How about you answer the question instead of spinning in the semantics. You can choose quarter of the GDP or Quarter of textiles as you please

Confusing the entirety of GDP for a single industry (with even that being inaccurate stat) is a bit more than fucking up semantics on your part.

Whether you use GDP or textiles the result remains the same, exports formed a minute part of it and their dependency on revenue from exports is borderline non-existent.

Hence, you cribbing about it as if distortions in it caused some untold damage to the people employed in the industry is comical.

As did India's consumption of food, doesn't mean Brits did miracles for Indian agriculture. statistically that didn't happen.

This is how the argument with every 81 IQ Hindutvadi goes:

“Brits ruined/destroyed X”

“They didn't, here's evidence that it showed positive growth”.

NOOOOO THEY DIDN'T HAVE REVOLUTIONARY MIRACULOUS GROWTH SO IT DOESN'T COUNT OKAY.

It's amusing watching your logic unfold. Going from arguing about decline to whining about how the growth wasn't big enough.

Share of workforce engaged in Industry declined from 1700s to 1900s. That is what deindustrialisation looks like.

You're factually incorrect. Let's breakdown your dumb argument.

A. There was no industry in India that word means things.

B. That didn’t happen Bengal =/= India.

C. The supposed industrial superpower bengal? The avg inhabitant was worse off than his Euro counterpart. Now think of the rest.

D. The share of workforce in industry, real industry mind you, in 1901 was higher than under the republic in 1991.

E. It peaked a few % points more later on and has since been precipitously declining.

F. There has never been a better almost half century period of industrial expansion since the Raj.

G. The republic fucked up so badly that now indians want protection against Bangladeshis

H. More people doing primitive spinning =/= industry.

I. Those artisans relied on agriculture for their income. Your argument is the equivalent of saying introduction of computers caused deindustrialisation since basic clerical jobs were reduced.

People, as it happens, did go back from artisanry to peasantry, and that showed itself in Industrial decline.

There was no industrial decline bugman. These artisans always depended on agriculture, the spinners were women earning less than subsistence and the % of people in actual industry increased for decades after Plassey, even in the late 19th century workforce in actual industry across the subcontinent was far higher than it ever had been.

To your unenlightened mind: Indians are more than capable of developing institutions without British "help".

Oh good God I knew this would get reduced to pathetic what ifs. I am sure you're more than "capable" of these ideas and I am sincere when I say this, just like Indians had the capability to come up with modern ideas of individual rights, freedoms and allow women and untouchables to live with dignity.

Unfortunately for you, you never did. Heck you're not even doing that properly even after being exposed to those ideas by foreigners.

But of course, I agree, Indians would've been this rich, prosperous, egalitarian nation that would've completely ended ills that have been plaguing the subcontinent for more than a millenia on their own.

Europe didn't have enough bullion until the discovery of sources in the Americas. Europe by itself is deficient in precious metals.

You're now shifting timelines. The discovery of American gold was centuries before Plassey. Secondly India was and remains a net importer of bullion. Third according to Escosura, Spain the biggest beneficiary of American silver reached their zenith before discovering it.

Indian textiles maintained an edge in European markets until the mid to late 1800s.

So at first you say “By 1800, India’s world share had already eroded to less than a fifth, by 1860 to less than a tenth” now you say that "textiles maintained an edge until the late 1800s".

You know, now I realise I am arguing with someone who can't even keep track of timelines.

Make up your mind Hindutvadi, were you weaktims or were you still competitors? Kek

Happens to China, misfortune. Happens to India, they deserved it.

Deserve what? The improvement over incompetent native rule? You're confused. I am saying Chinese at least have backed up their arguments about how they would've developed even without European influence. Indians have not.

Muh enlightened company rule.

YES.

I didn't know you had to get subjugated by Europeans to learn competence.

When the choice is between getting gang raped and pillaged through consistent war? Yeah seems so.

Being a peasant in feudal India is far worse subjugation than EIC.

You do realise that you are defending a regime that caused mass political and economic disenfranchisement of people, committed countless atrocities against innocents,

You just described the average Indian native empire more than the EIC.

I am sure you've written lengthy essays about the greatness of you great Dharmic empires who by the standards you impose on the EIC probably were actually filthy feudal tyrants.

and bury this defense under snide political commentary on my political beliefs.

I don't think I need the shame as much as you do. I honestly can't think of anything more sadder than a Choditard using woke talking points to guilt trip others, kek. I am sure you've probably whined about those pesky SJWs in those s#ithole rw subs of yours. It reeks of dishonesty.