Lol. You're all over the place now. They're not wild assumptions. MH called India a 3rd world shythole, and your response was to bring up colonialism. What was your intention of bringing up colonialism if not to imply that India is a 3rd world shythole ( by todays standards presumably. Lol.) because of colonialism.
And to say that India wasn't a 3rd world shythole by the standard of precolonial times is completely nonsensical. There was no standard for a 3rd World shythole at the time. Everywhere was a 3rd world shythole in 1600 by todays standards. India was worst than most even then.
You can't lay the blame for 3rd world income disparity and poverty at the feet of colonialism, sorry. You're talking about societies were the only difference in income disparity between pre and post colonialism is more poor people because of population explosion thanks to the white man's medicine. India is in fact an example of a massively wealthy country where a massive income disparity has existed for centuries if not millenia and was exacerbated by breeding like rabbits.
I wasn't implying anything. If I wanted to say that it's a shytehole because of colonialism I would have said it. I brought it up as a matter of general knowledge.
Yeah you were. You were responding to MH calling India a 3rd World shythole. There is context and the context says you were blaming colonialism for current poverty. The fact that you've now repeatedly claimed that India wasn't a 3rd World shythole by the standards of the day precolonialism is the same fccking point you're denying trying to have made.
There can always be a standard for a 3rd world shytehole, just compare it to other civilisations of the time.