Question: When did Britain end its rule in India?
About the article "Pakistan", section "Colonial period".

Candidate passages:
Dadabhai Naoroji’s work focused on the drain of wealth from India into England through colonial rule.
One of the reasons that the Drain theory is attributed to Naoroji is his decision to estimate the net national profit of India, and by extension, the effect that colonization has on the country.
Through his work with economics, Naoroji sought to prove that Britain was draining money out of the India.
Naoroji described 6 factors which resulted in the external drain.
Firstly, India is governed by a foreign government.
Secondly, India does not attract immigrants which bring labour and capital for economic growth.
Thirdly, India pays for Britain’s civil administrations and occupational army.
Fourthly, India bears the burden of empire building in and out of its borders.
Fifthly, opening the country to free trade was actually a way to exploit India by offering highly paid jobs to foreign personnel.
Lastly, the principal income-earners would buy outside of India or leave with the money as they were mostly foreign personnel.
In Naoroji’s book ‘Poverty’ he estimated a 200-300 million pounds loss of revenue to Britain that is not returned.
Naoroji described this as vampirism, with money being a metaphor for blood, which humanized India and attempted to show Britain’s actions as monstrous in an attempt to garner sympathy for the nationalist movement.
When referring to the Drain, Naoroji stated that he believed some tribute was necessary as payment for the services that England brought to India such as the railways.
However the money from these services were being drained out of India; for instance the money being earned by the railways did not belong to India, which supported his assessment that India was giving too much to Britain.
India was paying tribute for something that was not bringing profit to the country directly.
Instead of paying off foreign investment which other countries did, India was paying for services rendered despite the operation of the railway being already profitable for Britain.
This type of drain was experienced in different ways as well, for instance, British workers earning wages that were not equal with the work that they have done in India, or trade that undervalued India’s goods and overvalued outside goods.
Englishmen were encouraged to take on high paying jobs in India, and the British government allowed them to take a portion of their income back to India.
Furthermore, the East India Company was purchasing Indian goods with money drained from India in order to export to Britain, which was a way that the opening up of free trade allowed India to be exploited.
When elected to Parliament by a narrow margin of 3 votes his first speech was about questioning India’s place in India.
Naoroji explained that they were either British subjects or British slaves which would be identified based on how willing Britain was to give India the institutions that Britain already operated.
By giving these institutions to India it would allow India to govern itself and as a result the revenue would stay in India.
It is because Naoroji identified himself as an imperial citizen that he was able to address the economic hardships facing India to an English audience.
By presenting himself as an Imperialist citizen he was able to use rhetoric to show the benefit to Britain that an ease of financial burden on India would have.
He argued that by allowing the money earned in India to stay in India, tributes would be willingly and easily paid without fear of poverty; he argued that this could be done by giving equal employment opportunities to Indian professionals who consistently took jobs they were over-qualified for.
Indian labour would be more likely to spend their income within India preventing one aspect of the drain.
Naoroji believed that to solve the problem of the drain it was important to allow India to develop industries; this would not be possible without the revenue draining from India into England.
It was also important to examine British and Indian trade in order to prevent the end of budding industries due to unfair valuing of goods and services.
By allowing industry to grow in India, tribute could be paid to Britain in the form of taxation and the increase in interest for British goods in India.
Over time, Naoroji became more extreme in his comments as he began to lose patience with Britain.
This was shown in his comments which became increasingly aggressive.
Naoroji showed how the ideologies of Britain conflicted when asking them if they would allow French youth to occupy all the lucrative posts in England.
He also brought up the way that Britain objected to the drain of wealth to the papacy during the 16th century.
Naoroji’s work on the drain theory was the main reason behind the creation of the Royal commission on Indian Expenditure in 1896 in which he was also a member.
This commission reviewed financial burdens on India and in some cases came to the conclusion that those burdens were misplaced. 
During this period, the East India Company began tax administration reforms in a fast expanding empire spread over , or 35 per cent of Indian domain.
Indirect rule was also established on protectorates and buffer states.
Ray (2009) raises three basic questions about the 19th-century cotton textile industry in Bengal: when did the industry begin to decay, what was the extent of its decay during the early 19th century, and what were the factors that led to this?
Since there is no data on production, Ray uses the industry's market performance and its consumption of raw materials.
Ray challenges the prevailing belief that the industry's permanent decline started in the late 18th century or the early 19th century.
The decline actually started in the mid-1820s.
The pace of its decline was, however, slow though steady at the beginning, but reached crisis point by 1860, when 563,000 workers lost their jobs.
Ray estimates that the industry shrank by about 28% by 1850.
However, it survived in the high-end and low-end domestic markets.
Ray agrees that British discriminatory policies undoubtedly depressed the industry's export outlet, but suggests its decay is better explained by technological innovations in Britain. 
The end of Roman rule in Britain is the period during which the Roman Empire ended its relationship with Roman Britain, thus marking the transition from Roman Britain to post-Roman Britain.
No single date is correct without qualification, as Roman rule ended for different parts of Britain at different times, and under different circumstances.
The year 410 is the preference of most historians.
In that year, the Roman Emperor Honorius replied to a request for assistance with the "Rescript of Honorius".
This told the Romano-Britons to see to their own defence although some historians believed that this was actually sent to Bruttium in southern Italy.
Some historians prefer 409 instead, the year when the Romano-Britons expelled Roman magistrates from their cities.
The year 383 marks the end of Roman rule in northern and western Britain.
In that year, Roman troops were withdrawn from those regions of Britain for the last time. 
The development of New Imperialism saw the conquest of nearly all eastern hemisphere territories by colonial powers.
The commercial colonization of India commenced in 1757, after the Battle of Plassey, when the Nawab of Bengal surrendered his dominions to the British East India Company, in 1765, when the Company was granted the "diwani", or the right to collect revenue, in Bengal and Bihar, or in 1772, when the Company established a capital in Calcutta, appointed its first Governor-General, Warren Hastings, and became directly involved in governance.
The Maratha states, following the Anglo-Maratha wars, eventually lost to the British East India Company in 1818 with the Third Anglo-Maratha War.
The rule lasted until 1858, when, after the Indian rebellion of 1857 and consequent of the Government of India Act 1858, the British government assumed the task of directly administering India in the new British Raj.
In 1819 Stamford Raffles established Singapore as a key trading post for Britain in their rivalry with the Dutch.
However, their rivalry cooled in 1824 when an Anglo-Dutch treaty demarcated their respective interests in Southeast Asia.
From the 1850s onwards, the pace of colonization shifted to a significantly higher gear.
The Dutch East India Company (1800) and British East India Company (1858) were dissolved by their respective governments, who took over the direct administration of the colonies.
Only Thailand was spared the experience of foreign rule, although, Thailand itself was also greatly affected by the power politics of the Western powers.
Colonial rule had a profound effect on Southeast Asia.
While the colonial powers profited much from the region's vast resources and large market, colonial rule did develop the region to a varying extent. 
Ugyen Wangchuck died in 1926 and was succeeded by his son, Jigme Wangchuck (reigned 1926–52).
The second Druk Gyalpo continued his father's centralization and modernization efforts and built more schools, dispensaries, and roads.
During Jigme Wangchuck's reign, monasteries and district governments were increasingly brought under royal control.
However, Bhutan generally remained isolated from international affairs.
The issue of Bhutan's status vis-à-vis the government of India was reexamined by London in 1932 as part of the issue of the status of India itself.
It was decided to leave the decision to join an Indian federation up to Bhutan when the time came.
When British rule over India ended in 1947, so too did Britain's association with Bhutan.
India succeeded Britain as the de facto protector of the Himalayan kingdom, and Bhutan retained control over its internal government.
It was two years, however, before a formal agreement recognized Bhutan's independence.
Following the precedent set by the Treaty of Punakha, on August 8, 1949, Thimphu signed the Treaty of Friendship Between the Government of India and the Government of Bhutan, according to which external affairs, formerly guided by Britain, were to be guided by India.
Like Britain, India agreed not to interfere in Bhutan's internal affairs.
India also agreed to increase the annual subsidy to 500,000 rupees per year.
Important to Bhutan's national pride was the return of Dewangiri.
Some historians believe that if India had been at odds with China at this time, as it was to be a decade later, it might not have acceded so easily to Bhutan's request for independent status.