British

'''Before the British Rule India amounted to more than 20% of the world's GDP and post-British rule it started declining. Britishers levied more taxes than in their homeland and also created several atrocities and divided the country which cannot be measured in monetary terms. If we consider all the above facts with the current world GDP - India would have accounted to $20 trillion GDP and would have been the most powerful country in the world.'''

How much Britishers owe to India is hence a very substantial and big amount. However, the amount of loot that Britishers made in their 200+ rule in India will be easily more than 1 billion USD every year on a very very conservative basis, and with the inflation, the 200billion USD would easily be more than $2 trillion dollars. This amount is very very very conservative estimate and loss is much more which cannot be paid by Britain/UK even in their entire life span.

In 1929, the people of India were taxed more than twice as heavy as the people of England The percentage of the taxes in India, as related to the gross product, was more than doubled that of any other country

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q88-jQl8yBw

Ref also the below links https://www.dailyo.in/politics/british-raj-east-india-company-mughals-brexit-world-war-1/story/1/28382.html https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/24/indian-prime-minister-modi-endorses-britain-paying-damages-for-colonial-rule https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-stole-45-trillion-from-india

GDP estimates
According to economic historian Angus Maddison in Contours of the world economy, 1–2030 AD: essays in macro-economic history, the Indian subcontinent was the world's most productive region, from 1 CE to 1600.

While Stephen Broadberry, Johann Custodis, and Bishnupriya Gupta, in 2014, offered the following comparative estimates for:

Karl Marx, writing in 1857, suggested the Nominal (Silver) per capita Income of Company India, in 1854, was approximately 1:12 that of the UK, as was the Nominal per capita tax burden 1:12 of the UK, 1:10 of France, and 1:5 of Prussia. Explaining why the EIC administration was perpetually running local deficits, and in need to borrow monies in India, to fund the administration.

Economic historians such as Prasannan Parthasarathi have criticized these estimates, arguing primary sources show Real (grain) wages in 18th-century Bengal and Mysore were comparable to Britain. According to evidence cited by Immanuel Wallerstein, Irfan Habib, Percival Spear and Ashok Desai, per-capita agricultural output and standards of consumption in 17th-century Mughal India was higher than in 17th-century Europe and early 20th-century British India. .Sivramkrishna analyzed agricultural surveys conducted in Mysore by Francis Buchanan in 1800-1801, arrived at estimates, using "subsistence basket", that aggregated millet income could be almost five times subsistence level, while corresponding rice income is three times that much. That could be comparable to advance part of Europe. However due to the scarcity of data, more research is needed, before drawing any conclusion. Shireen Moosvi estimates that Mughal India had a per-capita income 1.24% higher in the late 16th century than British India had in the early 20th century, although the difference would be less if increasing purchasing power in terms of manufactured goods were taken into account. She also estimates that the secondary sector contributed a higher percentage to the Mughal economy (18.2%) than it did to the economy of early 20th-century British India (11.2%).

According to economic historian Paul Bairoch, India as well as China had a higher GDP (PPP) per capita than Europe in 1750. For 1750, Bairoch estimated the GNP per capita for the Western world to be $182 in 1960 US dollars ($ in 1990 dollars) and for the non-Western world to be $188 in 1960 dollars ($ in 1990 dollars), exceeded by both China and India. Other estimates he gives include $150–190 for England in 1700 and $160–210 for India in 1800. Bairoch estimated that it was only after 1800 that Western European per-capita income pulled ahead. Others such as Andre Gunder Frank, Robert A. Denemark, Kenneth Pomeranz and Amiya Kumar Bagchi also criticised estimates that showed low per-capita income and GDP growth rates in Asia (especially China and India) prior to the 19th century, pointing to later research that found significantly higher per-capita income and growth rates in China and India during that period.