This is factually incorrect, the extensive documentation of the era makes it clear that the east India company and British rule made it a point to destroy native industry, vaccum raw material, on top of introducing laws and acts which penalized you for being a particular race.
All of those economic structures were destroyed and perverted by the conquerors.
I really think that's too simplistic a view. As has been pointed out, plenty of countries that were not colonised lagged behind in industrial development. Many of those that were colonies (and I do agree colonisation had a pernicious effect) have been independent for several generations now.
As counter-examples, Japan went from being extraordinarily backward to being an industrial powerhouse in a single generation, in time to go toe-to-toe with Russia and the USA in the early 20th century, and walk all over Korea and China. For that matter, once it got it's act together China has surged forward, growing GDP by a factor of 20 in only 25 years. So why did Japan go through this revolution almost 100 years earlier than China? Why has India lagged behind industrially, while surging ahead in terms of IT?
There are a host of cultural factors at play here. Japan responded to US colonial interference by deciding to modernise to prevent that ever happening again. China responded to the humiliation of colonial aggression by tearing itself apart for 100 years. Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt have gone nowehere since the end of colonialism, while Israel is a technological powerhouse. Turkey always seems so close to finally truning a corner and becoming an advanced modern state, but never quite manages to get it done. 'Because colonialism' just isn't enough of an explanation for any of this.
I recognize this, my short comment is in rebuttal to the theory that a difference in economic plans would have led to a difference in outcome.
To an extent it seems that this was the result of disruptive technologies being used to build a monopoly/exploitative position by first movers. Post independce, both India and China were caught up in the big ideological questions of that era and have been fine tuning their models ever since. China is the larget economy in the world today, and India has essentially taken its place in the race from 1990 onwards.
For me, the cultural factor argument has had its emphasis lowered of late. I used to assume that pre colonial India showed little activity or inclination to learn, but it turns out that there did use to be business families which would have explored and harnessed the new tech. this doesn't mean cultural factors didn't play a role of course.
Yeah, cultural, political, social, there are a lot fo factors that affect economic outcomes. Ironically, it may well be India's tendency towards socialist command-economy, privilleged special-interest economics (subsidies), etc that is holding it back.
The lack of a need for an electoral mandate has freed the Chinese government from the need to actualy implement socialist policies (or on fact any particular policies, they can do what they like, regardless of what the people think about it using their communism 'with chinese characteristics' get-out clause).
The fact that the East India company was a bunch of jerks doesn't change the fact that most of the world became richer, just at a slower rate. The results of a quick google search:
I took a look at those articles and they don't support the position with sufficient authority or evidence.
Consider two charts from those two blogs - chart from blog 2 shows the contribution to global GDP of India and China.
Chart 1 from blog 1 shows how growth spiked by 1820 onwards.
Even if we take the data into consideration without question, 1857 is the year when the revolt of 1857 took place in India, and the British east India gave up control of India - handing it over to the crown. So at this juncture wealth transfer to the west has already begun from India at the very least.
Should that wealth transfer not occurred, I beleove we would have had even better outcomes than what we see today.
Britain and the west was able to take advantage of new technologies and increasingly build monopolies, while abusing government regulation and dictat to pauper competition, and disenfranchise and enslave huge swathes of people.
It was known policy to convert subject colonies into markets for cheap goods, after sucking out resources via slavery on low pay. Competing businesses or crafts were also removed from the picture where possible, and it's obvious that local rulers and governments were sacked or taxed regularly.
Logically we know that a fair market creates more wealth for all who participate. Given that this was a perversion of these ideals, I suggest that the British were at the right place at the right time, and ensured a standard of living for their country men at the cost of almost every country they touched.
If on the other hand, if countries had been able to compete and import technologies - which many business men of the time did try to do - it's certain that this would have driven even more competition and innovation globally.
I didn't say wealth wouldn't have been higher if colonization didn't occur, though I'm definitely unconvinced of that. I merely said that growth did occur everywhere.
Logically we know that a fair market creates more wealth for all who participate. Given that this was a perversion of these ideals...
We don't know this. The relevant counterfactual is not a perfect free market, but whatever the assorted kings of India would have imposed. I don't know enough about the history to comment on their likely economic policies.
Sorry, I have information which would be useful I'm aware that there were merchant communities in the kingdoms that would became India who did and we're looking into looms and technologies.
Since Britain was also monarchical, so the equation is - relatively- balanced.
Did you sleep through the entire 20th century? The one where the US was in a spending match with Russia. China collapsed under the weight of corruption. USSR collapsed under the weight of corruption. Depending on who you ask, the US is collapsing under the weight of {corruption|bureaucracy|congress}.
All of those economic structures were destroyed and perverted by the conquerors.