Social Sciences, asked by geetagupta11, 1 year ago

25 points !!!
difference between development of india during british period and development of india during mughal period.
you may include the following points:
a) art and architecture
b) education
c) literature
d) communication
e) transport etc

pls answer it fast and right

Answers

Answered by dineshrajput22
0
the art and architecture of british is modern but
mughal art ant architecture is ancient
Answered by creamiepie
0
1. The Mughals didn't force native farmers to grow commercial crops like Cotton and Indigo as raw materials for their factories back in Samarkand and Ferghana.

2. Then they didn't make India a market for the output of their factories.

3. The British were well known for over-taxing their colonies, while the Mughals - at least in their hey day under Akbar, Jehangir and Shahjahan, did abolish some unnecessary taxes making life of the common public a bit easier.

4. The primary purpose of Babur was to rule a kingdom as king - to have someplace which he could call his own, after he had lost his own dominions in Central Asia. You can't fault an erstwhile prince for being ambitious. He was no Ghazni or Nadir Shah, who came to just plunder and loot. He came to rule.

Similarly, the successive Mughal rulers were better than your average medieval kings - they constructed roads, gardens, monuments, they were patrons of the arts, sciences (or whatever passed for sciences in those days) - they provided meaningful occupation to many people in this way and governed the realm pretty well. Even Aurangzeb the terrible was a pretty effective governor despite his other faults.

You might have heard that India was a Sone ki Chidiya (golden bird) before the British arrived. That was in no small part due to the uninterrupted Mughal rule of the past 200 odd years.

Similar questions