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.

If I am to be Downvoted, I'd appreciate an explanation as to why I'm wrong or why you disagree.