> You seem to be trying desperately to make the Industrial Revolution be all about India. No, I am just saying if Europeans were desperately looking for a trad

> You seem to be trying desperately to make the Industrial Revolution be all about India. No, I am just saying if Europeans were desperately looking for a trade route to India specifically. Specifically for the purpose of importing manufactured goods. When Europeans like the French had "ministry for espionage", which must definitely be a thing in the other Europeans especially for their arch rivals. If the bulk of the knowledge had already been transmitted by the arabs, there would not be a need for the Europeans to be in India. If you are denying that a significant amount of knowledge and skills had not been transmitted given the above, I guess you are the one in denial. Anyway my point is that pretending that India was a non-entity before British colonisation and it was somehow British benevolence that created/built "India" is utter BS, if anything it was the other way around. > You seem to be trying to squeeze actual history into your view, but it does not fit all that well. No, history has been written by the Europeans, wrt. their colonies. Given strong evidence to the contrary, I guess we need to reexamine the idea of Industrial revolution devoid of significant Indian contribution both direct and indirect.