I don't think British India can be described as a Golden Age, when it was arguably the biggest transfer of wealth in history. When the British started colonizing India, its share of the World GDP was approximately between 1/5 and 1/4. So it was a major player. When they left, GDP share was a mere 4/100. Under British rule, India experienced massive de-industrialization. For example, the UK disassembled most of the handloom industry.
By golden age I only focus on top of the line Science, Art, Architecture etc which is a what a lot of people intuitively focus on since that is what we remember a period by. What rule was best for the common population is unclear.
It might have been the Mauryas but we don’t have enough details of how the common man lived in the Mauryan empire. The arthashastra seems like our best source. Both the Mughals and the British had their share of evils against the common population but my sense is that if you were Hindu you were better off in the British empire than the Mughal Empire except for the rare tolerant Mughal ruler (eg ; Akbar).
The Mauryans and Mughals settled and did not rule with the goal of extracting / plundering. The British EIC did the latter. Arts and culture can prosper sustainably only when basic needs are well met, otherwise it is only the privileged that can dream of arts.
> if you were Hindu you were better off in the British empire than the Mughal Empire except for the rare tolerant Mughal ruler
Unless you were Bengali Hindu, I guess?
An undeniable difference between the British Raj and the Mughals is, the British were colonizers; the country as a whole suffered due to imperialism. One other user points out in this thread about the upending of socio-economic fabric under the Raj. Not really a "Golden Age" by any measure.
