"De-industrialized" has already been addressed. I'd just note that if we go back to 1600 AD, say -- the year the British East India Company was founded -- then both countries would be mostly agrarian, and the idea of India being richer in some sense isn't exactly implausible. There's also the question of how we even measure 'richer'; food production per capita might be one way. Another might be who was trying to trade with whom: Europe was desperate to get to Asia for silk and spices and porcelain, Asia wasn't desperate to trade with Europe, and a lot of the "trade" was rooted in force: near-piracy by the Portuguese, the Spanish bringing Peruvian slave-mined silver to trade with Chinese merchants in Manila.
"Company rule" is said to have started in 1757; industrial and scientific revolutions were starting to take off in Europe, but Indians still having more access to food and clothing still seems plausible.
I'm not really sure why there's such scoffing at the OP's claim in this thread. Its essence - that the colonial experience retarded or set back Indian industrial growth - is a pretty common assertion that dates back to at least the early 20th C. There's still a great deal of debate as to why India de-industrialised, ie to what degree was Britain responsible, but the reality of this is hardly in doubt.
Such a narrative is underpinned by the observation that India's textile market, both for export and domestic, more or less collapsed over the century from 1750. In that year India's share share of world industrial output has been calculated as 25%, falling to 2% in 1900. I'm not a huge fan of Maddison's figures and there are obvious issues with them - notably the rapidly growing share of European manufacturing and the idea of 'India' in the 18th C - but such figures are quoted often enough.
(And, yes, by Maddison's calculations 'India' and Britain were approximately on par in terms of GDP in the early 18th C.)
Now, I'm not qualified to talk about the validity of these claims, just to acknowledge their pedigree, but it's also worth talking briefly about the nature of industrialisation. Giant smokestacks thrusting into the horizon or steam locomotives tearing across the landscape are signs of relatively mature industry. For the 18th C, and well into the 19th C, domestic/rural enterprises (ie the 'putting out' system) was a key component of the British economy. It's this proto-industrial manufacturing base that seems to have collapsed in India, whether in the face of British competition or other factors.
Adding a railway system doesn't really compensate for the destruction of such domestic industries.
