Originally a pair of comments by Tim Harris on Imperialism: not THAT bad.

I came across a historian (English) who was educated at Cambridge, and taught at universities outside Britain; he was much exercised by anyone paying attention to slavery, and said the proper field of interest should be colonial history, by which he appeared to mean rehearsing the old tales of Clive of India, Cecil Rhodes et al. I remarked that slavery was an integral part of colonialism so that I did not see how it could be ignored. I find nothing positive, morally or otherwise, about slavery, the constant use of violence, and the extreme violence that was used if slaves rebelled; and I find nothing positive about the torture, mutilation, rape and murder of members of the Kikuyu tribe in Kenya in the last century, something that British governments sought to cover up for years.

One reason, of course, why India was ‘more complicated’ than the Americas was because the people of India were not susceptible to the Old World diseases that European adventurers brought to the New World. Africa, which is a continent, is a great deal more complicated than many people would like to suppose, and it always has been. But few people in the West are seriously interested in the history of Africa south of those nations bordering on the Mediterranean, largely because they don’t suppose it had a history, or, rather, many histories.

Australia seems to be at last coming to some sort of terms with the violent history of its treatment (which included many massacres) of the original people who settled there, as does New Zealand; and if that involves a bit of ‘woo’, I really do not care, since it is not going to change the present course of science – science that in the past included the kind of ideas that remain dear to the heart of the still extant James Watson.

No doubt there were some positives in colonialism, and I do not wish to deny them, but I am reminded by those who dwell on them of something my Japanese wife heard from a colleague at the music university where she taught, here in Japan. The colleague was complaining about Chinese ingratitude because, after all, ‘we Japanese’ had built railways there prior to the Second World War. I have heard the same words with respect to India from British people.

Look up the name of Ram Mohan Roy in connexion with suttee; you will find that its banning was certainly not due solely to the enlightened members of the East India Company. He also fought against polygamy, child marriage and the caste system, and for property inheritance rights for women.

As for the benefits of colonialism, Roy, as well as other Indians, criticised the ‘drain’ whereby around one-half of the total revenue collected in India ‘was sent to England, leaving India, with a considerably larger population, to use the remaining money to maintain social well-being.’ (See Wikipedia)

And here’s something from the Economic Times of India:

JAIPUR: The East India Company knew the best way to conquer India was to control its trade and that is why controlling of ports became so important for them, noted politician and writer Shashi Tharoor said here today.

Tharoor, who was speaking at a session at the ongoing Jaipur Literature Festival here, said the company indulged in “fair amount of loot” and was “ruthless” in exaction of taxes.

“They found they could not succeed by buying Indian textiles and have to destroy it (textile industry) and they did that systematically,” he said, noting that there were “vested interests” involved that kept the company going.

According to him, the “horrendous” organisation did not even spare weavers and cut their funds.

“The Company also cut the funds of the weavers. The largest exporter of textiles was reduced to importing textiles from England,” he said, adding that India also had a “sophisticated” banking system.

Tharoor was in conversation with historian William Dalrymple at a session titled, “The Dishonourable Company: How the East India Company Took Over India”, where he also talked about his latest book, “An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India” which attempts to challenge the notion that the British rule was beneficial for India.

He said the British were in India only for money and also controlled the revenue in the country.

Agreeing with Tharoor’s description, Dalrymple said the company was a “tiny multi-national which created mayhem”.