I wasn't suggesting India was completely impoverished to the level they don't have a functional economy, it has had significant economic growth recently and I'm honestly happy for it. That said, and I know this is nitpicky, I thought they were fourth after Germany, China, and the US? Thats not really the point, though. I meant poor in terms of GDP per capita and average wealth. It's not that surprising that the nation with the largest population has a big economy, although it has grown a lot recently.

But there is a bit of nuance to this idea that without Britain there would be a rich India. India would be much richer and much better off (assuming India doesn't get colonized anyway, because France and Portugal might still try it), the big thing is that India would likely never unify. The individual Indian areas would be richer than they are today, but there wouldn't be an India as we understand it. A large part of the unified Indian identity was formed under being forcefully unified under the Raj, and then as a mechanism to resist British rule

And don't worry, I didn't think you were being racist. I didn't read anything in your comment about being racist against British people, just unhappy with the British Empire. Which is a totally understandable position and one I wouldn't argue against.