[Pearse]

Could it be that they were colonized by Britain?

(I'm not sure if this is what you were insinuating, but it would make sense)

[rayiner]

It could be colonization but it would predate the British. The British East India company colonized India in the first place by exploiting the lack of cooperation. At the time, there wasn’t the overwhelming disparity between the countries there is today. Mughal India was one of the gunpowder empires, with the largest military in the world in the late 17th and early 18th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Mughal_Empire. The per-capita GDP gap between India and Britain was only a factor of 2. But India’s vastly large population meant it had about four times the state revenues.

Britain couldn’t have, and didn’t, colonize India the way the Mughals had: through a direct land war. Instead, the British East India company entered into deals with various port cities one by one to establish toe holds. Then in the Battle of Plassey, they overthrew the Nawab with just 750 British soldiers and 2,000 Indian mercenaries against a Mughal army of 50,000. The British persuaded the Mughal generals to defect, and the Nawab, fearing further defections, capitulated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plassey

[squeefers]

> The British East India company colonized India in the first place by exploiting the lack of cooperation.

nah, they used guns and cannons.... force. same as any conqueror ever.

[zozbot234]

The British took India from the Marathi empire, not from the Mughals.

[zozbot234]

Hong Kong was colonized by Britain, doing just fine now. The Mughal invasions were probably the biggest adverse shock.

[boxed]

Based on the history of the region the opposite seems like a better assumption to me.