For a short article on the drain theory, see here:

This point was made by critics, Kirti Chaudhuri and Theodore Morrison. The Left continues to push its narrative by deliberately ignoring criticisms. Evidence: Patnaiks do not cite any critical writing, and the Monthly Review referees did not think that was a misrepresentation.

Naoroji’s economics was unsound. A trade surplus in India funded payments for services. The only valid measure of economic drain is this: the value these services added to national income was less than what was paid for them. No believer in drain asks if this was the case.

The modern definition owes to Dadabhai Naoroji, who implied that India’s balance of trade surplus with Britain was money Britain swindled out of India. Leftist historians Utsa and Prabhat Patnaik have adopted this flawed and ideological interpretation (Monthly Review, 2021).

The word ‘drain’ had a long pedigree. Edmund Burke, a fierce critic of the East India Company, first used it. Burke’s drain persisted in assessments of public finance. In 1859, W.H. Sykes called military heads of expenditure ‘the chief drain upon the Indian Exchequer’.

For well over a century, India’s nationalists and leftist political activists claimed that British-ruled India made excessive payments to Britain, calling it ‘drain’ or wasted/lost national savings.

RT @alka_raman: What is the significance of Indian textiles in global economic history? Co-organising a one-day workshop with @RoyHistory1,….

RT @ChinmayTumbe: You've heard about Gujaratis, Keralites, etc. across the world, but how are they spread across India itself? The word 'vi….

For short answers to the five questions, visit my website:

(4) How did regions matter? Why was Bengal one of the first three regions to see the emergence of a British state? (5) How did regions matter? Why was the Coromandel one of the first three regions to see the emergence of a British state?.

(2) A big part of the action happened in the three port cities. How did the three port cities help the emergence of an empire in India? (3) How did regions matter? Why was Malabar one of the first three regions to see the emergence of a British state?.

The story can be retold by answering five questions. (1) The history of the emergence of the East India Company as a state power was as much a story about the Company as of Indian capitalism of the time. What was the role of Indian capital in the rise of British power?.

A more profound shift was geographic: coastal regions gained dominance over the inland. As inland powers weakened, coastal trading towns grew into economic hubs, attracting capital, skills and trade from inland. “Origins of Colonialism” is about that shift, in India and elsewhere

The eighteenth century was a turning point in Indian history, marked by the decline of the Mughal Empire and the rise of the British Indian Empire. Historians have offered various explanations for the East India Company’s rise, usually citing Mughal decline or British naval power.

RT @hellomrbhatt: What drives India’s long-term economic change Professor @RoyHistory1 from the @LSEnews offers compelling insights. Discov….

Many historians avoid this topic because the dominant view is a belief: dogmatic and intolerant of dissent. When critics challenge its one-sided narrative with facts, they risk being dismissed as ‘apologists’ for the Empire, rather than being met with fair and reasoned debate.

Imperial history should be a study of this diversity of experiences. It should ask who gained and how, and who did not? It should be an analysis of structural inequality, uneven economic opportunity, and the selective distribution of power and resources. This is the 1980s spirit.

The educated elite in the port cities, who funded and led many top schools and colleges, saw great value in the internationalism the Empire brought within their reach. At the same time, many Indians faced degrading poverty, poor education, and limited healthcare.

(2) The dominant narrative turns all Indians into victims, which is Eurocentric and plain wrong. Around 1950, India had many business groups; all had emerged from trade the Empire promoted and protected. Millions had migrated to other colonies and often fared better than at home.

This dominant view sees the Empire as extractive and exploitative, enriching Britain at India’s expense. A simply story, it is flawed. (1) Such sweeping claims cannot be tested, since they hinge on how “extraction” is defined. These are beliefs, not evidence-based theories. And. .