"You might want to edit some portions of the Wikipedia article on India; it tries to give the impression that there has been more violence and trouble since the end of colonial rule. "

This is the WIkipedia link on post Independence India. http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/History_of_the_Republic_of_India

Which part gives you the idea that there was more violence in India than under British rule? There was massive violence just after Partition (partly during British rule and partly after Independence). The resulting hostility with Pakistan has given us three wars and a couple of insurgencies. As the world is beginning to find out these days, Pakistan is a haven for all kinds of interesting people and ideologies.

Sure there was and is violence (of all kinds) in India after Independence.

No one claims that all parts of India were or are oases of peace and calm all the time. But they weren't under British rule either! India is a very diverse and unevenly developed country. When violence happens the government (like all governments elsewhere) tamps it down.

Also I am not dismissing the influence of British institutions like Parliament. I am disputing the idea that we are worse off today than we were under British rule (as lionhearted tried to claim, based on some poring over maps or whatever). This is a completely laughable claim, to anyone who lives here.

If India is a "special case" for whatever reasons, say so. Don't make ridiculous claims (like lionhearted did) that we "declined" since independence. You have no idea. Ask someone who lives in India what they think of this idea.