I confess I've not read the book, it's somewhere on my list though.

I think the reasons we see lots of people from the subcontinent come to the UK has a lot to do with our Empire, but little to do with how good or bad it was. I think it had much more to do with what was offered at the time of immigration. While immigrants will not be immune to our history, I suspect they judge us much more on what we have to offer in the here an now. If I think of emigrating to Germany (some slight relevance to the article here!) I make my judgement primarily on how I see it now, with only slight colour from the past. To my mind the most obvious reasons for post war immigration were:

Many Indians received a UK style education, and especially, learnt English. We needed cheap workers and actively encouraged immigration. We had a much higher relative wealth, offering high wages. No visas were needed for commonwealth citizens. And yes, there was glamour in coming to the source of empire.

Lets consider the Caribbean, where the surviving population were pretty much only there due to the slave trade, which was abominable. This would suggest that people don't come to the UK from the Caribbean because of the (objective) goodness of the empire. However, I will concede that there are many beneficiaries (or victims, depending on your perspective) of the Empire, who definitely hold it in high regard. Clearly it had different effects on different people.

My experience comes from Sri Lanka, not India. There I see some of the consequences of Empire. Among them are: democracy, bureaucracy, an ailing (but still useful) rail system, and (arguably) a civil war. Despite a spending a not inconsiderable time there, I still cannot decide whether Lanka would be better off with or without the British. The fact we only arrived in Sri Lanka after the Dutch, and were probably significantly more decent occupiers stands in our favour. But then, as victors, we also wrote the history and educated the Sri Lankans on the topic of our goodness!

As for our decision to stand and fight in WW2. I agree, this was noble and right. However, I also believe it was in our interests to do so, and thus should not be overplayed as representing the inherent goodness of our empire.

Now some Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and Christians have been at each others throats for time immemorial. Christians were once among the worst offenders, English ones included. It's immeasurably sad whenever religion is used to still hatred. I do think it's wrong. BUT, it's not happening simply because we're not there. Indeed (and truly this is not an excuse for such violence) such Christians as are there were probably converted by the British in the first place. Our actions have long consequences.

Ahh.. thanks to the internet I've found the Lytton quote I was looking for:

Let the British public foot the bill for its 'cheap sentiment,' if it wished to save life at a cost that would bankrupt India," substantively ordering "there is to be no interference of any kind on the part of Government with the object of reducing the price of food," and instructing district officers to "discourage relief works in every possible way…. Mere distress is not a sufficient reason for opening a relief work.

This was his response to (British) calls to provide aid to millions dying of famine. A response that was within his means. Good and kindly?

The point I want to keep repeating is that I like the Empire; I think it was good and kindly. So often, people glibly assume that it was just like Hitler's Third Reich or the Japanese Co Prosperity Sphere. It most certainly was not. Even the French and Russians and Spanish and Portuguese and Dutch came a poor second to us as Empire builders.

The other thing is, I am afraid, that, now we are gone, Christianity is coming under (word left out) attack from the Hindus. Apparently in Eastern India, villages have been wiped out because they are Christian. (Vatican Website today). Hindus wiped out Buddhism. It would be a shame if they did the same to Christianity. Even Liberals must agree that this is wrong.

Clearly, there are some who'd find the 'couple of hundred years of civilization' offensive or bizarre when talking about a country that had many of the trappings of civilisation long before the UK. Which was really my point. It's worth reflecting on the relatively short duration of our own current period of 'civilisation', especially as regards some of the thinks many now hold dear, such as universal suffrage (1918/28) and relative peace.

Certainly, we may have improved many things in India, but can we say where she would be today, without our influence? I'm not sure where a comparison of India vs China gets one. There are so many other variables to consider. Is one really better than the other, and can one really trace the differences to British influence, or does it have more to do with rather unpredictable events resulting in (eg) the rise of communism?

Of course, this is all rather off topic, my initial thought on reading the initial article and the responses to it, was how easy we find it to make firm judgements about things upon which there can be no firm judgements.

Germany was able to get the EU to "recognise" the Bosnian & Croatian regimes (led by unrepentent ex-Nazis) & thus deliberately start a series of (words left out) wars against a neighbour whose "territorial integrity & unity" we have all guaranteed to respect, under the Helsinki Treaty. I thus think it is difficult to suggest Germany, without the EU, would have followed a different & less aggressive policy, though perhaps they would have been less successful in eviscerating our wartime ally without EU & NATO help.

The fact that various conditions (such as already well stated by Arthur) were necessary for the formation of the EU, does not logically mean that it cannot now have a stabilising effect. Indeed it is easy to think of many reasons why closer union may help prevent war, for instance, the increased mixing of peoples and cultures that has coincided with the development of the EU (note, not simply due to, but probably aided by), make it much more difficult to demonise those of other nationalities and promote nationalist fervour. Even with careful analysis, to claim that one can really (for pro or anti EU reasons) determine the exact extent of its influences, and especially to do so in such black and white fashion is hubris.

Ah and special kudos to Mike Stallard for some random rantings..
'lndia is a lot better, having had a couple of hundred years of civilization' – really, I had no idea that civilisation in India started only 200 years ago.
'Even South America is going mad – Chavez?' Is that a reference to the notoriously fair and stable South America of the past?