"India? Much further along than Pakistan and its non-British governed neighbors. Serious decline in prosperity, freedom, and safety; massive increase in religious violence and resurgence of the caste system after the British pulled out.
"

You have no idea what you are speaking about. "serious decline in prosperity"? yeah right. If you can prove that you should get the next Nobel prize for economics.

No one in India wants the British back. While we have our problems, we are more prosperous , have less religious violence than when the British were here. (to be clear, we do have religious violence. I'd like data for "less", since you seem so confident). The British Raj was hardly some kind of genteel and benevolent rule. It was highly exploitative and highly repressive.

The Bengal Famine resulted in the deaths of 3 million people,largely due to British policy.

from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943)

"During the British rule in India there were approximately 25 major famines spread through states such as Tamil Nadu in South India, Bihar in the north, and Bengal in the east; altogether, between 30 and 40 million Indians were the victims of famines in the latter half of the 19th century (Bhatia 1985).

Though malnutrition and hunger remain widespread in India, there have been no famines since the end of the British rule in 1947 and the establishment of a democratic government."

Decline in prosperity? You have no idea, you arrogant idiot.

If you are arguing that the Germans, say, would have been worse than the British, I agree, but that isn't what you were saying.

You make two points. one, that all former British colonies has inevitably declined when the British ruled it is laughable when applied to India (it might be true when applied to some African countries that have since fallen into anarchy).

We have our problems sure, but we are way better off than under British rule.

"resurgence of the caste system" my ass. The caste system while still present and still harmful is way less powerful than in the period under British rule. You have no idea what you are speaking about.

Anothe point is that unlike Egypt (say, or even Hong Kong) we didn't move from British rule to more autocracy, but toward more freedom. Indians are more free today then ever under British rule.

The other point is "If I was alive in the times of the British Empire, I'm pretty sure I'd want to be under British rule."

Sure, if you were British. An independence movement (like the Indian Independence movement) by definition consists of people who lived during british rule and didn't want to. But by your logic all of them would have wanted to live under British rule forever. Millions of Indians sacrificed a great deal to kick the british out. They most certainly did not want to live under British rule and for good reason.

No one In India today yearns for life under British rule. I can see how someone in say, Sierra Leone, might.

Unlike you poring across your maps, I actually live here. My grandfather(still alive, just) has many horror stories about British rule. The British Raj was highly repressive and hated. We are glad they are gone and if they ever come back, I (a gentle hacker type and hardly some kind of uber patriot) would be the first to pick up a gun and fight to throw them out.

No one in India wants the British back. No one believes we would be better off under British rule today . No one here that is. But then you with your maps know better what we would like ;-).