I feel pity to say that the analytical skills of these (would be) quants are at best mediocre.
First off, the British ruled India for 190 years, not 300.
Second off, according to the logic of the above people, Switzerland is poorer than India. Compare apples with apples and not apples with oranges. India's population is 1.2 billion; therefore, it is but obvious it would have higher GDP than Switserland. Similarly, according to your logic, India is richer than Australia/Canada/Singapore. This is but laughable. Also, you forget to mention the massive population explosion that happened in Europe and in the Americas from 1800 to 1950's. In 1947, for instance US population was 144 million. India was 300 million, and US didn't even exist in 1600's. The fact is India's share of world population declined dramatically to about 10%.Probably 50% of the world lived in India back in 1700's. As far as I remember, massive number of people died in Europe due to black death back in 1400 (anywhere between 40-60%). By the the European population would have recovered, India's population would have risen a lot- to make European contribution to would population negligible.
Next time, mention per capita income, not rubbish GDP. It is a massively flawed way of comparing standard of living in 2 countries.
And no the British didn't rip-off Indians. Stop blaming the British. The Indians themselves are responsible for fighting among themselves and allowing British to rule. I never hear Americans complaining that the Britishers ripped them off. Further, Indians were so closed minded that they never allowed Industrialization, resulting in extremely high prices of goods in India (hand made). Whereas, the British produced cheap goods (not because of cheap labor but because of extremely efficient industries at that time).
Infact, I'd say that British gaveIndians a legal system, without which it would be in even bigger chaos. They abolished sati (the act of women burning themselves when their husband died, a very inhumane act). The British gave Indians railroads; ironically, many trains in India continue to run on those some 150 year old tracks, which haven't been replaced- courtesy corruption in India.
But the biggest contribution of the British was the English language; as a result of which many Indians can get jobs in many American multinationals- these jobs though mundane are still better than being unemployed (there are no benefits in India).
Yes, the British did exploit India, but it was nowhere near to what the mughals did- the muslims. They were the true villains. They forced people to convert into Islam, in many cases killing people. There are numerous historical accounts on this, particularly on what Aurangzeb did. They robbed the temples. Also, in a way they converted our open society into a highly closed one. They couldn't tolerate other religions. The couldn't tolerate any change, and when you stop change, the society becomes stagnant.Yes, the British sent mercenaries, but they didn't force people, by threatening to kill them, to convert their religion. In fact, India stagnated the day Muslims started their rule here.
India's peak was in the Vedic times. It ended with the end of the rule of the Mauryan's and the Gupta's.
If British were bad, then the muslims too were NOT any better.