it's somewhat accurate, but the author has a pretty heavy bias towards the British and pretty wide generalizations of India. For example, the Battle of Cochin, which he mentions, was in Southern India. The Mughal Empire in northern India was much stronger and more advanced than any southern Indian kingdoms, so the Battle of Cochin is not really relevant to the entire subcontinent.

The British were not that far ahead of the more advanced kingdoms in India, the only reason they were able to conquer India is because the Mughal Empire had declined to having nothing but symbolic rule over India. So it was a period of disarray with the most powerful empire in India collapsing, and the British saw it as an opportune moment to seize control of India's vast wealth and resources.

It also neglects to mention the massive famines that were exacerbated by British rule. Imagine the "aliens" forcing human farmers to grow sunflowers because they think they're pretty and then when a food shortage comes around, millions starve because they've got nothing but sunflowers.(in reality it was Indigo that the British demanded) It wasn't all technology and wealth from the British.

Like any analogy it is over-simplified and tends to favour one side. It compares the poorest people in India to the richest people in the UK, not exactly a fair comparison. Though the point about India being split into factions like USA vs China is fairly accurate, and the description of Gandhi is also somewhat accurate.