Just letting results speak for themselves.
Either:
A - India was strong enough to defend herself and evolve on its own as a world player
-or-
B - India was susceptible to forced colonization (rape, pillage, etc) and she was damn lucky that the British Empire was there other than some other conquerer.
Again, as you point out with Japan, Germany, Italy, Russia....better for freedom and prosperity to be manhandled by Britain or British ex-colonies than otherwise.
Just letting results speak for themselves.
Either:
A - India was strong enough to defend herself and evolve on its own as a world player
-or-
B - India was susceptible to forced colonization.................
Let me understand you correctly. Are you trying to say that , you can safely assume that India would have perpetually remained unindustrailized because............India was not strong enough to defend against Britain?
You know how absurd you sound? Its almost the same as making the argument that Eastern Europe would have never been industrailized had it not been for the Soviet occupation and the communist system . Why?....... because they were so easily defeatable by the Soviets.
(rape, pillage, etc) and she was damn lucky that the British Empire was there other than some other conquerer.
Luck about what? For being raped, pillaged and starved by the Brits instead of the Nazis or the Japs? I dont see the difference. For a rape victim, does it matter whether the rapist is a Brit or a German?
better for freedom and prosperity to be manhandled by Britain or British ex-colonies than otherwise.
Its like telling a woman "Its much better to be raped by me than that other German guy".