Flocculencio
Donor
Britain also had superior technology to the Indians which was a definite boost.
Not particularly. As the other chap said their main advantage was organisational i.e. placing emphasis on drilled infantry who could advance into fire. Technology-wise, Indian armies often had heavier, more extensive and more sophisticated artillery batteries than their Company counterparts- the problem was that with the emphasis placed on artillery, the infantry tended to lack the training to stand under fire- simplistically this meant that Company infantry could advance into fire, scatter the enemy infantry and then take the powerful but now unprotected cannon.
Britain essentially took advantage of a sweet spot- earlier, Indian states had been able to play the British off against the French but the Napoleonic Wars cut off French contact with India. As a result the British had a clear playing field. At the time the concept of disciplined infantry in Indian armies tended to be limited to elite units. One suspects that given twenty or so years more of French presence in India, Indian armies might have been able to fully adopt this new doctrine. However, Britain found itself without a counterbalance early enough to dominate the subcontinent.