You’re so close to the point but not quite there.

Famines are political. They happen because one population is happy to starve another. The Mughals ruled themselves. The British stole harvests for themselves and let the local population starve.

The potato famine in Ireland is treated as some kind of unavoidable, natural event. No, the British just stole the harvest. And this continued right up until Churchill in India.

So the Mughals might’ve been effective but the big difference is they weren’t being exploited as an imperial subject.

> The Mughals ruled themselves

> So the Mughals might’ve been effective but the big difference is they weren’t being exploited as an imperial subject.

The Mughals were the imperium, ruling over their subjects. They came in to the subcontinent as outsiders, just like the British.

Persian/Turks/Mughals and Europeans/British/Churchill killed more Hindus/natives than the Nazis/Hitler killed Jews.

The centuries of barbaric holocausts done on the natives of India by Muslims and Christian invaders, are the untold stories that Muslims and Christians never dare to teach their kids.