The text below has something dead handy. An explanation of the strength of IPA and why, in an ideal world, it would have been cheaper. It concurs with a text about Indian brewing I quoted a couple of weeks ago. That said Light Bitter Beers were the most popular products of the breweries based in India.
The East Indian pale ale, or bitter beer, is now brewed in large quantities for the home market at Burton-on-Trent, London, Glasgow, and Leeds, but differs slightly from that exported, as being less bitter and more spirituous. It is brewed solely from the best and palest malts and the finest and most delicate hop, and much of its success depends on the care taken in selecting the best materials for its composition. It also requires the utmost care and attention at every stage of its progress to preserve the colour, taste, and other properties of this ale in their fulness and purity.
. . . .
"Ures' dictionary of arts, manufactures and mines, Volume 1" by Andrew Ure, 1867, page 306.
Let's summarise that. IPA brewed for the Indian market was brewed at around 1055. But that was purely for tax reasons. In an ideal world, it would have been considerably weaker, just 1042. But, as brewers wouldn't have received any tax refund on beer of that strength, they made it stronger. I'll say it once again: IPA was not a strong beer.
Pale Ale brewed for the British market was lightly different, being less bitter but more "spirituous", by which I assume he means containing more alcohol.
Pale Ale demanded the use of the very best quality ingredients to achieve the desired paleness of colour and delicate flavour. Which explains why it was stronger for its strength than every other beer.
I've just thrown in the last paragraph for fun. It's the story of how the pesky French tried to ruin the reputation of Pale Ale by claiming it was bittered with strychnine. A story so ludicrous, it's incredible that anyone ever took it seriously.