Dalrymple fails to mention that the Mughal Empire wasn't exactly the most sound of economic masters over the subcontinent.<p>For decades Mughal princes had been controlling monetary flows by printing new currencies every year or so, causing rapid inflation in old currencies. The Mughal Empire allowed Clive to set up a free trade zone with a land grant of a swamp that eventually became Calcutta, and the East India Company built a wall, and started trading on the pound (£). It's amazing what happens once you stop trading with unstable currencies. Growth and prosperity. The Mughal empire, which was on the verge, essentially collapsed over the next few years (post '57 -- mostly through the 60s and 70s) as the merchant classes just shifted to doing business in Calcutta.<p>--> I wrote my undergraduate thesis about this topic, and spent a year at the British Library reading first-hand accounts from both sides, focusing on the resulting Anglo-Indian legal system set in place by Sir Robert Chambers. Dalrymple is right about a lot, but this piece most certainly omits the fact that a number of sectors of Mughal society gained a great deal from dealing with the British (never mind overlooked Mughal brutalities that go unmentioned in the piece).