First, this presumes a linear progression and objective ranking of "quality" or "utility" of cultures, which any serious sociologist or anthropologist would reject.
Really, what you're saying is "colonialism turned Indian culture into something which more closely resembles present-day British (or perhaps Western European) culture". Phrased that way, it's easier to see that this argument is not particularly interesting. It's pretty obvious that colonialism will have that impact; that's basically the definition of hegemony.
Secondly, this ignores the immense impact that Indian culture (and other colonial cultures) have had on Britain (or their respective colonial powers). One of the well-known effects of colonialism (both in India and elsewhere) is the erasure of this influence. That is, cultural elements of the colonial subjects are appropriated by the colonial power as a "new" invention of that culture, rather than viewed (by the contemporary discourse) as an adoption of some aspect of the colonial culture. The reverse is not true; aspects of the colonial power's culture that are adopted by the colonial subjects are not viewed by either culture as being native to the colonial subjects[0].
Finally, this also overlooks the many ways that colonial rule appears to be a 'regression' even from the fallacious lens of a linear progression of culture. For example, the current criminialization of homosexuality in India is a due to a law imposed by the British during colonial rule. Before colonial rule, the concept of a nation-state didn't exist and enforcement of law was very different in practice, so we can't compare directly by looking for national legal codes. But it's very clear that homosexuality was not only not universally criminal in India, but was in fact an established and accepted cultural phenomenon in certain pockets of society. After the decriminalization of those practices, they disappeared entirely (in their then-current form; homosexuality itself obviously did not end).
[0] If anyone is interested in reading more about this, this principle is most famously explicated by Foucault. (No, the irony of referencing Foucault on cultural appropriation is not lost on me.)
It's said Chicken Tikka Masala is actually the most popular dish in the UK, well knocked off the very top but its still up there.
Mathematics, Jewellery, Ideas on Governance, A strong work ethic, Missiles & Weaponry (yup)... There are loads of other things. I think the tone of your question suggests one shouldn't bother to bring this out too much as it will not change your ideas.
Britain's current handout culture something that was better back then I assume?
Please have a look at the income of Indian families in the UK/US relative to other ethnic groups. Asian culture emphasizes a strong work ethic. It's not just Indians with this one.
When the question is what things British culture has absorbed from Indian culture, only things that have gone mainstream count, not things that are exclusive to immigrant communities.
>The Indians part seems irrelevant from what you're saying. It seems you think British people are lazy?
What? Not at all. I have no idea how lazy British people are. I was reacting to your statement that I should "Please have a look at the income of Indian families in the UK/US relative to other ethnic groups." That implies that there is a significant difference between mainstream culture and Indian immigrant culture.
First, this presumes a linear progression and objective ranking of "quality" or "utility" of cultures, which any serious sociologist or anthropologist would reject.
Really, what you're saying is "colonialism turned Indian culture into something which more closely resembles present-day British (or perhaps Western European) culture". Phrased that way, it's easier to see that this argument is not particularly interesting. It's pretty obvious that colonialism will have that impact; that's basically the definition of hegemony.
Secondly, this ignores the immense impact that Indian culture (and other colonial cultures) have had on Britain (or their respective colonial powers). One of the well-known effects of colonialism (both in India and elsewhere) is the erasure of this influence. That is, cultural elements of the colonial subjects are appropriated by the colonial power as a "new" invention of that culture, rather than viewed (by the contemporary discourse) as an adoption of some aspect of the colonial culture. The reverse is not true; aspects of the colonial power's culture that are adopted by the colonial subjects are not viewed by either culture as being native to the colonial subjects[0].
Finally, this also overlooks the many ways that colonial rule appears to be a 'regression' even from the fallacious lens of a linear progression of culture. For example, the current criminialization of homosexuality in India is a due to a law imposed by the British during colonial rule. Before colonial rule, the concept of a nation-state didn't exist and enforcement of law was very different in practice, so we can't compare directly by looking for national legal codes. But it's very clear that homosexuality was not only not universally criminal in India, but was in fact an established and accepted cultural phenomenon in certain pockets of society. After the decriminalization of those practices, they disappeared entirely (in their then-current form; homosexuality itself obviously did not end).
[0] If anyone is interested in reading more about this, this principle is most famously explicated by Foucault. (No, the irony of referencing Foucault on cultural appropriation is not lost on me.)