I recently have been doing a lot of reading about British imperialism in India and most of the topics discussed are on the negatives of British imperialism. For example the "drain" of Indian wealth or the "deindustrialization" of India. I want to know the positives of British Imperialism in India (if any) to get a less exaggerated image of the British "conquerors." For example, I have read that British politicians banned the practice of Sati and outlawed child marriages during British rule. What other things did Britain do to help or try to help India, specifically what humanitarian aid? Does it out weigh the damages they did?
Off the top of my head I can think of the following positives aside from the outlawing of Sati and child marriages that you mention:
Building of basic infrastructure such as Railroads, Telegraphs, Irrigation canals, and Roads in India (yes it was for the benefit of British rule, but the British left them in place and did not destroy them when they left).
Spreading Western medicine and reducing infant mortality.
Creating a basic (if powerless) political system that prepared the people for elections and democratic self-governance. This includes the rule of law.
Spreading English as an official language. (But I don't buy the spreading of education because the British colonial government did not pay for it.)
So now we get to the heart of the matter, was British rule better for India or not? I tend to side with the negative side. If Britain had not drained India of its wealth and de-industrialized India, then a lot of the above benefits, the Indians could have done it themselves. I believe this to be the case because the economic conditions and intellectual life in India were comparable to Europe in the period from 1600 to 1800. Prasannan Parthasarathi's book "Why Europe Grew Rich and Asia Did Not: Global Economic Divergence, 1600-1850" is a great read to get a sense of what India could have done.