appropriate them to the government. However, the term zamindar is quite felixible. And while it denotes these petty Rajas, it also denotes those primary landowners known as khudkhast. These men were landowners, meaning their right to land ownership were recognised by the petty Rajas, and these men could own and cultivate their land, so long as they were able to pay their taxes.

The khudkhast were formed out of the socially dominant castes or ethnicities. Usually Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Jats etc. in North India. They owned and cultivated large tracts of land and owned a large numbers of ploughs and bullocks. In order to make this cultivation more convenient and manageable, and to profit off of the land they owned, they would often let out these to their poorer caste brethren who formed the next step in the social ladder who were known as muzarian or tenants, who had to pay land revenues at a higher rate than the khudkhast. Hence, while the petty Rajas or intermediary zamindars exploited the khudkhasta, the khudkhasta in turn exploited the muzarian. These three groups formed the bulk of the army.

Finally we arrive at the worst off sections of society, landless labourers and peasants. Often segregated into their own communities or villages by Hindu and Muslim ruling classes/castes/ethnic groups out of concerns of ritual purity and of chances mingling with those considered of the lower or lowest caste referred to as "untouchables" or kamins

Therefore, the housing arrangements of these classes and castes differed accordingly, with mud houses, almost no furniture apart from cots, bamboo mats and earthen utensils being the norm for the poorer peasant classes, while copper and bell-metal utensils, more lavish furniture and architecture being the privilege of the better off sections such as the khudkhasta

How much food did they have? What was their access to meat, fish, dairy?

The staple diet of North India in the regions of Punjab, Awadh, Braj, Rohillkhand, Benares, and Rajputana were chapatis made from wheat or coarse grains, with pulses green vegetable, locally accessible meat from the village or town butchers such as chicken or lamb depending on religious considerations. Apart from these further in the east, fish and rice were more popular especially in the regions of Bihar and Bengal Subah. The main meal it is said was eaten in the evening as the days were usually occupied with visits to the farmlands, continuous work and activity which required small volumes of food which granted more energy which is why usually farmers chewed pulse or parched grain in the day. Another favourite was rice, millet and pulses cooked together, called khicheri by Pelsaert and De Laet. Ghee or clarified butter and oil were cheaper during this period than food grains, while salt and sugar were expensive. This owing to the fact that grazing land and cattle were abundant and therfore milk and milk products were readily available and cheaper. Hence, while the kamin and muzarian were usually poorly dressed and lived in worse off residences, overall, the peasantry including the khudkhasta ate well.

What did they wear? Did they have multiple changes?

European observers and even Babur, describe the peasant men wearing very little and the women wearing saris. Altho, these description seem more suitable for the kamins. The khudkhasta usually wore quilted gowns of cotton, turbans based on caste and regional considerations, as well as dhotis. While shoes aren't mentioned in North India, it's entirely likely that people wore khadaun which is a wooden slipper in North India. Meanwhile, it's mentioned that peasants in the Deccan went bare footed by Nikitin.

Sources :

"A History of Medieval India", Chapters 15 and 16, by Satish Chandra

"A History of India from 1707-1857" by Lakshmi Subramanian

"The Agrarian System of Mughal India, 1556-1707" by Irfan Habib