Indians- Who were the worst rulers? Brits or the Mughals ?

[Breathe]

Tell your opinion please and explain why..

[arkas]

The Mughals, based on British and American documentaries I've seen, although the region in India my ancestors lived in was not conquered by the Mughals, so I don't really care

[NPKTO]

....

[Óttar]

I took an Asian architecture class taught by a Hindu Indian woman. She portrayed the Mughals as if they were a native Indian dynasty that had legitimacy to rule over India. The Mughals were Muslim invaders from Central Asia. Considering the British came to India in the 18th century first as a private corporation (the E. India Company) and then the Crown officially took over in 1857, the British, having had a presence in India for ~ 200 years, were just as legitimate as the Mughals. It is a fact that British officers gave vast sums of money to Brahmins and Hindu temples, and directly sponsored Durga Puja, Kali Puja, and other Hindu festivals in their northern capital, Calcutta.