The Turks and the Europeans were not at all interested in the oil resources at the time.
Napoleon came with a number of ideas ~ from the French Revolution, over 200 years ago. That was before the internal combustion engine was a big deal. Actually trains were still a novelty.
And Napoleon was still completely uninterested in “liberating” the Arabs of Egypt. Perhaps he was after cotton, since oil wasn’t yet useful then. Whatever. But Machievelli had more to do with his invasion of Egypt than liberte, egalite, fraternite and all that.
Do not take 20th century issues with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and extend them back into the 1700s and 1800s ~ it was a whole different game then, and the Arabs were not their own men at the time.
OK. 1757, then. The British conquered India. They were after tea and screwing the French, not liberating the wogs. 1857. The British suppressed a major rebellion in India, and burnt Delhi to the ground. All Muslims exiled from Delhi for five years. They probably had good reason for exiling the Muslims, but liberating them was not a part of it.
The Europeans, whether in 1757, 1789 or 1857, or 1918, were imperial powers. They were not interested in liberating anyone. Maybe the whipped up the troops, or parliament or the newspapers with that drivel, but that’s not what history’s about. The Union didn’t fight the Confederacy to liberate any slaves, either.
Their bad luck to encounter the technologically superior Brits at a time when the princes each felt the Brits could be of use to them.
The Brits are not just the sum of their commercial interests ~ although your typical Indian would like you to think so. They have a grand history of seeking to uplift the poor and extending charity to the oppressed. They even invented what has become modern European democratic forms of government and process.
Also too, the British were more interested in devoloping the train.
The British didn't conquer India in 1757. In 1757 they fought the Battle of Plassey. They only conquered what is now Bengal and parts of the Coromandel coast. Prior to this they had ports along the shores
this is what their possessions in 1744 looked like
The pre-eminent power in India at that time was the Maratha confederation
The Marathas had just ended a 150 year war with the Mughals and took over most of India except forthe extreme south (which was divided between the Keralites of Travancore and the Nizam of Hyderabad) and the northern portions
The problem is that the Marathas, unlike the centralized Mughals were highly de-centralized, a confederation with a number of autonomous lords
This is why the British and French could set up their own spheres of influence whereas under the Great Mughals they could not
Even in 1857 they hadn't conquered the entire continent of india but had most of the area under their influence
Note also that the "Delhi" that was burned was not the "New Delhi" of today. The city of greater Delhi in India today encompasses 7 prior cities -- the oldest, Hastinapur dating back to at least 1000 BC and the newest, "New Delhi" dating from the 1920s