British rule in India...

Considering that the English banned Industry in India, and forced it to remain agrarian in order to provide the materials for the English Industrial revolution, what you state above is not a valid argument.

The Industrial development in India was forceably delayed by the British until after Independence. What do you think the salt march was about?

That is palpably not true. The Punjab for instance had begun the process of industrialisation, they built the first railroad in India, they also set up factories outside Lahore, which the British closed down. It was British policy till about 1930 to activly prevent any industry in S Asia. That is a fact. And India was not unique, post reconquest Sudan had all her telegraph cables destroyed and rail road torn up. It was British policy all over their empire outside the "white dominions".

Originally posted by Sparten The Punjab for instance had begun the process of industrialisation, they built the first railroad in India, they also set up factories outside Lahore, which the British closed down. It was British policy till about 1930 to activly prevent any industry in S Asia. That is a fact.

How much railroad, and how many factories? Are we talking about industrialisation on the scale of Western Europe and the USA, or industrialisation on the scale of China and Latin America? These latter two areas were also industrialising, but very slowly.

Originally posted by Omar The subcontinent cannot be compared to China. Before the British established dominance, India was divided into several powerful states, all of which could challenge any European state in terms of military strength and technology.

These states could challenge any European power in terms of military strength and technology? I frankly don't believe it. If that were the case, they would have been colonising the globe themselves, instead of being conquered by a fraction of the troops of just one European island (no offence intended, but it seems very clear that the technological and military edge had become the preserve of European powers by this time).

These Indian states could raise large armies and were decently armed and organised (not armed with wicker shields and spears like the Africans), that much is true. But Europeans virtually always had the edge in naval forces, artillery, rifle design etc.

Back to our discussion on India's chances of industrialising had colonialism not occurred. Why is it that India would have industrialised, yet Latin America and China did not during the same time period? The only nation I can think of outside the West which did manage it was Japan, and Japan is rather unique. Japan was a very stable state, shielded from invasion from its neighbours. Long periods of peace on the home front are a big help. She had a strong military, and a relatively stable government which enforced the law effectively. Though at first reluctant to accept Western technology, by the late 19th century she was taking in as much as she could get. Japan was also very homogeneous compared to India, enjoying a common language and culture which encouraged unity and a strong central government.

So I am still at a loss to see how India would have turned out like Japan, rather than going down the path of China and Latin America. Any further clarification would be appreciated.

What guarantee do you have that the Indians would not have industrialized? What guarantee did you have that the Turks or Japanese would have industrialized?

Originally posted by Constantine These states could challenge any European power in terms of military strength and technology? I frankly don't believe it. If that were the case, they would have been colonising the globe themselves, instead of being conquered by a fraction of the troops of just one European island (no offence intended, but it seems very clear that the technological and military edge had become the preserve of European powers by this time).

Their navies were non-existant, it wasn't considered important, and they were too busy fighting each other.
England, in fact, used very few British troops in India. Nearly all the the troops in India were Indians. Britian, especially in Company days, was not a invader European like the French in Africa (most of whom incidentally weren't using spears either). It was a European elite ruling an Indian Empire. They won through intelligence, not through brute force. In 1947, 1/3 of British India was princely states - who were never conqured by force, rather by diplomacy.

Englands 'white' armies were mostly confined to the Atlantic (or Europe), the other theatres the Empire's Indian armies operated. Bearing in mind of course that sailors and marines were for all purposes exclusively 'white'.

I'm simply saying the India would most likely have lagged behind Europe, the Dominions and the USA in its development for much the same reasons as the other nations of the time did even without British colonialism.

I'm not saying that an independent India (or rather Indian states, as they wouldn't have been united) would develop as fast as Europe. It is too difficult to speculate about that. I am saying that Industrial development was artificially retarded and therefore, you cannot use that as a measurement.
India didn't have the opportunity to compete.

You also have to consider that if Indian materials were used for industry in India, then much of the wealth and materials that funded the British industrial revolution wouldn't have been available, and they would not have developed so fast.