The Mughals Were Conquerors, Not Colonizers, And Equating Them To The British Is Ahistorical At Best.

The Mughals were conquerors, not colonizers, and equating them to the British is ahistorical at best. The Mughals settled in India, made it their home, and integrated into its cultural and political fabric, even if their rule was far from perfect. They built monuments like the Taj Mahal and Red Fort, not as gifts to the locals, but as symbols of their power—just as Hindu kings built temples and palaces for their own glory. Yes, Aurangzeb reimposed the jizya and destroyed temples, but let’s not pretend this was unique to the Mughals; Hindu rulers also destroyed rival religious sites when it suited their political agendas. The British, however, were true colonizers—they exploited India’s resources to enrich themselves, treated Indians as subhuman, and left the economy in ruins. The Mughals may have been flawed rulers, but they were part of India’s story; the British were extractive outsiders who never saw India as anything more than a cash cow. To conflate the two is to ignore the nuances of history and reduce it to a simplistic, politically convenient narrative.

Not another post whining about why “mUgHaLs WeRe nOt cOlOnizErs” like girl, they were literally foreign invaders who forced you to speak their language, broke your temples, tried eradicating your culture and collected zizya taxes motivated by religious bigotry in hopes of forcing your people to convert! At least have some shame and consideration for your ancestors.