Mate, Shashi Tharoor is a conman who likes to create the impression that the British came and destroyed everything, mostly by using odd pieces of logic like "India went from 25% of world GDP to only 4%, hence British must have looted it all" when in reality the economies of Western nations just grew faster because of the Industrial Revolution, which started in...yep Europe.
You are repeating
British propaganda myths that colonisation was a net benefit for the colonies which is laughable
Turkey, for example was never colonized and today it is the most developed Muslim country
By the time British came to India,
average Englishman was not richer than average Indian----by the time you left there was a huge wealth gap between the two countries---so how did you rule your colonies and how did you benefit them?
Your entire civilisation is built on exploitation of your colonies--look at your roads, buildings, factories--all this could have been impossible without exploitation of colonies
Even Hitler in "Mein Kampf" admired British colonial model that was designed to benefit Britain and its people through exploitation of "inferior races"
Industrial revolution was possible because of capital accumulation through unfair trade with the colonies.
Through unfair trade you retarded industrialization and civilization development of India and other colonies, while boosting economic development in Britain.
Example-- textile industry----you imposed tariffs on Indian textile product export to Britain while allowing British textile products to flood Indian market and destroy Indian textile industry
from wiki:
With the end of the state-granted monopoly of the East India Trading Company in 1813, the importation into India of British manufactured goods, including finished textiles, increased dramatically, from approximately 1 million yards of cotton cloth in 1814 to 13 million in 1820, 995 million in 1870, to 2050 million by 1890.
As a result of the less expensive imports from Britain, India's most significant industrial sector, textile production, shrank, such that by 1870-1880 Indian producers were manufacturing only 25%-45% of local consumption. Deindustrialization of India's iron industry was even more extensive during this period
In 1780, the conservative British politician Edmund Burke raised the issue of India's position: he vehemently attacked the East India Company, claiming that Warren Hastings and other top officials had ruined the Indian economy and society. Indian historian Rajat Kanta Ray (1998) continues this line of attack, saying the new economy brought by the British in the 18th century was a form of "plunder" and a catastrophe for the traditional economy of the Mughal Empire.[123] Ray accuses the British of depleting the food and money stocks and of imposing high taxes that helped cause the terrible Bengal famine of 1770, which killed a third of the people of Bengal.
Local British market was too small and many factories were unprofitable.
Factories needed markets to be profitable and they found their market in India. Industrialization of Britain was
impossible without unfair trade with colonies....
Money accumulated through export to Indian market made investment and industrialization of Britain possible...At the same time British goods bankrupted Indian economy and retarded its development
Also you once said that locals killed more people than British did during colonial period
from wiki:
During the British Raj, India experienced some of the worst famines ever recorded, including the Great Famine of 1876–1878, in which 6.1 million to 10.3 million people died and the Indian famine of 1899–1900, in which 1.25 to 10 million people died. Recent research, including work by Mike Davis and Amartya Sen, argue that famines in India were made more severe by British policies in India.
Also, Bengal Famine of 1943 was result of Churchills policies...from article:
Churchill deliberately ordered the diversion of food from starving Indian civilians to well-supplied British soldiers and even to top up European stockpiles, meant for yet-to-be-liberated Greeks and Yugoslavs
scientific research confirms what had been argued way back in 1980 – that the Bengal famine was not the result of the agricultural failure, but of human action
The Bengal famine that is estimated to have killed up to three million people was not caused by drought, new study says.
www.aljazeera.com
During the Bengal famine of 1943, Churchill stated that any potential relief efforts sent to India would accomplish little to nothing, as Indians "bred like rabbits". His War Cabinet rejected Canadian proposals to send food aid to India, asking the US and Australia to send aid in their stead; according to historian Arthur Herman, Churchill's overarching concern was the ongoing Second World War, leading to his decisions to divert food supplies from India to Allied military campaigns
And French murdered 1,5 million Algerians
So all these teacher beheadings and Charlie Hebdo and other attacks combined don't worth even 0,000001% of the crimes commited by Europeans in their colonies
