Mughals—more precisely, the Timurids; did not “enrich” India; they extracted it. And invoking Maddison it utter foolish act. Start with the same data often cited to glorify that era. In 1 CE, India held ~32% of global GDP. By 1000 CE, ~28.1%. By 1500 CE, ~24.4%. But under Akbar, by 1600 CE, India had already slipped to 22.4%, while China stood at 29%. Now the more telling metric: GDP per capita. Maddison shows India’s per capita growth turns negative only in two long phases—1500–1820 (Timurid/Mughal rule) and 1913–1950 (British rule). During the Mughal period, it stagnates at around –0.01%. That single number is a quiet indictment: the empire’s خزانہ (treasury) swelled, but the people thinned into poverty. In other words, wealth was not created; it was concentrated. The state grew richer as society grew poorer. A classic extractive regime. And this isn’t just statistical abstraction. Contemporary observers saw it unfold. As François Bernier noted in Travels in the Mogul Empire (1656–1668, p. 223): “ Gold and silver are not in greater plenty here than elsewhere; on the contrary, the inhabitants have less the appearance of a moneyed people than those of many other parts of the globe.” Bernier informs us about the Aurangzeb’s period by stating as below (p. 225): “Labourers perish due to bad treatment from Governors. Children of poor are carried away as slaves. Peasantry abandon the country driven by despair. As the land throughout the whole empire is considered the property of the sovereign, there can be no earldoms, marquisates, or duchies. The royal grants consist only of pensions, either in land or money, which the king gives, augments, retrenches or takes away at pleasure.” “The artisans who manufactured the luxury goods for the Mughal aristocracy were almost always on starvation wages.” Artisans were not participants in a free market; they were subjects of coercion. Prices were fixed by imperial buyers; refusal could invite imprisonment, even death. This was an extraction with a velvet glove. François Bernier records the grotesque contrast: the same weavers who produced the world’s finest brocades walked half-naked. Wealth did not circulate; rather it was siphoned upward. Even Thomas Roe, at Jahangir’s court, stood dazzled by diamonds and rubies, yet struck by the poverty he witnessed from Surat to Delhi. The empire glittered; but only at the top. And where did this wealth go? Not just hoarded, but exported and consumed. Roughly 15–20% of state wealth fed the court’s excesses. As noted by Irfan Habib and S. M. Ikram, even Akbar’s regime leaned heavily on extraction. Babur, after Panipat, shipped enormous wealth to Samarkand, Khurasan, Mecca, and Medina; distributing coins even in Kabul, a symbolic drain outward. Under Akbar, in 1576 alone, ₹6 lakh was sent to Mecca; when a barber earned ₹0.5 a day. That single transfer equalled the daily wages of ~12 lakh people; nearly 8% of the population. And this outflow did not stop; it continued under Jahangir, Shah Jahan, and Aurangzeb. So regular were these transfers that a saying emerged: when caravans arrived from Hindustan, the Arab world gathered to claim its share. This was not a civilisational golden age; it was a pipeline wherein wealth moved upward, then outward, while those who created it were left threadbare. For those who want the full anatomy of this extraction; with primary sources and data; see Appendix A of #BaburTheChessboardKing. The glitter of the Peacock Throne was not prosperity; it was compression. I’m glad @priyankachopra compared Timurids (Mughals) no less than other Portuguese, Dutch and other invaders. Btw @PoMoGandhi challenge still holds: prove Timurids (Mughals) made us richer in debate with me, and carry crores as prize money. Tip: Read my book to decide if your arguments would sustain or not.