The fact that colonialism had some beneficial side-effects does not make it right and does not oblige anybody to be thankful.

That's a false dichotomy if there ever was one. The alternative to being colonized by the British was not to be colonized by Belgium but not to be colonized at all.

It is arguable that India benefitted from being under British rule compared to be in under the rule of mad Moghal emperors though. I'd say gp was not a false dichotomy. Of the options available, British rule was not the worst possible outcome in hindsight.

To my Indian friends, please be wary of ultranationalism and the far right. It never does anyone any good. Just look at us and learn from US' shortcomings.

> was not to be colonized by Belgium but not to be colonized at all.

There was no such alternative if you were a weak, divided nation in the first place. Please look at what happened in other places with a similar situation (even China during a long time). Once the European nations stopped fighting each other they looked for other territories to conquer at the time - and this, by the way, not limited the the recent world history at all. Territorial conquest is something that started that was documented even in Antiquity, although we did not call it colonization then.

Most countries have been colonized many times and there's almost no connection nowadays between the actual "natives" and whoever is currently ruling.

If it were my country, I'd have picked British rule over self-rule. A robust system of laws is nothing to sneeze at.

Look all over the former British Empire, and you'll see robust, healthy democracies peacefully trading with their former rulers. Countries that were never colonized got left out of the huge technological race that modernized the rest of the world after WW2.

The Anglosphere nations are among the most powerful on Earth.

Most of the colonised countries were left out of the technological race too.

Napier is one of my favorite historical figures, but wasn't sati banned based on the requests of (native) Hindu reformers, and Napier merely spoke in favor of the ban when other Hindu priests complained? It seems like a stretch to argue that it was Napier who worked to put an end to sati.

None of the other sensible men like Napier gave such a pithy and powerful quote on the topic.

Ah, yes, pithy and powerful quotes! I should be thankful for colonialism for providing pithy and powerful quotes. Take up the white man's burden of speechwriting.

Seriously, there are much better arguments for the position you're espousing. I can come up with half a dozen without trying. If you're really interested in contributing to discourse, try making them.

The topic was the banning of Sati. It was just one example of the benefits of British rule. That it is such a salutary example is why I mentioned it. You are welcome to keep crying on Twitter that people said things you don't like but I have nothing further to say to you.

It's not even close to salutary. You can't defend your point, that's why you have nothing further to say to me. You are wrong on the facts, and you don't even know how to lose an argument graciously.

What argument is there to be had with someone who will not even admit the elimination of the ritual immolation of widows as a salutary benefit of colonial rule? There's clearly no reason involved in such a stance but simply reflexive chauvinism.

What you say is true to your name. Take a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4

What utter nonsense. Do the Romans likewise owe reparations to the Turks, French, Spanish, and English?