This is a surprising recent notion. The Mughals sure didn't conquer territory to tax it for the peasant's benefit -- the entire purpose of conquering land was to extract taxes from these peasants, for yourself & your army.
Indian economist Amartya Sen is fond of pointing out that although India has no shortage of hungry people, it hasn't had a famine since the departure of the British. But he's also keen to point out that the significant difference is that the average Indian person now gets to vote governments in and out of power. This wasn't the case under the British, but it also wasn't the case when Shah Jahan dedicated more tax revenue to monumental architecture and unsuccessfully attempting to conquer Qandahar than resolving the Deccan Famine.
the so called "sir" winston churchill was after all a mass murderer in a sense. of course it is about power and exercising power, India should have fought back harder to protect itself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/winst...
Showing up unasked and extract taxes to fund projects in your own interest, only some of which are even of use to locals, is unambiguously theft.
If tax money of the tax payers of India is used to buy good/services for the tax payers of Britain. How is it not defrauding?
My tax money is used to buy goods/services for people in other states. Not only is that not considered fraud, it is a fundamental reason taxes exist.