Half a century after Britain was divested of most of its far-flung empire, discussion and analysis of its morality and benefits continue. In the colonized countries, it is virtually an article of faith that the colonial experience was almost totally destructive.

According to this school of thought, imperialism brought about the collapse of native industry and culture, apart from instilling a "brown sahib" mentality among the colonized people that persists to this day.

Instead of allowing these societies to evolve their own social and political institutions, insensitive foreigners imposed their own systems which have not taken root, and continue to distort society.

These are all valid criticisms, but reflect only one side of the coin. In a recent debate organized at the Royal Geographical Society in London, several noted speakers spoke for and against the proposition "The British empire was a force for good".

The format of these debates organized by the forum Intelligence Squared is that the audience votes twice: once before the debate, and once afterwards. The idea is to see how many were swayed by the arguments. In the event, 321 voted for; 233 against; and 49 'didn't know'. Before the debate, over a hundred 'didn't know', and around 180 were against.

The problem with the proposition is that the British empire was never a monolithic entity with a fixed policy and agenda. Different administrators at different times in different parts of the world behaved very differently.

The "Empire" comprised traders, priests, scholars, soldiers, civil servants and adventurers, among many other categories. Each of them brought their own agendas and their own dreams. But above all, contrary to popular misconception, the British never set out deliberately to become a globe-spanning empire. The initial impetus to establish a presence abroad came from entrepreneurs who financed sea borne expeditions to seek out the holy grail of 16th and 17th century traders, the source of the lucrative spice trade, the legendary Spice Isles in modern Indonesia.

A single shipment of nutmeg, peppercorns and cinnamon could make a consortium of investors immensely rich for life. But the costs were high as sailors suffered terribly from scurvy.

Many ships were lost with all hands. In 1500, the Crown chartered the East India Company to trade in the East Indies, and fleets set off to buy spices from the Dutch. Soon, captains bought a range of luxury commodities like tea and opium to fill their holds, and maximise profits.

The problem for the British exchequer was that these imports caused a trade deficit, leading to a substantial outflow of gold. To finance this gap between imports and exports, slavery was permitted, and sugarcane plantations established in the Caribbean.

But when the slave trade became morally indefensible, the British tried to find possible destinations for their goods. After establishing "factories" on the Indian coast to stockpile trade goods, the officials of the East India Company were sucked into local politics to counter the French who were also major players in the region.

The power vacuum caused by the virtual collapse of the Mughal empire encouraged the Company to take political control to protect its financial interests. The rest, as they say, is history. But it is worth noting that it took a century from the Battle of Plassey in 1757 until the anti- colonial uprising in 1857 for the Crown to assume direct control of India.

Any objective student of history, looking at the decadence and chaos the Mughal Empire had descended into by mid-18th century, would agree that change was not only inevitable, but desirable.

Within India, none of the warring factions were capable of producing a durable, cohesive rule that would put an end to the bloodshed and confusion that was rampant in the period. And certainly, none of them could have given India modern technology and fresh ideas.

If there has been any one constant in human history, it is change. People have migrated or conquered land, either wiping out the inhabitants, or pushing them out. This constant flux has been the motor driving history. Loot, plunder, and fertile land have attracted invaders and colonists over the ages. The Mughals themselves occupied land that was not theirs.

While in historical terms the British empire lasted for a relatively brief while, it has left a lasting imprint in the course of its global reign. And although the age of empire might be over, globalization and neo-imperialism ensure that the destiny of millions is determined in faraway capitals and boardrooms.

Returning to the recent debate at the Royal Geographical Society, it became clear that speakers were talking about different aspects of colonialism, and ended up comparing apples with oranges.

Some blamed the empire for the genocide in Australia, while others praised it for the education, basic health care and the physical infrastructure it introduced into the subcontinent.

In a sense, it was a bit like the story of blind men touching different parts of an elephant and describing totally different animals. If there was any consensus, it was over the fact that as colonists, the British had been far better than the other European powers.

The Belgians slaughtered tens of thousands in Congo. It needed two major wars to pry the French out of Indochina and Algeria. The Portuguese have a hideous record in their colonies. The Dutch imposed a vicious system of apartheid in South Africa.

Ultimately, the British ruled through cooperation, not coercion, at least in India. There is no way a handful of soldiers could have controlled a vast landmass with millions of people against their will.

They built an impressive network of roads and railways, and established a system of modern education that is still pretty much in place. Above all, they encouraged native populations to learn English and introduced gradual political reforms aimed at ultimate self-rule.

Granted, the British acted largely according to their own financial, strategic and administrative interests. But in India, at least, theirs was an enlightened self-interest that was, on balance, beneficial for their "jewel in the Crown".

However, in other colonies like Australia, they were far from benign as they virtually decimated the local population, leaving the survivors a pitiful handful of demoralized aborigines dependent on handouts.

Between these two extreme models came a number of countries that have passed through the colonial experience, some richer and some the poorer for it. But to blame the British for all our problems over five decades after they left is to look for scapegoats for the mess we have created ourselves. Instead of building on the colonial heritage, we have retained its worst elements and destroyed the best.