The navy absolutely was key. But apart from that mercantilism was instrumental. They used trade companies, the most famous being the East India company, as front which allowed the government to deflect responsibility coming their way and this incentivized the moneyed class in Britain as they could "invest" in the colonial loot.
Aren't all empires extractive? How is that supposed to be distinctive to Britain?
If you compare Thailand (never colonized) with India pre-independence, they look about neck-and-neck in terms of development. At a glance, it seems Britain "looted" India to about the same degree that the Thai monarchy "looted" Thailand.
IIRC India's GDP was approx. 25% of the world's in 1700s compared to Thai 1% around the same time. In case of India it came down to 3 to 4% in 1947. So India faced quite a drop.
I don't think comparing an already declined India to Thai is a fair comparison.
Unfortunately not many people understand or appreciate how colonialism destroys a country and they just see the end result and claim that the citizens of the country were incapable of developing by their own.
Not only economical, but also psychological (as in lose of self confidence) and cultural (assuming own culture is somehow inferior to the rulers) destruction happens. It is not much different from abused people losing self confidence and blaming themselves and additionallyhaving to suffer victim blaming from others - just at a nation scale.
India's economy didn't get a boost because there was practically no industrial policy. British authorities would get their raw materials at gunpoint from the colonies, ship it to Britain for processing, and then ship the finished goods back to colonies (which were artificially shielded from the international markets).
Before getting absorbed by East India company, some native kingdoms/empites did start with modernizing their military which indicates there would be a strong effort towards industrialization if it weren't for the British regulations.
The outward flow of money amd the second order effects like famine make mercantile colonialism more exploitative. A good counterpoint to Thailand is Britain becoming insanely wealthy by contemporary standard during Victorian era.
Sure, the British aristocratic class did exploit the working class. But then we're no longer talking about geographies.
"The outward flow of money amd the second order effects like famine make mercantile colonialism more exploitative."
So why was India's development status comparable to Thailand in that case?
"A good counterpoint to Thailand is Britain becoming insanely wealthy by contemporary standard during Victorian era."
Britain was the first country to industrialize. Switzerland and the US also industrialized early, and did not have a massive colonial population to exploit. But you can see their per-capita GDP was still in the same neighborhood as the UK in the late 1800s:
A lot of stories that Indians tell about their history fall apart when you look at the data. You can argue that Britain delayed India's industrialization, but since most of Asia was not industrializing at the time, it's a bit of a dubious argument. I have little doubt that Britain exploited India, but I don't think it was a historically exceptional type of exploitation.
Non colonized countries like China and Nepal were still semi-colonized due to unfair treaties. Japan which largely remained free did industrialize.
A debate does exist around the how much of India's decline can be attributed to the British as fragmentation of central political authority started long before British arrival.
US and Switzerland had their respective advantages like large domestic market and high value industries. The population of these nations had the time to learn and adapt. The familiarity to western education obviously helped as transferring IP was relatively easy. These opportunities were absent in company ruled India(things did improve marginally once the crown took over). I would largely agree British colonial rule was not exceptional when compared to other mercantile colonies. But I do not see the similarities to Mughal rule of India where the wealth stayed in-house and was even invested locally, the key difference being assimilation vs extraction.
You're still disregarding Thailand. Not colonized, wealth "stays in-house". But that doesn't necessarily lead to industrialization. If the rulers spend the money on entertainment for themselves, that's essentially the same as sending it abroad, from the perspective of a peasant.
