I agree with the first part of your statement, but I think we do an injustice by calling it Mughal India, it was the Mughal empire, plus the region had other independent kingdoms, as well as those that were under the protection of the Mughals, but independent never-the-less.
These nuances and differentiation are important, otherwise, we keep feeding their fantasies of ancient India. I've used the term myself and still do out of habit. I stopped using it when I looking it to it, the history says otherwise. If they had adopted the term Bharat or Hindustan for their country then we could use the term India, because they have taken the India name to describe their country, intellectually speaking they have mudded our history, so how we use the term India historically has to be accurately used, otherwise, my/our history gets maligned.
In terms of the amount of money taken, it is mainly used to trump up the Indian nationalism and hard to justify historically. They have also left behind a legacy, and it is a bit pointless to cry about it to drum up nationalism. And, for sake of fair historical analysis, that has not been done as yet.
Ripe apart the Indian railway system and see how much it would cost to build, that's value. There are also various arguments there, but the point I am trying to make is that the Indians look at it too simplistically to drum up sense of nationhood, which is shallow and unfair.
Then which nations lost how much, Bengalis were the most to suffer, that's not India, it was Bengal. Other areas lost not so much, so again it goes back to the points that this is an unfair assessment, purely designed for sake of modern Indian nationalism.
