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.