I don't think there is a consensus that British colonial rule was more negative towards Indian economic development than Mughal rule. If British colonial rule was really bad for the economy then why was Indian GDP no worse than Chinese GDP?

Look at the historic GDP numbers. It is very hard to see any clear difference between India and non-colonized countries such as China and Korea in terms of economic development.

In fact under British rule from 1890s to 1945 India is racing past China in economic development. Why is a country ruled by Britain beating a free country such as China?

You haven't addressed the fact that 25% of world GDP is terribly misleading because India is shrinking as percentage primarily because of rapid industrialization of Europe. For instance around 1820 Finland which is a colony of the Russian Empire has a GDP of around $1300 vs $940 in India. Not a huge different. Finland is like 30-40% richer than India. But if you look at 1938 Finnish GDP has grown to $5700 while Indian GDP is at $1060.

In other words India has not gotten poorer but has simply failed to grow very fast. Why? Because non industrializing countries don't grow very much. India in this regard is no different than most other developing countries.

That you ask who benefitted from railroads and proper roads tells me a lot about your bias in looking at this. Of course a country benefits from having better roads and internal transportation. It would be absurd to chalk that up to some evil British scheme to impoverish India and make themselves rich at Indian expense. If railroads make India poor then start tearing up those tracks then and blow up your roads.

Look, colonialism was bad and morally wrong. But when analyzing history we cannot judge what happened in moral terms. Mongols brought gun powder to Europe. If somebody states that, should I as a Europe immediately scream that Mongols should be given no credit because they engaged in mass slaughter and didn't do it for our benefit?

Of course they didn't do it for the benefit of anybody but themselves. The British were not running a charity either. But that is a bit beside the point when trying to analyze historical events and their effects. Am not trying to give Britain a nice score card to make them feel good about themselves.

Any time somebody brings up Churchill as some big hero I try to remind people that he caused the death of millions of Indians from starvation. He was a pretty horrible and racist guy. The East Indian company itself is also a prime example of short sighted capitalist greed when they initially got so greedy that they sold grain meant for planting or storage for bad years and caused subsequent mass starvation.

I think it is pretty clear that British rule at times caused major famines to happen which killed a lot of people. But I think it is much less obvious that Indian rule caused a significant retardation of Indian economic progress. If it did, then I would ask you to tell me what ballpark figure for GDP per capita do you think India would have had without British rule? Also would be nice to hear your reasoning for that figure.