Poverty and British rule

Many people in India belive that people fought against Bristish empire mainly because British rule made them poor. I came across this wiki link some days ago. At first glace, I indeed thought that British rule made Indians poor. See the ratio of India's GDP (PPP) to world GDP. Until 18th century it is nearly 30%, then decreasing rapidly to 4.2 % in 1950 (end of British rule).

But if you look at only GDP, it does not make some other sense.

Indian GDP in 1st cenrury AD : 33 750 m$ (32.9 %of world GDP)
in 1000AD : 33 750 m$ (28.9%)
in 1500AD : 60 500 m$ (24.5%)
in 1600AD : 74 250 m$ (22.2%)
in 1700AD : 90 750 m$ (24.4%)
in 1870AD (begining of British rule): 134 882 m$ (12.2%)
in 1913 AD : 204 241 m$ (7.6%)
in 1950 AD (end of British rule) : 222 222 m$ (4.2%)

Clearly, British rule did not make India poor. But economy of European countries grew much more rapidly (due to industrial revoluton) after 18th century (for eg, share of British economy rose from 1.8% of world GDP in 1600AD to 6.5% of world GDPin 1950). So I think the rising economic gap (between Britons and Indians) made Indians feel that they were getting poor. Nevertheless, by saying this I did not mean that Indians fought against British rule pointlessly. Racial discrimination, economic policies unfavorable to poor (for eg, after British occupation of Odisha, heavy tax was imposed on farmers, which immediatly resulted a large scale revolt) and many other factors can be stated to support the freedom struggle.

British took raw materials from India for their industries at home. India was treated like a consumer market. But I do not think there was a particularly evil design by British government to keep India poor. How did indigenous companies like TATA and Birla came into existence during British raj? Indians should have adopted technologies from West during that time. But, instead, freedom fighters, particularly Gandhians advised people to run Charkha. For them modern technology=unemployment. British industries had surely created unemployment in India by killing native industries. But that was inevitable. And I think it was not a local phenomenon rather global. Initial waves of industrialization had created large amount unemployment in Europe as well. Have a view of 19th century Britain

Also, colonization as such does not explain the existing poverty in the third world countries. It should be also noted that some of the most developed countries of today were once British colonies. For e. g., Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland and Israel.

Prominent anti-globalization activists/social workers believe foreign rule = poverty and then equate foreign company with exploitation. I had worked with some social service/human rights organizations during my college times, so this is my personal experience. They oppose globalization, foreign investment or anything related to foreign (west to be particular). This not just history I wanted to discuss about. But also the present. There was surely many evils in British rule, but we should also differentiate facts from fiction.