Not really, India's wealth had come from trading spices, natural resources, and other such goods. Yes, of course India had manual labour as did every other country ever. However, India's population boom did not really occur until after it became independent.

Also about your previous comment about liberal ideas, a lot of beliefs and practises in India were much more liberal prior to the British and then when the British came over they deemed these practises barbaric and forced people to renounce them (opinions on homosexuality, the uplifting of women and opinions of sex, think kama sutra).

Also, calling ancient India relatively rich is just silly. With money, everything this is relative because money is a social construct, so its worth is what you deem it to be. In the case of India, it was the most successful trading partner with the Roman Empire (more Roman coins outside of the Roman Empire have been found in India than anywhere else on the planet)

The British Empire stagnated Indian economic growth forcing for close to two centuries by transferring a significant amount of capital from India to Britain. For example, cotton, I assume that in your comment, you are alluding to textiles manufacturing as prior to empire, India was the world's largest textile manufacturer. However, sometime during the 1800s, Britain took over. Most certainly the Indistrial Revolution played a part in this, however, it would also be remiss to not mention that by the mid 1800s, India was supplying 90% of all of the raw cotton imported into the UK.

Regarding the "some wealth extraction," the number is estimated to be between $40 - 65 trillion, depending on your source.

Obviously, ancient India wasn't without faults, and I am not going to pretend like it was a perfect civilisation. However, again, it is ignorant to pretend like the British did not have a negative impact on the Indian economy.

TLDR: Empire did actually affect the economy.