We call ourselves Great and see much of our history as glorious, but this rethinking of slavery and colonialism may cast us in a very different light. Perhaps, even, the United Kingdom needs to repent before God of its national arrogance on a global scale. We have been, and are, one of the world’s biggest problems, even while we congratulate ourselves on civilising and leading the world. “Oh, that’s a bit extreme” you say, but come on a bit of the journey I’ve had to go over the last few months.

I’m a PhD economist, am supposed to be able to think and am prepared to be nonconformist, but only now, with the help of my dear friend, Jay Bhattachajee, have I thought properly about the Indian economy, and discover I am an unthinking smug British nationalist.

I love India and Indians. It is a rich culture and the immigrant community have added to British culture in all kinds of ways. But India is poor, with a vast population to feed and look after, and it seems less successful than the other world mass population country, China. It has a per capita GDP less than half that of China. Global warming with sea rise, food, water and other problems will hit it hard. It is a struggling economy.

Great Britain, of course, had an early industrial revolution, led in world trade and brought democracy and modern economics to India, but still that did not help much in development, and there are various theories in development economics as to why Indian development has been slow. Tacitly, the understanding is that without us, Brits, its development has not been as fast as it could have been.

Of course, recently, we have faced the challenge that  much British industrialisation was based on slave wealth. Getting the slave labour of millions free gave us wealth to develop. But slavery was Africa, North and Central America and not India… And then I read this.

“Eminent Indian economist Professor Utsa Patnaik (Jawaharlal Nehru University) has estimated that Britain robbed India of $45 trillion between 1765 and 1938. However, it is estimated that if India had remained free with 24% of world GDP as in 1700 then its cumulative GDP would have been $232 trillion greater (1700-2003) and $44 trillion greater (1700-1950). Deprivation kills and it is estimated that 1.8 billion Indians died avoidably from egregious deprivation under the British (1757-1947). The deadly impact of British occupation of India lingers today 71 years after Independence, with 4 million people dying avoidably from deprivation each year in capitalist India as compared to zero (0) in China.”

Now you assess conclusions like this. First, $45 trillion is big – some 15 years of total Indian and UK GDP – they now have similar total GDPs. Second, the long-term trajectory figure is conjectural, but the flat growth rate during the East India Company era and the Empire needs explaining. The Brits did not seem to do much good. But then the realities stack up. India’s share of global industrial output declined from 25% in 1750 down to 2% in 1900. We deindustrialised them so that they would buy our stuff. It was worse than that. British goods came in without tariffs and Indian manufactures faced heavy taxes; the system was stacked against them. Then, of course, we fixed the cotton market; cheap cotton went to Lancashire and cotton manufactures back to India. We kept Indians in villages. There were a few million who were looking after the rather leisured Brits. There would be little interest in rural or local industrial development. So probably the conclusion is substantially true. Of course, we built the railways, probably with a lot of local help, as the Romans built roads in Britain, to help run the empire, but we must have cost the Indian economy dearly. $232 trillion is too big to think. But what about the underlying reality?

I, of course, like all of us Brits, have an underlying model that British colonialism was benign bringing civilisation and democracy to the world. Now I’ve seen through most of the democracy bit. In Africa we ruled by force, trained native armies, gave colonies independence, sold them arms and soon military dictators were in place. “Democracy” was for the fairies. “Democracy” in India has stayed, but the economy was probably a “servant economy”. They did what we told them. They grew Yorkshire tea. They grew opium to sell to the Chinese. They produced saltpetre for gunpowder and a range of English luxuries. All of the developments which would probably have occurred without a colonial power were ruled out. Control was patronizing. We “gave them” the English language and they did what suited the colonial power, on the East India Company model. So, this conclusion is more than plausible. Of course, I have not even read the book and it is a big topic, but the evidence points one way..

So the conclusion that we were good for the world, good for India, Africa, China, the Middle East, the great benign British white self-congratulation, faces a massive and necessary challenge. We probably robbed India on a scale we cannot easily face. Of course, the picture is mixed, and perhaps the missionary movements, learning the local languages, building hospitals and schools and teaching the ways of Christ did real good, often against the Colonialists, but that is another debate. The main point is that British imperialism, fuelled by Public School arrogance and the elitism of people like Churchill, the “greatest Britain”, is up for deep judgment. We have been, in a full economic sense, a liability, a drain on the world economy for much of our modern history. Remorse does not come quickly. It needs to grow and requires humiliation. Dropping “Send Her Victorious” from the national anthem would be a start. But remorse and repentance, as deep as that of Germany, may be needed if we are not to be hollow, but healed.