The Declaration of Independence itself actually opens with an enumeration of the grievances against which the founders were revolting. Scanning over the list, you can see that a lot of it has to do with imposing laws/taxes/policies on the colonists without their consent or representation. Even with the harsh language they've applied, little of it really compares to the kind of violence seen in Africa and India. The Boston Massacre, probably the most infamous act of violence in the lead-up to the American revolution, killed five people. Compare that to, say, the Armritsar massacre in 1919 wherein several hundred or more were killed, and you can get a sense for how America's and India's struggles for independence don't quite compare.

Charles Beard and others have put forward the argument that the American revolution was more about protecting the economic interests of the American elite than anything else; any high-flying ideas about "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" were basically added as window dressing to help sell the idea. I'm not sure how well his argument fits into the currently accepted narrative, but it's certainly a version I've heard echoed in most of my exposure to the topic.

I'm not sure how well popular history is received here, but David McCullough's John Adams touches on all of this; John Adams was actually the defense attorney of the British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre, and was of course pretty well wrapped up in the events leading up to and following the Declaration. His book basically lays out the narrative that the British government was essentially tone deaf and ham-fisted when dealing with the American colonies; very little of what they did was quite "oppressive", but it was certainly heavy handed and ignorant of the lives and aspirations of most Americans.