I think what bothers me about many instances of colonialism is the misleading historical representations that we are left with, as history is often written by (

I think what bothers me about many instances of colonialism is the misleading historical representations that we are left with, as history is often written by (if not the victors) those who had the upper hand at the end of the conflict. There is still an ongoing narrative that the British brought some kind of civilization and industrialization to the region of British India that was unachievable before, somehow advancing it into a new age. In truth, the start of colonization was centered around the deindustrialization and enslavement of workers in Bengal into forced labor and sometimes starvation, destroying factories that produced advanced ships and textiles in the wealthiest region that alone accounted for 10-12% of the world's GDP if I recall correctly. These products were typically for export, generating wealth in the region, and the production was destroyed in favor of tea plantations that proved to be relatively underutilized and unproductive. Granted, the kingdom was also under external stressors at the time such as conflicts with neighboring regions, so maybe this specific relatively industrialized economy may not have survived until today, but the British certainly hastened the poverty-stricken development of India and other subcontinental countries that the region is still suffering from today. Do aspects such as the exposure to the English language, now relatively widespread as a second language, make up for this in the long term? Maybe this argument can be made, but it seems like an uphill battle in my opinion.