Before the British invasion of the Subcontinent, Pakistan was part of the Mughal empire and held the seat of power in Lahore. Colonization destroyed local institutions and created a servile mentality in the populace towards the Europeans, the shadow of which still hangs over the populace today. The scale of colonization and destruction did its part in "setting back" the country.

But neither was the Mughal empire indigenous to Pakistan. It was established when Mongol armies invaded the subcontinent from the North and took over the Delhi sultanate from the ruling Lodi Dynasty, and the newly founded Mughal empire imposed its own political system to replace that of the Lodis. How was this colonization and destruction of local institutions qualitatively different from that of the British?

The difference is in the intent. The British did not settle in India - they built it as a colony and thus, every institution was set up to extract wealth and send it back to the home country. The Mughals, for all their faults, came as settlers. The institutions they set up were not meant to merely exploit and send resources back to another country; the wealth stayed right there, locally.

The fact that there are so few Indians/Pakistanis of English lineage despite 200 years of rule should tell you the intent of the British rule - the land and its people were merely seen as places to exploit, not as places to settle. They were essentially tourists.

Very different in terms of scale, industrialization... Mughals eventually settled into the culture of the region, mixed with the people. They are part of the fabric of the Subcontinent. British rule was qualitatively and quantitatively different.

In 1857, where do you think the British got the troops to sack Delhi from?