More than 60 million Indians starved to death under British rule...

#1
let me clearify that the number 60 million is put out by British colonialists. it's based on British sources alone. there are no reliable accounts of how many people really died. I expect that number to be alot higher.

The British Empire was built on political and economic exploitation of non-British people.
They entirely plundered India's resources. All the wealth was shipped to Britain.

More then 40 recorded famines happened in the British Raj.
a total of 60 million people starved (British sources), during the first 30 years alone of British rule 22 million people starved, and between 1875-1900 another 26 million people starved again. :sick: thats 10times (or more) the number of the Holocaust.
Money was drained from the peasant to the landlord, making it impossible for the peasant to procure food. Money which should have been made available to the producers of food via public works projects and jobs was instead diverted to other uses. Money needed to combat famine was being diverted towards activities like paying for the British military effort.

even Churchill himself said: I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.

do they teach you this in British history books?
hypocrites...

 
Last edited:
Mar 2010
9,842
#2
Would these famines have happened without the British there???

YES


All these famines were caused by climatic conditions, of course the British and East Indian Companies made the situation worse, as had the Mughals before them.

The famines in British India, were never completly man made like those in Ireland or the Ukraine.

Famines had been occuring for thousands of years in India, the British were simply the first to accuratly record them.


Finally how are the British being Hyporcits????
 

clement

Ad Honorem
Jun 2011
2,141
California, USA
#4
To be fair, the British rule was a disaster for the economy of India, it is a well-known fact. It destroyed the urban textile production of India (which was very performant in the 18th century, more than in most European countries) and caused a quite unique phenomenon, a migration of people from the cities to the countryside. So yes, the British did make things much worse, but famines did occur in India before, just as in Europe well into the 18th or even, for some parts, 19th century.
 
#6
Would these famines have happened without the British there???

YES


All these famines were caused by climatic conditions, of course the British and East Indian Companies made the situation worse, as had the Mughals before them.

The famines in British India, were never completly man made like those in Ireland or the Ukraine.

Famines had been occuring for thousands of years in India, the British were simply the first to accuratly record them.


Finally how are the British being Hyporcits????
they were occuring in India but not on a scale like this...freaking 60 million people died if not more.
before British rule 18 recorded famines happened in a 800 years span, when the British ruled India for about 180 years, more then 40 happened! not to mention insane heavy taxation put on already poor starving Indians to maximize profit.
 
Last edited:
#7
To be fair, the British rule was a disaster for the economy of India, it is a well-known fact. It destroyed the urban textile production of India (which was very performant in the 18th century, more than in most European countries) and caused a quite unique phenomenon, a migration of people from the cities to the countryside. So yes, the British did make things much worse, but famines did occur in India before, just as in Europe well into the 18th or even, for some parts, 19th century.
the British...how can I put this...''raped'' India
 
Last edited:
#8
What did the British do to provide relief efforts to the colonial subjects during these times of famine? Surely they didnt turn away and not help?
I wouldn't be surprised if that's exactly what they did. In the case of the Great Famine in Ireland this was The Economist's editorial stance: "The [Economist] opposed the provision of aid to the Irish during the Great Famine. The Economist argued for laissez-faire policies, in which self-sufficiency, anti-protectionism and free trade, not food aid, were in the opinion of the magazine the key to helping the Irish live through the famine which killed approximately one million people."
 

Clodius

Ad Honorem
Jun 2011
2,701
#9
Sorry to disappoint you, Revolution, but Britain's abysmal conduct in its imperial phase is very well-known here. It won't take you very long at all to find many British history books that condemn our period of imperialism. Very few Brits are proud of our exploitative imperialistic past. If you're looking for "hypocrisy" on the part of modern British people on this front, you're not likely to find it.
 
#10
I wouldn't be surprised if that's exactly what they did. In the case of the Great Famine in Ireland this was The Economist's editorial stance: "The [Economist] opposed the provision of aid to the Irish during the Great Famine. The Economist argued for laissez-faire policies, in which self-sufficiency, anti-protectionism and free trade, not food aid, were in the opinion of the magazine the key to helping the Irish live through the famine which killed approximately one million people."
from wikipedia:
In 1845, [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire"]Ottoman[/ame] Sultan Abdülmecid declared his intention to send £10,000 to Irish farmers but [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Victoria"]Queen Victoria[/ame] requested that the Sultan send only £1,000, because she herself had sent only £2,000. The Sultan sent the £1,000 sterling but also secretly sent three ships full of food. The [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts_of_England_and_Wales"]English courts[/ame] tried to block the ships, but the food arrived at [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drogheda"]Drogheda[/ame] harbour and was left there by Ottoman sailors

I didnt knew trying to block ships full of food was going to help out starving Irish people...
 
Last edited: