Imperial theft

[aklujkar at unixg.ubc.ca]

In his communication of 16 Aug 1995, Dominik Wujastyk writes: 
< In the context of India's poverty being traceable to "Imperial 
theft", for example, in 1800 the East India Company was in debt to the
tune of fourteen million pounds [Desmond, European Discovery of the
Indian Flora, p.73], a debt that had reached nearly twenty-eight million
pounds by 1807; this does not constitute an argument for Imperialism of
course, but certainly refutes the simplistic "robber baron" caricature
of European involvement in India.  >

While I am sure I do not subscribe to the robber baron caricature, I am
unclear about the logical link Dominik has in mind.  

Also the following questions arose in my non-expert mind: Are the
statistics about the East India Company's financial affairs reliable? Did
it have a debt in England/UK but a surplus in India? Was the debt incurred
because opportunities for much easy profit were to be seized? Do the
figures for two years or a short period of about seven years constitute a
'certain refutation' of a view articulated with regard to a period of
several decades, if not nearly two centuries? Did England/UK emerge richer
at the end of colonization than it was at the beginning of the East India
Company activities? If it did, how does one explain that?  If transactions
are arranged in a legal way but the other party does not have much of a say
in defining or influencing the legal way, does the transfer of wealth still
remain immune to the labels 'theft,' ' robbery,' etc.? 

-- ashok aklujkar