India's GDP share fell from 25% to under 4% by 1947

India went from producing a quarter of global wealth to less than 4%

In 1700, India accounted for nearly 25% of world GDP, according to estimates circulating in the debate. When the British left the country, that figure was below 4%, based on the same calculations. Between these two moments lay almost two centuries of rule by the East India Company first and the Raj later, a period during which, according to several participants, the Indian textile industry—the most competitive on the planet—was dismantled by asymmetric tariffs and direct prohibitions. The debate over whether this was trade or plunder remains open, but the numbers do not invite doubt, argue those who support this thesis.

Indian textiles that England could not compete with

India produced 25% of the world's textiles in the 17th century and exported them everywhere, generating a flow of precious metals to the subcontinent, according to one participant. European merchants settled on its coasts precisely for this reason. The problem, some analyses suggest, was that there was no way to avoid a trade deficit with them, so the English improved their production and enacted the Calico Act to protect their industry. Asymmetric protectionism, they argue, is the key to "free trade" throughout its history.

Tariffs reached 5% for British products entering India and 70% for Indian products, according to a claim made in the debate. With such margins, the traditional Indian textile industry had no chance, it is argued. And when British production became too expensive, factories were moved to India and monopolies were created to keep the country as a captive consumer, according to that same version. Only British factories could produce textiles on Indian territory, claims one participant.

Severed fingers and Gandhi's spinning wheel

There is a recurring fact in the material: Indians were forbidden from weaving their own fabrics. If they did, their fingers were cut off. Not millions, but thousands, according to one participant. This explains why Gandhi made a spinning wheel the central symbol of his independence movement, to the point where it was intended to be included in the national flag. The spinning wheel was not a folk whim: it was the response to a prohibition that had destroyed the country's main industry, argue those who support this interpretation.

Adam Smith himself condemned what England was doing in India in his writings, according to quotes circulating in the debate. According to these quotes, the father of economic liberalism described how the British "turned scarcity into famine" after destroying the agricultural economy and transforming the country into an immense poppy plantation destined for the Chinese market. The ensuing famine, always according to these sources, was of catastrophic proportions.

Was it plunder or the Industrial Revolution?

The plunder thesis has a recurrent objection: if the British took everything, why didn't Indians resume production after they left? GDP is annual output, not accumulated inheritance, argues one participant. And the British left trains, electricity, and airports that, it is argued, Indians would not have built on their own in two hundred thousand years. In response, others say the factories they left were British-owned, held a monopoly on textile production, and arrived long after the traditional Indian industry had already disappeared, according to another participant.

The discussion shifts to the present. Some see parallels between what was done in India and the commercial policies currently applied in Europe, with laws that prevent free trade and which, they argue, will cause the continent's deindustrialization for the benefit of Anglo-Saxon interests. The connection is debatable, but the pattern they describe—asymmetric tariffs, monopolies, and commercial dependence—has documented precedents, according to those who defend this comparison.

Nader Shah, the plunder nobody mentions

Not all plunder came from London, according to one participant. The Afsharid invasion of 1739, led by Nader Shah, captured Punjab, destroyed the Mughal army, captured the emperor, and sacked Delhi before sweeping through Fruta and Sindh, ravaging everything in its path. The loot was so immense that taxes were not collected in Persia for years, according to that account. Those who bring up this episode do not deny the British plunder, but remind us that India had already been looted before the British consolidated their rule.

The comparison has its logic and its limits. The Persian plunder was punctual; the British one was structural and prolonged over generations, argue those who support this thesis. But it serves a purpose: to dismantle the idea that India was an uncontaminated paradise until Europeans arrived. It had its own dynamics of conquest and plunder. The difference is that one ended within a few years while the other reconfigured the world economy, according to that interpretation.

Partition and the army that turned against Britain

More than half of the British army after 1945 was composed of Indians, according to one participant. Many had become independentists after seeing how the British looked foolish facing the Japanese and Germans, according to that same version. Japanese victories over the British and French in Asia destroyed the psychological factor of European superiority, it is argued. The British could only try to divide the country by supporting Jovenlandeses, and from there Pakistan and Bangladesh were born, according to that account. Maintaining those colonies was impossible, he concludes.

The end of the Raj was not a generous concession, but a retreat in the face of the inevitable, according to that interpretation. The question that remains without a closed answer is what India would have been like without two centuries of foreign rule. The numbers say what they say, some argue. Interpretations, as always, depend on who signs them.