Please, don't make yourself look a fool when you clearly haven't looked into colonial rule in the subcontinent. Would it be sensitive of me to convey an opinion like the Western powers 'civilized' you people by raping your forces and citizens in the first/second opium wars? No, it would be outright despicable and stupid on my part.
While the British and other European powers looted our lands, they put in place a system of roads, rail and administration that had the sole purpose of controlling the movement/legal ownership of those resources, quashing rebellious or independent sentiments as 'treason' and imposing an alien system of values that caused rifts within society, some of which we still have not fully overcome. They played the sinister role of devil, supporting one region or ruler over another, interfering in the judiciary to selectively punish or favour according to their interests, and capitalizing on the greed and lack of vision amongst many kings, all the while watching and sneering at the rivers of blood their cowardly games had shed.
Yet for you, it is 'civilization'. Funny that. To us, the atrocities they committed, as part of a rule that saw India's share in the world's GDP go from 17-22% at the beginning, down to less than half of 1 percent by the time they were kicked out, are nothing to be 'thankful' for. What you people felt in Nanjing, we felt every time they caused artificial famines wiping out millions, relentlessly shooting down rows of people in peaceful protests and trying to play our masses against each other to the point of violent hatred.
As for the rebellion aspect of your opinion, their monarchy only officially took over colonial interests in the 1850s from the East India company. There was never a time in the subcontinent that they didn't face opposition or calls for them to bugger off back. To even gain a foothold was no smooth campaign for them, they waged several unsuccessful wars especially in the south, and even after winning on the third, fourth attempt they had restless militias or other independent kingdoms to worry over all throughout. Since our first war of independce in 1857, what they call the mutiny, there were countless movements that gained momentum before and during the non-violent struggle, all of which played a part in gaining freedom. So in short, the British were never accepted here and always seen as foreign aliens by the people, irrespective of region, caste or religion.
But I sense you enjoy degrading or believing that India was never worth its weight in history, so you try to say the lack of a European-style nation state (invented a few hundred years ago) or Chinese-type prolonged authoritarian rule is proof of weakness or lack of civilization. Well, our culture has always been different to the Chinese, for good or for bad. The Vedic heritage of our subcontinent was one of open-minded, pluralistic, fiery debates in an environment of constant change. Individualism and non-material considerations were important to our people. The Chinese have through their history mostly been ruled by one or few very iron-handed authoritarian monarchies or aristocracies that would not tolerate dissent, so the people grew to form a masochistic admiration of their rulers as being 'Gods' and what not. Even when Confucian philosophy is one of sacrificing individual interests in the interests of the 'greater', this was ironically used by various kings to justify unrestricted control over people for centuries at a time as 'superior, divine' guardians sent by the heavens.
We are not used to that in the subcontinent as princes and kings here, of various religions, have in many cases left their wealth or kingdoms to pursue an ascetic, non-violent life devoted to the supreme being, with their teachers, pirs or gurus often being from the very lowest rungs of the socio-economic ladder. However, the land was so rich and contested, that the ones who did have ambitions needed not to think of going abroad and could rarely gain complete control for long periods as they vied for it amongst themselves, but kings outside of India never kept this land's wealth outside of their ambitious gaze. The lack of unity amongst indigenous kings is what led to the constant sacking and establishing of different kingdoms south of the Himalayas, which you find as a good enough reason to fling mud at present-day Indians for. And if this is your only criteria, go tell the Greeks that due to the various Hellenic city states being at war with each other for much of their ancient history, they cannot be characterized as a nation during the peak of their civilization, because at the time they didn't adopt the Chinese model or European state model which came 2,000 years later. New heights of ridiculous.
