The snark would be more believable if you hadn&#x27;t initiated a conversation with a huge straw man, and then proceed to repeat it.<p>Once again, I&#x27;m not claiming that British colonialism was great for India or that Britain didn&#x27;t subjugate India or that British capitalists didn&#x27;t treat India as a captured market or any other number of doubtless terribly evil things that I am sure you can tell me about all day.<p>I&#x27;m merely taking issue with the curious notion that India would have inevitably kept up with the West despite that none of the features that were giving the West and Britain in particular such advantages were to be found in India, which then supports the idea that it is utterly asinine to claim that if only it wasn&#x27;t for Britain India would be a superpower with 25% of world trade.<p>India had fallen behind long before Britain colonised it, and there&#x27;s no reason at all therefore to believe that it being behind now can be 100% blamed on Britain.<p>If you are really claiming that India was on the verge of the industrial revolution and Britain thwarted it, then I don&#x27;t think I have the time to argue with you, because your belief flies in the face of near any widely accepted understanding of history.