The various East India companies went to India (and the other east Indies) because those places had things rich Europeans desired - spices yes, but also high-end, high-quality textiles and handcrafted items. They were already the height of civilization and had high economic productivity.
> would do well to imagine the counterfactual of what India would be like had Europe never visited
It would probably not be one country. Best case scenario: like a South Asian EU. Why do you think they wouldn't have copied European industrialization and developed themselves? Japan did it. Turkey did it.
Speaking of Japan, isn't it interesting that the first Asian country to industrialize is also one of the only Asian countries never colonized by Europeans? Why do people still believe colonization was good for economic development?
IIR, Japan was a pretty xenophobic, unified, and militarized place when the Europeans showed up. And without either reputed or obvious Tier 1 riches - such as Central & South America's precious metals - to motivate a hard-fought conquest. Especially when 'most everywhere else in South & East Asia was comparatively easy pickings.
> Why do people still believe ...
Because, if you use sufficiently Eurocentric metrics, it usually was. And picking those metrics feels pretty good, if you identify uncomfortably closely with that sort of capitalism.
Other than unified, that describes most places in the 15th or 16th century.
> Because, if you use sufficiently Eurocentric metrics, it usually was.
The one country in Asia* to not suffer colonialism (Japan) is way ahead of all the others that did have it, especially on "Eurocentric" metrics such as GDP and productivity and democracy and human rights. That alone should be a rebuke to colonialism's purported development powers.
* Arguably Thailand is another but it was forced to cede land to colonial powers. It too is considerably richer than its immediate neighbors.
I don't think this is a good example, given the actual modern history of Japan.
Contemporary Japanese democracy and respect for human rights aren't indigenous Japanese developments. They were literally forced on Japan by the victorious Americans after the homegrown Japanese militarist empire, which didn't GAF about either, catastrophically lost a major war.
Japan could only start that war because of its early industrialization. Colonies didn't start WW2.
In an alternate historical timeline where Japan industrializes but doesn't start the war? It would need to have had less militaristic and xenophobic leadership in the early 20th century than it did in our timeline. And IMO that would've led to more democracy* and human rights anyway over time.
*Important to note: Even pre-WW2 Japan went from absolute monarchy to a semi-constitutional monarchy, with suffrage for all adult males granted in 1925.
Not sure what you are suggesting here.
How so?
> if you take the ancient Greeks as your yardstick
You mean the slave owners? Who only allowed free men to vote? And required property ownership to hold office?
I'm not aware of widespread slavery in India, nor a requirement to own property to hold public office. Women are allowed to vote there. They've even had a woman be Prime Minister and two women Presidents.
Goodness, there was a huge amount of slavery, back into prehistory, then lots African slaves from the 6th century, then when Islamic conquest hit almost 1000 years ago many Indians were enslaved. Just as slavery was everywhere, it was in India. The big event was in 1843 when Britain did the moral thinking and emphasis to abolish it throughout their empire and also just in general, with British ships going to war against slaver ships and the British Empire buying slaves' freedom. The two big things about India and abolition were 1) the East India Company was definitely not as morally clear as the people in England, and 2) there was a worry that ending slavery in India would be too disruptive to the local culture, it was so embedded. So it was only abolished 10 years after the rest of the Empire.
Today, with 70 years of independence and self-rule, India has the most modern slaves in the world[0].
> Women are allowed to vote there.
Yes, as of 1950 when democracy was copied and pasted from other civilisations - some, like ancient Greece, almost 2000 years prior - who did all the discovery and moral thinking for this. It's not hard to copy something, particularly when declaring it to be so is what's measured, and not how well it's implemented.
[0] https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/country-studie...
The US has the most people in modern slavery in the Western hemisphere: https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/country-studie....
And that's even counting Mauritania: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Mauritania
"Countries with large populations have large numbers of people doing <insert illegal act>" is hardly a revelation.
> Yes, as of 1950 when democracy was copied and pasted from other civilisations
So weird that those "moral" British didn't allow Indians to vote before that. I thought you said they were the good guys!
No extant country has adopted democracy from first principles. Everyone copy-pasted it. 1950 was the first time India had the choice and chance to do it, and they took it.
No, I didn't mean that. I said if Ancient Greece is your yardstick, India would be more than 1000 years behind today without external influence. Ancient Greece was 2000 years ago, not 1000.
> The US has the most people in modern slavery in the Western hemisphere: https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/country-studie....
Okay, but it's also a huge country the size of a continent, so of course it's got more than most of Western Europe. If Luxembourg had a million modern slaves there'd be nowhere to hide them. And it has much, much more sensitive systems for detecting this sort of thing than India does, so you can imagine that number is not lowballed.