You need to re-read what you said. You will never have a counterfactual proving that India was not able to embark on an industrial revolution, because the British seized the country and stymied all growth that was not beneficial to them.<p>By then going on to say if not the British then someone else would have done it give the reader the impression that you believe it was justified because of that. If that&#x27;s not what you meant to say (and it is not just me who has pointed that out), then you need to be more precise in your use of language.<p>And FYI the industrial revolution in textiles kicked into high gear in England in 1822, a good 50 years or so after  India was under effective company rule. And textiles was an industry where India had a comparative advantage before company rule. Wonder where Britain got all that raw material to make textiles from?<p>From wikipedia: 
During the period, 1780–1860, India changed from being an exporter of processed goods for which it received payment in bullion, to being an exporter of raw materials and a buyer of manufactured goods.[20] More specifically, in the 1750s, mostly fine cotton and silk was exported from India to markets in Europe, Asia, and Africa; by the second quarter of the 19th century, raw materials, which chiefly consisted of raw cotton, opium, and indigo, accounted for most of India&#x27;s exports.[21]<p>Starting in the 1830s, British textiles began to appear in—and soon to inundate—the Indian markets, with the value of the textile imports growing from £5.2 million 1850 to £18.4 million in 1896.