From: Charles Halász [Email him]

In Adrian Birkett's letter of the 31st, Mr. Birkett equates British violence against Indians in India to the British possibly using violence in retaking their small, island kingdom. I would actually equate the British rising up to expel their occupiers, and their enablers, to the Indians rising up to expel their occupiers.

The British, the English, Scots and Welsh, (the indigenous people of Great Britain), have every right to demand the return of their homeland to them. One would hope that could be accomplished peacefully, such as with monetary bribes to non-Europeans to leave the United Kingdom, but if it can not be accomplished peacefully why should the British become a hunted and despised minority in their tribal homeland without a fight? Should they allow it to become worse?

James Fulford writes: I agree with Mr. Halász, but would like to to demur slightly from the suggestion that Imperial Britain was evil  during the period known as the British Raj.

Broadly, and oversimplifying somewhat, the British were the Good Guys, and Indians (including Gandhi) were the Bad Guys.

You can read John Derbyshire 's   An Empire Like No Other on the subject.

Two numbers make this point—the British used force in what is always known as the "Amritsar Massacre" in which an outnumbered force of 90 Gurkha and Indian soldiers under a British officer killed 357 rioters. (The Imperial troops had rifles, the murderous rioters had clubs.) See Paul Johnson's defense of the British officer here.

In 1947, post-WWII Socialist Britain, feeling that such uses of force were evil, and unable to afford an empire, abandoned the Indian Subcontinent to its own devices. That resulted in up to two million deaths in the ensuing year. [The Great Divide | The violent legacy of Indian Partition, By William Dalrymple, New Yorker,  June 29, 2015]