India has always had so many people relative to the rest of the world. I don't think there is any point in history since the bronze age where India and China weren't the most populous places in the world.
It's sad to see how many people don't know this simple fact. India and China actually have a smaller share of the world population now (around 1/3). In most of human history it was bigger [1]
It would've been even smaller if it wasn't for the devastating consequences of European imperialism. These countries were left in a piss poor state, lack of education and healthcare etc, resulting in a long period of high birth rates with exponential growth.
Check the graph below [2] you can clearly where most damage happened, during the main occupation period (1850s to 1950s). Britain had falling birth rates (prosperity) but they were constantly high in India (poverty). Birth rates have been on a steep decline only after independence. Yet empire apologists somehow claim that it was a net good for India :)
It would've been even smaller if it wasn't for the devastating consequences of European imperialism. These countries were left in a piss poor state, lack of education and healthcare etc, resulting in a long period of high birth rates with exponential growth.
Check the graph below [2] you can clearly where most damage happened, during the main occupation period (1850s to 1950s). Britain had falling birth rates (prosperity) but they were constantly high in India (poverty). Birth rates have been on a steep decline only after independence. Yet empire apologists somehow claim that it was a net good for India :)
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-by-country
[2] https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$line$data$fi...