It's rather difficult to find a whole lot that's positive about colonialism, when you look into the details. For example, it's true that the British colonials brought railway technology to India, which has of course become a signature feature of modern Indian civilization. However, the rationale at the time was more about having the ability to rapidly move large numbers of troops and guns from one rebellious hotspot to another. However, this also had many economic benefits for other sectors, aided in moving food and preventing famines, etc.
> "After a slow start in 1853, the construction of the railway network envisaged by Lord Dalhousie was sped up rapidly after the 1857 Rebellion. The railways were an instrument of control. The stations became fortresses, the white and, later, the Eurasian, staff became an auxiliary army, and the tracks became lines of communication in the event of conflict. The 1857 Rebellion, coming as it did at a crucial stage in railway development, had an enormous impact on the railways’ eventual shape and the attitude of the British colonial rulers to their Indian subordinates. This was a nakedly military project, but not solely one. There were immeasurable economic benefits, too, and though the very design of the railways was as conduits to and from the ports to help British imports and exports, inevitably the Indian economy received a stimulus through their construction."
The argument that such colonialism was necessary to spread knowledge and technology (which is really the only pro-colonialism argument I can think of) is belied by the example of Japan, which strongly resisted colonial efforts for many centuries, but was still able to rapidly adopt and develop things like train technology.
https://reconasia.csis.org/how-britians-colonial-railways-tr...
> "After a slow start in 1853, the construction of the railway network envisaged by Lord Dalhousie was sped up rapidly after the 1857 Rebellion. The railways were an instrument of control. The stations became fortresses, the white and, later, the Eurasian, staff became an auxiliary army, and the tracks became lines of communication in the event of conflict. The 1857 Rebellion, coming as it did at a crucial stage in railway development, had an enormous impact on the railways’ eventual shape and the attitude of the British colonial rulers to their Indian subordinates. This was a nakedly military project, but not solely one. There were immeasurable economic benefits, too, and though the very design of the railways was as conduits to and from the ports to help British imports and exports, inevitably the Indian economy received a stimulus through their construction."
The argument that such colonialism was necessary to spread knowledge and technology (which is really the only pro-colonialism argument I can think of) is belied by the example of Japan, which strongly resisted colonial efforts for many centuries, but was still able to rapidly adopt and develop things like train technology.