I would agree it's almost certainly true that colonialism and extracted wealth did a great deal to fuel the industrial revolution, but saying that the British pace of industrialization was dependent on India is a different thing from saying that India would have industrialized at the same pace as the West in the absence of colonialism. Leaders and elites frittering away wealth, rather than investing it in economic development, has been the rule rather than the exception for the majority of human civilization, in the West and the East. What makes you think that the Mughals would have suddenly shifted the basis of their social order, to start investing in steam engines rather than palaces, in the absence of the British? The Newcomen engine was invented in 1712, at a time when the East India Company were an irrelevance. Where is the parallel in India?
Just to be clear, I'm not saying pace of development wasn't seriously set back through colonialism, I'm questioning specifically this percentage of GDP argument.
To be fair, the % of GDP argument is really hard to quantify along the axes being used here.
If India wasn't a colony, wealth would not have concentrated in GB, likely slowing Down their development and Maybe even making them more open to local conflicts.
Provided the French or Dutch didn't conquer more of India, and, it's hard to argue that wealth remaining in India would have not have resulted in more trade and local development.
We can definitely say that having someone come to your country, and clearly stop you from building the best product you can build, sell or pruchase, impoverishes your country.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying pace of development wasn't seriously set back through colonialism, I'm questioning specifically this percentage of GDP argument.