My use of language was perfectly precise. I never said any of the things attributed to me, you don&#x27;t get to blame me because of your lack of reading comprehension.<p>The first industrial revolution in the UK began in the mid 18th century. The 1820s is towards the <i>end</i> of the first industrial revolution - you are thinking of the second industrial revolution.<p>Do you think that Britain managed to dominate india in the 18th century despite having - supposedly - no advantages whatsoever? In fact the very reason Britain was able to do this was <i>because</i> it had already leapt ahead.<p>Now, once again, nobody denies that Britain did many bad things to India. I merely take issue with (probable hindu nationalist&#x27;s) bizarre a-historical notions that India was a giant of the world in the 18th century and that if only Evil Britain hadn&#x27;t somehow cheated its way into colonising it then it would naturally have kept pace with developments in Europe, and that therefore the entire developmental disparity between them can be 100% blamed on Britain.<p>That&#x27;s total nonsense. My comment was intended to point out that while yes of course Britain&#x27;s colonisation of India wasn&#x27;t necessarily &quot;a good thing&quot; it isn&#x27;t to say that if it hadn&#x27;t happened India would have been filled with steam engines and trains in 1850.<p>You can&#x27;t have a counterfactual to say that India would have been a shangri la without Britain&#x27;s colonisation. It may have been worse or better than now, we will never know, but it would certainly not have &quot;kept up&quot; with the revolutions sweeping Europe and it is deeply disingenuous to claim that.