>but they became indian saar, they gabe us biryani saar, the money circulated back in local economy saae reeeeeee.
I used to think the same but...nope, they spent public funds to build grand personal houses for their graves. Peacock throne itself costed double the cost of Taj mahal. They drained treasury to wage wars to carve out Dar ul-islam. Millions suffered due to them. Hindu kings were far more benevolent. They focused more on public works than wars and luxuries. I would argue even brits were far better than mughals.
>>155958
Brits were objectively better than mughals. Railways, rule of law, population boom, famine codes c.1900, excavation of IVC, decipherment of brahmi, emergence of global hindu diaspora, all happened during that period.
