Why did it end????

>tfw you realize that spike was only possible due to the infrastructure the brits invested in india

>muh railroads

building a bunch of railroads from the tea farms to the sea to make it cheaper in briton does not constitute developing a countries infrastructure

actually it quite literally does

It doesn't though. Still a fuckton of other infrastructure that needs to be built to actually serve the entire population instead of just resource extraction needs and the needs of the white settler/administrative class (also building infrastructure at a level to develop a place into developed world stands is incredibly expensive and power ruled on the cheap which Britain was the amster of).

Majority of colonial nations have massive infrastructure deficits to a big degree.

>conquer country
>use the most modern methods to extract wealth from it
>eventually leave when the population get organized enough to resist being exploited
>relentlessly take credit for all positive developments afterwards

will nothing stop the eternal anglo

do you really think a railway system did not contribute to india's economic growth?

It did but on the grand scale of things India was extremely gimped on the infrastructure front overall. Also being limited in who they can trade to and British economic polices gimped growth too.

It was put out to pasture by the United States.
The USA has a history of replacing bad situations with worse ones and apparently FDR's administration was naive enough to believe that the rest of the world would develop as his nation did once they were freed from their imperial yoke.
Boy was he, or rather were we, in for a rude awakening.
youtube.com/watch?v=ZDgDfuYZ_dE
The Empire was always a fairly rickety thing, it really did just sort of happen. It used to get called the "informal" or "accidental" empire. They don't even have a written constitution, there were no preambles, master-plans or Bolsheviks committed to global liberation. It was never going to be able to contend with the USSR or USA, certainly not after WWII and both the aforementioned had the temerity to define themselves as anti-imperial
When the Brits lefts India the GDP per capita was twice that of neighboring China, if that were still true India/ the Raj would be the largest economy in the world.
Not only it it not the Brits fault, that India is so poor - India is so poor, in spire of the Brits.
That is a typical, if not slightly underwhelming trajectory for a post-war developing economy.
This, of-course doesn't mean EIC and later British imperial domination of the sub-continent was ethical.

extremely gimped is better than completely gimped which is what they would have been had the british not built them railroads and a university system among other things

Wow, really makes me think.

oh look, an argument has broken out

I wonder who will win?

>tfw fucking french managed to keep more of their former empire than brits did

Anglosphere > Frogosphere

You are just arguing semantics at this point since post Independence India basically had to build up everything from scratch just like most other Brits colonies.

Also Indians built railroads of their own accord and funding + already had an education with an established history.

Last time I saw this stupid bitch on TV she was badmouthing brits in India. The indian university professort looked completely shocked at her lack of respect for a country he obviously admired.

Because he didn't participate in her derogation of the UK, she went out and found a female indian academic to lick her boots instead.

British Empire, unlike other empires did not suffer a major catastrophy, therefore many modern brits still have delusions of grandeur about their glorious past.

If that was true, then why was growth flat for the 130 years of empire while it doubled the first 20 years after independence, doubled again 20 years after that, before finally achieving take-off?

>why would you hate great BRITAIN?
>greatest country that ever was
>why did it end????

Go back to youtube, lindy.

Correlation does not imply causation.

There is little evidence of Britain stamping out industry in India. Factories and mills were set up in coastal cities by both British and Indian entrepreneurs without protest by the British government or anyone, for geographic reasons they just did not have high enough growth rates to achieve the positive feedback loop seen in more temperate regions like Europe, the east coast of America and Japan in the 19th and early 20th century. Most of India was unsuited to industrialisation until modern technology allowed it so the majority of the population would have never seen that much growth.

This technology was the cause of both postwar growth and the social and political changes that led to Indiapendence. Premature independence in fact stifled what could have been much faster growth. The British, for all their flaws, were not "socialist" demagogues like the Nehru - Indira Gandhi dynasty, they would have implemented liberal economic reforms like those of the 90s much earlier, boosting growth the way Asian Tigers and other postwar miracles did. The British would have done much to assist keeping order and preventing the breakup of India. Indiapendence was almost inevitable within 20 years however India chose to do it, yet India wanted Nehru and his cronies right away.

Why? Maybe they believed a native ruler would be more benevolent, maybe it is easier to blame the current ruler for every problem and not think about how their replacement would fare, maybe they fell for the socialism meme, this it is normal behavior, many peoples made the same mistakes all over the world. Had India decided to maintain closer ties to Britain and gain independence gradually this would have proven that the Indians are exceptional people who can put aside their egos in favor of making real improvements to people's lives, perhaps they can learn from their mistakes and rejoin the fold.