British empire killed 165 million Indians in 40 years: How colonialism inspired fascism

British empire killed 165 million Indians in 40 years:​

How colonialism inspired fascism​

A scholarly study found that British colonialism caused approximately 165 million deaths in India from 1880 to 1920, while stealing trillions of dollars of wealth. The global capitalist system was founded on European imperial genocides, which inspired Adolf Hitler and led to fascism.

By
Ben Norton
Published
2022-12-12

British colonialism caused at least 100 million deaths in India in roughly 40 years, according to an academic study.
And during nearly 200 years of colonialism, the British empire stole at least $45 trillion in wealth from India, a prominent economist has calculated.
The genocidal crimes committed by European empires outside of their borders inspired Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, leading to the rise of fascist regimes that carried out similar genocidal crimes within their borders.

Economic anthropologist Jason Hickel and his co-author Dylan Sullivan published an article in the respected academic journal World Development titled “Capitalism and extreme poverty: A global analysis of real wages, human height, and mortality since the long 16th century.”
In the report, the scholars estimated that India suffered 165 million excess deaths due to British colonialism between 1880 and 1920.
“This figure is larger than the combined number of deaths from both World Wars, including the Nazi holocaust,” they noted.
They added, “Indian life expectancy did not reach the level of early modern England (35.8 years) until 1950, after decolonization.”

Hickel and Sullivan summarized their research in an article in Al Jazeera, titled “How British colonialism killed 100 million Indians in 40 years.”
They explained:

According to research by the economic historian Robert C Allen, extreme poverty in India increased under British rule, from 23 percent in 1810 to more than 50 percent in the mid-20th century. Real wages declined during the British colonial period, reaching a nadir in the 19th century, while famines became more frequent and more deadly. Far from benefitting the Indian people, colonialism was a human tragedy with few parallels in recorded history.
Experts agree that the period from 1880 to 1920 – the height of Britain’s imperial power – was particularly devastating for India. Comprehensive population censuses carried out by the colonial regime beginning in the 1880s reveal that the death rate increased considerably during this period, from 37.2 deaths per 1,000 people in the 1880s to 44.2 in the 1910s. Life expectancy declined from 26.7 years to 21.9 years.
In a recent paper in the journal World Development, we used census data to estimate the number of people killed by British imperial policies during these four brutal decades. Robust data on mortality rates in India only exists from the 1880s. If we use this as the baseline for “normal” mortality, we find that some 50 million excess deaths occurred under the aegis of British colonialism during the period from 1891 to 1920.
Fifty million deaths is a staggering figure, and yet this is a conservative estimate. Data on real wages indicates that by 1880, living standards in colonial India had already declined dramatically from their previous levels. Allen and other scholars argue that prior to colonialism, Indian living standards may have been “on a par with the developing parts of Western Europe.” We do not know for sure what India’s pre-colonial mortality rate was, but if we assume it was similar to that of England in the 16th and 17th centuries (27.18 deaths per 1,000 people), we find that 165 million excess deaths occurred in India during the period from 1881 to 1920.
While the precise number of deaths is sensitive to the assumptions we make about baseline mortality, it is clear that somewhere in the vicinity of 100 million people died prematurely at the height of British colonialism. This is among the largest policy-induced mortality crises in human history. It is larger than the combined number of deaths that occurred during all famines in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and Mengistu’s Ethiopia.

This staggering figure does not include the tens of millions more Indians who died in human-made famines that were caused by the British empire.
In the notorious Bengal famine in 1943, an estimated 3 million Indians starved to death, while the British government exported food and banned grain imports.
Academic studies by scientists found that the 1943 Bengal famine was not a result of natural causes; it was the product of the policies of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.


Churchill himself was a notorious racist who stated, “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”
In the early 1930s, Churchill also admired Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and the Italian dictator who founded fascism, Benito Mussolini.
Churchill’s own scholarly supporters admitted that he “expressed admiration for Mussolini” and, “if forced to choose between Italian fascism and Italian communism, Churchill unhesitatingly would choose the former.”


Indian politician Shashi Tharoor, who served as an under-secretary general of the United Nations, has exhaustively documented the crimes of the British empire, particularly under Churchill.
“Churchill has as much blood on his hands as Hitler does,” Tharoor stressed. He pointed to “the decisions that he [Churchill] personally signed off during the Bengal famine, when 4.3 million people died because of the decisions he took or endorsed.”
Award-winning Indian economist Utsa Patnaik has estimated that the British empire drained $45 trillion of wealth from the Indian subcontinent.


In a 2018 interview with the Indian news website Mint, she explained:

Between 1765 and 1938, the drain amounted to £9.2 trillion (equal to $45 trillion), taking India’s export surplus earnings as the measure, and compounding it at a 5% rate of interest. Indians were never credited with their own gold and forex earnings. Instead, the local producers here were ‘paid’ the rupee equivalent out of the budget—something you’d never find in any independent country. The ‘drain’ varied between 26-36% of the central government budget. It would obviously have made an enormous difference if India’s huge international earnings had been retained within the country. India would have been far more developed, with much better health and social welfare indicators. There was virtually no increase in per capita income between 1900 and 1946, even though India registered the second largest export surplus earnings in the world for three decades before 1929.
Since all the earnings were taken by Britain, such stagnation is not surprising. Ordinary people died like flies owing to under-nutrition and disease. It is shocking that Indian expectation of life at birth was just 22 years in 1911. The most telling index, however, is food grain availability. Because the purchasing power of ordinary Indians was being squeezed by high taxes, the per capita annual consumption of food grains went down from 200kg in 1900 to 157kg on the eve of World War II, and further plummeted to 137kg by 1946. No country in the world today, not even the least developed, is anywhere near the position India was in 1946.

Patnaik emphasized:

The modern capitalist world would not exist without colonialism and the drain. During Britain’s industrial transition, 1780 to 1820, the drain from Asia and the West Indies combined was about 6 percent of Britain’s GDP, nearly the same as its own savings rate. After the mid-19th century, Britain was running current account deficits with Continental Europe and North America, and at the same time, it was investing massively in these regions, which meant running capital account deficits too. The two deficits summed to large and rising balance of payments (BoP) deficits with these regions.
How was it possible for Britain to export so much capital—which went into building railways, roads and factories in the U.S. and continental Europe? Its BoP deficits with these regions were being settled by appropriating the financial gold and forex earned by the colonies, especially India. Every unusual expense like war was also put on the Indian budget, and whatever India was not able to meet through its annual exchange earnings was shown as its indebtedness, on which interest accumulated.

In this article:Britain, capitalism, colonialism, famine, fascism, genocide, India, Shashi Tharoor, UK, United Kingdom, Utsa Patnaik, Winston Churchill

 

[indushek]

Isn't that a description, a precise and clinically correct description of the Sangh Parivar, using warped theories and histories written by anybody but an historian?

Of course, did you see me writing they are free of this guilt? Congress sided with minorities, BJP took the leftovers. Every one is guilty in this, and everyone has acted on a agenda.

Why does it always end up as Sangh vs others, if a Hindu ever asks questions? Does a Hindu has to default be bandied with Sangh?

You haven't either defined how history was used as a whore, or the truth, as you see it, other than throwing out dark hints about the truth not being cared for.

I will have to get back on this, need to collect my thoughts before I give the particular examples I have on mind. Give me a day.

 

[Joe Shearer]

When I say Hindus have been beaten into corner, I talk about all of its sub groups and not just Brahmins (why do they need to be singled out? now are you singling them out?).

No, that is subterfuge.

I am married to a Brahmin, my only child is married to a Brahmin, and none of us has anything but a sceptical attitude about the oppression for which Brahmins are responsible, on a continuing basis. The day a Telugu Brahmin allows his house to be taken on rent without gently pointing out that he is willing to rent it out only to those who do an alpana every morning you can tell me that criticism of Brahmins is too narrow a focus.

It is subterfuge because the oppressive castes are merely led by Brahmin ideology, they are financed by the Bania and the strong arm men are the OBCs. We are all aware of these realities, and getting mealy-mouthed about it will not transmute day to day reality into something else.

I am talking about the narrative here, where the religion has been demonized enough. Any discourse on Hindus starts with caste system, or some other dirt or bad things that happened.

My blunt question is - how does it matter?

Every single bloody police report on a communal riot starts with some action by an individual Muslim or a group of Muslims that 'hurt the feelings and emotions of the Hindus'. Which Hindus? Individuals? Groups? How did they form a group, instantly? Why were they hurt? A hundred year old ritual of blowing smoke as a blessing through an open doorway towards a Hindu idol becomes a casus belli, and then we are told that the Hindus are being demonised!

What does demonise mean? Anything? Nothing? Just a feeling hurt, an emotion hurt?

See what you are doing here, is putting me in a box. You are basically saying that, anyone who talks of what I just said has to be a Sanghi (even though I mentioned many times, that I have no affiliation or even basic understanding of that lot. I only see them as a group, who went from ideologues to power brokers. Everybody does it, so why shouldn't they? as long as its democratic)

All right.

My issue is with the statements you made, the insinuations you made, the allusions you made. I have no idea of who you are, or what your family stands for, and it is not about you, it is about your views.

Let us start with the proposition that you are NOT a Sanghi.

 

[Joe Shearer]

On one hand, you say that there is no relevance in present of past right?

Right.

I am sure you mean the Muslim question which involves invasions, conversions or temple destructions that happened etc which gets peddled by BJP or Sangh?

No, I meant the Hindu past, the Muslim past, the British past.

Remember the title of this thread.

@The Eagle

We have not thanked you enough.

However why is the Hindu not given the same leeway? Why is Caste system, or past dirt always brought up to say that your ancestors did this in the past? Why is the present day Hindu beaten down, with something that happened in the Past?

Where is it brought up, in any practical way?

Are we obstructed? Is our education stopped, or hampered? Do we have entire HR departments reluctant to consider a Hindu name, the way they refuse to look at Muslim names? Do we face difficulties in getting credit cards? Do we face a daily diatribe, daily threats from parties ruling in Parliament?

What beating down are we talking about?

Please tell me something that can be compared remotely to what happens to Muslims.

 

[Joe Shearer]

So this is not hypocrisy right? I certainly read what I posted

If your proposition is that Hindus face disabilities in daily life, it is hypocrisy.

There is NOTHING that a Hindu faces in daily life that is remotely in the same class.

Forget about the BIMARU states.

Here, in Hyderabad, my sister said that she had taken friends - visitors - through the old city late at night, with a perfect feeling of security and safety. The old city in Hyderabad has a bad reputation among the timorous from other states.

Now, can a hijab-clad young girl walk around with equal safety in all parts of Bengaluru, or Mangalore?

Does it matter if I objected or for that matter entire India objected? What sort of analogy is that, are you saying me or you or even India objecting would have stopped the superpower of world from this dastardly Invasion? Which was premised on total lie? Or are you thinking I am supporting it?

Besides I don't think America invaded Iraq to spread God's word, if am not wrong?

Let us finish off India first, then destroy other countries.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Congress sided with minorities, BJP took the leftovers.

I contest this.

It was people within the Congress who fomented soft Hindutva. It was Rajiv Gandhi who allowed the infant idol to be sneaked into the Babri Masjid by breaking open the locked mosque doors in a clandestine manner. It was Narasimha Rao who colluded to let that traitor Advani lead a mob to destroy the masjid.

That facile explanation will not do. It was not a question of the Sangh Parivar perforce taking the leftovers. It had been their systematic work from 1920 onwards; they failed, in the face of Gandhi's credibility with the masses, and it was their frustration at this that led to Gandhi's assassination. They worked steadily on destroying that secular consensus from 1947 to 2014, ignoring Vajpayee's brief honeymoon.

There was nothing fortuitous about the BJP cultivating the super-Hindu segment, the caste Hindus plus the Dalit, plus the tribal, plus the Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains. That was their segment all along. Exactly as the Muslim League did earlier with the Muslims, the BJP is seeking to do with the super-Hindu, lay claim to being the sole spokesman for them.

I will have to get back on this, need to collect my thoughts before I give the particular examples I have on mind. Give me a day.

Please take your time.

My basic proposition is simple.

There is nothing that a Hindu can see, or feel, in daily life, that can possibly lead to feelings of victimhood.

There is nothing in the way that we have been presented in history texts that should lead to feelings of victimhood.

There is nothing that the Muslim has received at the hands of leftist (=Communist), liberal or secular historians that put them on a pedestal.

There is nothing, similarly, that was airbrushed about the period during which various Muslim dynasties ruled in different parts of India. All is known, and all is clear.

 

[surmabhopali]

British empire killed 165 million Indians in 40 years:​

How colonialism inspired fascism​

A scholarly study found that British colonialism caused approximately 165 million deaths in India from 1880 to 1920, while stealing trillions of dollars of wealth. The global capitalist system was founded on European imperial genocides, which inspired Adolf Hitler and led to fascism.

By
Ben Norton
Published
2022-12-12

British colonialism caused at least 100 million deaths in India in roughly 40 years, according to an academic study.
And during nearly 200 years of colonialism, the British empire stole at least $45 trillion in wealth from India, a prominent economist has calculated.
The genocidal crimes committed by European empires outside of their borders inspired Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, leading to the rise of fascist regimes that carried out similar genocidal crimes within their borders.

Economic anthropologist Jason Hickel and his co-author Dylan Sullivan published an article in the respected academic journal World Development titled “Capitalism and extreme poverty: A global analysis of real wages, human height, and mortality since the long 16th century.”
In the report, the scholars estimated that India suffered 165 million excess deaths due to British colonialism between 1880 and 1920.
“This figure is larger than the combined number of deaths from both World Wars, including the Nazi holocaust,” they noted.
They added, “Indian life expectancy did not reach the level of early modern England (35.8 years) until 1950, after decolonization.”

Hickel and Sullivan summarized their research in an article in Al Jazeera, titled “How British colonialism killed 100 million Indians in 40 years.”
They explained:



This staggering figure does not include the tens of millions more Indians who died in human-made famines that were caused by the British empire.
In the notorious Bengal famine in 1943, an estimated 3 million Indians starved to death, while the British government exported food and banned grain imports.
Academic studies by scientists found that the 1943 Bengal famine was not a result of natural causes; it was the product of the policies of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.


Churchill himself was a notorious racist who stated, “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”
In the early 1930s, Churchill also admired Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and the Italian dictator who founded fascism, Benito Mussolini.
Churchill’s own scholarly supporters admitted that he “expressed admiration for Mussolini” and, “if forced to choose between Italian fascism and Italian communism, Churchill unhesitatingly would choose the former.”


Indian politician Shashi Tharoor, who served as an under-secretary general of the United Nations, has exhaustively documented the crimes of the British empire, particularly under Churchill.
“Churchill has as much blood on his hands as Hitler does,” Tharoor stressed. He pointed to “the decisions that he [Churchill] personally signed off during the Bengal famine, when 4.3 million people died because of the decisions he took or endorsed.”
Award-winning Indian economist Utsa Patnaik has estimated that the British empire drained $45 trillion of wealth from the Indian subcontinent.


In a 2018 interview with the Indian news website Mint, she explained:

Patnaik emphasized:

In this article:Britain, capitalism, colonialism, famine, fascism, genocide, India, Shashi Tharoor, UK, United Kingdom, Utsa Patnaik, Winston Churchill

We are thankful and indebted to the pakistanis who ruled us for 1000 years ( md bin kasim, md ghaznavi , mughals like Aurangjeb , congressi jawahar lal khan ,indira khan and rahul khan gandhi , communist , socialist mulayam khan yadav and akhilesh khan yadav , khatun mamta banergy , priyanka khan ) , they gave us schools , modern education , local self govt , modern education , hospitals . This modern things they brought from ghazni , kabul , balkh , bukhara , .

 

[indushek]

Read F. E. Pargiter, who reconciled the king lists of the Puranas, a diverse number of those, with the available chronology.


Again, your inability to remember anything other than the Khalji and Tughlaq sultanates means nothing.

Gujarat was covered in detail; Jaunpur was covered in detail; Malwa was covered in detail.

Would you like a reading list, that will help you understand that everything was covered exhaustively?

In the Deccan itself, not only were the Rastrakutas dealt with, but also the Kakatiyas - guess where they ruled? So, too, for the Satavahanas, and their clashes with the Western Satrapies, or the later Chalukyas, then the variations ranging down to Sewell's account of Vijaynagar.

I could go on like this, but it is terrible to be confronted by someone equating his personal ignorance with some deep-laid conspiracy to obscure Indian history.


Where is it even today? Can you name a single history of Assam, covering the 600 year rule of the Ahoms?

I can. Those who read history all can.

Took me time due to real life, but my further responses continue from here.

Read the post you happily gave a negative rating, just mentioning it so that you don't confuse which post am referring to.

You keep posting all these references, how many people have the time to go and read so many history books. I mentioned the text books kids read in formative years, which can't be skipped. The explanation of why text books are Delhi centric, has been talked in debates so many times before.

Am from South so yeah I do know these dynasties, as I naturally will be interested more in them. The point I made was that, certain sections of history were given more weightage, and was called nation building.

Isn't that exactly what am saying, when you say where is it even today? Why isn't Ahom history taught in text books? Or are you saying by quoting so many references here, that one should only have an opinion only when they have read thousand books Joe?

Please don't tell me that, you feel who don't read extensively can never have an opinion. That is very snobbish attitude.

 

[indushek]

Where is it even today? Can you name a single history of Assam, covering the 600 year rule of the Ahoms?

I can. Those who read history all can.

Extensively.

If you want the classics, we all depended on Nilakanta Shastri. There was then no one to challenge him.

Since then, he has been overtaken by Karashima. If you read that compilation and find something missing, you should apply immediately to Jyotirmoy Sharma at the University of Hyderabad and enrol as a PhD scholar.


What does that verbiage even mean? Locals? Who are these locals? The Lodi dynasty? or the Suris? Or were the tussles between Khalji and Tughlaq not covered in sufficient detail?

I mention only Delhi-centric matters, since you seem to have no information about any happenings outside that region.

Was your remark a delicate allusion to Hindus being defeated continuously?

If so, you need to go back to 535 BC, when the non-Hindu Zoroastrian Achaemenids came into the north-west, and formed the three provinces of Gandhara, Hindush and Sattagydian. From then on, continuously, until the departure of the Huns, there were attacks by non-Hindus in the north and north-west, with some relative peace from the Deccan southwards.

Now we are getting deeper into references, I am not even sure I can get hands on one book leave aside more, given my time availability to come back and respond to you.

No am not alluding to Hindus being defeated, if they are it is what it is. There is no point in beating around bush, and I don't give a shit. If you aren't capable enough, you lose to the better one.

All am saying is that, the history in India has been politicized. Those in rule presented the parts they wanted to, and the other side is presenting their version.

You are right, and one day, when my mood is right, I will take the time to explain that the Hindutva character and personality is constituted of two psychological syndromes, and what they are.


Do you mean that temple destruction should have been an historical focus?

Seriously?


Every single aspect has been dealt with, and it is a question of knowing what to read.

The rest is hand-waving by the ignorant, the utterly ignorant.


As I said, I was not Sanjaya, going back in time across millennia and seeing with a mystic vision what happened. Everything that I quote and write about is something that I have read in a text.

There are, for instance, brilliant reconstructions of Bengali culture by Kumkum Chatterjee, who died tragically early, based on the analysis of Mangalkavyas; the work done on educational systems in the Punjab before the East India Company by Chhanda Chattopadhyaya; the analysis, again surpassing brilliant, by Jawhar Sircar, whom I personally disliked, but whose startling analysis converted me into a fan, of the demographics of western Bengal that made a partition a possibility, and even a desired situation.

Where do you want to go?

It is only the ignorance of the trained (not educated) classes with excess income, and a need to find their own identity - the desperation of the Desi Loser - that drives this frenzy of distorted history writing on social media.

Wait so the example I could remember becomes the focal point now, that am mentioning as points that are excluded. Didn't I mention the North East history even before these two, as example of history being selectively included?

Oh so questioning becomes frenzy and makes one a Desi Loser, right.

 

[indushek]

**** your talk of reconciliation.

The audacity of it all, after continued oppression and endogamous tyranny from 800 AD onwards, when the genetics betray how the Dalit were frozen into their narrow sliver of space in Indian society, to talk about reconciliation.

How will you reconcile with the Dalit? I can insult you immediately by suggesting ways, but that would mean stooping to the level of creepy people like Sai Deepak.


It is not about admission; that ship has sailed. It is about compensation, about correction. Here you need to enquire with @SoulSpokesman, for reasons that he will be better equipped to tell you.

This exactly this, is what I was pointing at. See your selective outrage? I guess not, because you are the paragon of unbiased feelings ehh?

Say it loud, don't hold back.. I know exactly what you have on mind. Have the guts to say it.

Totally and fully disappointed in you

If this is what it is, then expect same from other side you expect to compensate. What you just said basically is that, as long as people like you (and I mean the ideology to be damn clear, as I don't like getting personal just because this is internet, unless the person opposite is worth it) are around, you will not let any reconciliation happen.

You basically are saying that, irrespective of what the present generations feels or does, they will always be perpetrators. Then like you said, **** reconciliation as it means shit.

 

[indushek]

No, that is subterfuge.

I am married to a Brahmin, my only child is married to a Brahmin, and none of us has anything but a sceptical attitude about the oppression for which Brahmins are responsible, on a continuing basis. The day a Telugu Brahmin allows his house to be taken on rent without gently pointing out that he is willing to rent it out only to those who do an alpana every morning you can tell me that criticism of Brahmins is too narrow a focus.

It is subterfuge because the oppressive castes are merely led by Brahmin ideology, they are financed by the Bania and the strong arm men are the OBCs. We are all aware of these realities, and getting mealy-mouthed about it will not transmute day to day reality into something else.


My blunt question is - how does it matter?

Every single bloody police report on a communal riot starts with some action by an individual Muslim or a group of Muslims that 'hurt the feelings and emotions of the Hindus'. Which Hindus? Individuals? Groups? How did they form a group, instantly? Why were they hurt? A hundred year old ritual of blowing smoke as a blessing through an open doorway towards a Hindu idol becomes a casus belli, and then we are told that the Hindus are being demonised!

What does demonise mean? Anything? Nothing? Just a feeling hurt, an emotion hurt?


All right.

My issue is with the statements you made, the insinuations you made, the allusions you made. I have no idea of who you are, or what your family stands for, and it is not about you, it is about your views.

Let us start with the proposition that you are NOT a Sanghi.

Oh please am a Brahmin myself, and you are telling me, this happens in Hyderabad of all places? I am from a different town in Andhra, I haven't seen this happen there and you are telling me this occurs in 2023 Hyderabad?

I have three best buddies and none of them are Brahmins, and we as bachelors have lived in both Brahmin owner's house and Non Brahmin owner's house. This am talking almost a decade more back, and even then fresh from town to Hyderabad we were never asked about caste.

Ok so you are aiming at Brahmins clearly then, and ask how does it matter? So you are allowed to make these vast generalizations and ask how does it matter? Is everyone of Brahmins if you want to aim at, feel the same? Are conniving to bring down all other groups, WTF kind of talk is this? You are allowed to generalize one group, and present them as some monsters whose life aim is to oppress others.

Then in same breath talk about police reports against Muslims, how many reports have your read and covered? Are you a total authority what has happened in past 75 years in India? Are you telling me that, Muslims have never done anything against Hindus in these communal riots? How are you so sure ?

What does demonize mean? You have no idea? How exactly do you expect Brahmins, leave aside all other groups (as you have clearly aimed now openly, that this is the group which runs Illuminati group and holds IP rights to oppression) generation after generation to react or behave? Don't be squeamish, I can take it and will be interesting to see the hatred you have for a Brahmin.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You keep posting all these references, how many people have the time to go and read so many history books. I mentioned the text books kids read in formative years, which can't be skipped. The explanation of why text books are Delhi centric, has been talked in debates so many times before.

So the argument, as of this post, stands like this.

We don't get the time to read, and the only history we have read is patchy. So the writing and teaching of history is patchy. Asking us to read systematically is unfair. We should be allowed to read what we want - and watch on YouTube what we want - and should be allowed to form opinions about history practice based on that.

Am from South so yeah I do know these dynasties, as I naturally will be interested more in them. The point I made was that, certain sections of history were given more weightage, and was called nation building.

I have never, in the past 60+ years of study, at primary, secondary, tertiary and further levels, come across anything that was called nation-building or was intended to be nation-building that I was aware of.

It is difficult for me to respond to a mythical situation.

Isn't that exactly what am saying, when you say where is it even today? Why isn't Ahom history taught in text books?

If you check, there IS no coherent and systematic study of the Ahoms in text book form, as there has been no coherent and systematic historical analysis of that period that is accessible to laymen. Is this not the responsibility of the universities? It was Calcutta University that defined the study of history as consisting of eight papers, three on Indian History with special emphasis on the History of Bengal. Whose responsibility should it be to ensure Ahom history availability for study? The University of Hyderabad? Osmania?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Now we are getting deeper into references, I am not even sure I can get hands on one book leave aside more, given my time availability to come back and respond to you.

So this is the essential problem that the profession faces when attacked by Sanghis, or by those, such as yourself, that have accepted those Sanghi attacks as essentially true.

There is nothing tangible that is put up.

The accounts that we read, in print, in video form, or on the Internet, are hilarious. We have Modi talking about Alexander at Patna; we have totally manufactured symbolism used to prop up a false narrative while inaugurating the vastu-compliant new shape of the Indian Parliament; we have a deranged sociology teacher insisting that Urdu was invented by the Mughals when it was in existence four hundred years before them; we have post-doctoral scholars in musical history manufacturing a Hindutva icon out of thin air.

Do you want a detailed analysis of the distory - the distorted history manufactured by Elst, by Frawley, by Danino and their like? It can be done, but needs to be a separate exercise.

No am not alluding to Hindus being defeated, if they are it is what it is. There is no point in beating around bush, and I don't give a shit. If you aren't capable enough, you lose to the better one.

This is behind every single reference in police reports to '...the feelings of the Hindus were hurt, and a riot ensued.'

All am saying is that, the history in India has been politicized. Those in rule presented the parts they wanted to, and the other side is presenting their version.

Yes, that is how this discussion started.

You made this statement before; you are making this statement again.

What facts have emerged between these two events, that justify the statement?

Wait so the example I could remember becomes the focal point now, that am mentioning as points that are excluded. Didn't I mention the North East history even before these two, as example of history being selectively included?

Oh so questioning becomes frenzy and makes one a Desi Loser, right.

I have given my reasoning and analysis in detail.

Please feel free to criticise those.

However, it is difficult to deal with opposition framed as a question in response to q question.

The history of the north-east is something I have dealt with at least twice in responses to you, and it should have vanished by now.

 

[Joe Shearer]

This exactly this, is what I was pointing at. See your selective outrage? I guess not, because you are the paragon of unbiased feelings ehh?

Say it loud, don't hold back.. I know exactly what you have on mind. Have the guts to say it.

Totally and fully disappointed in you

If this is what it is, then expect same from other side you expect to compensate. What you just said basically is that, as long as people like you (and I mean the ideology to be damn clear, as I don't like getting personal just because this is internet, unless the person opposite is worth it) are around, you will not let any reconciliation happen.

You basically are saying that, irrespective of what the present generations feels or does, they will always be perpetrators. Then like you said, **** reconciliation as it means shit.

In effect you are saying that there will be something, but cannot say what that is.

It is this kind of shallow attempt at reconciliation - shallow because based entirely on paying lip-service to a duty, and active and dogged resistance in daily life to that duty being executed - that makes it clear that voluntary reconciliation will not happen.

Oh please am a Brahmin myself, and you are telling me, this happens in Hyderabad of all places? I am from a different town in Andhra, I haven't seen this happen there and you are telling me this occurs in 2023 Hyderabad?

It has happened to me personally.

I have three best buddies and none of them are Brahmins, and we as bachelors have lived in both Brahmin owner's house and Non Brahmin owner's house. This am talking almost a decade more back, and even then fresh from town to Hyderabad we were never asked about caste.

Incidentally I live as a tenant of a Sastri today. The example given was a real-life one, and happens all the time, and every time I looked for a house, in a number of instances, it has happened.

That, though I am a high-caste Hindu.

Would you like to hear the real life stories of a Muslim wife of a gentleman named Jonnalagada? The contrast between Z***** looking for a flat and Mrs. J looking for a flat?

Ok so you are aiming at Brahmins clearly then, and ask how does it matter? So you are allowed to make these vast generalizations and ask how does it matter? Is everyone of Brahmins if you want to aim at, feel the same? Are conniving to bring down all other groups, WTF kind of talk is this? You are allowed to generalize one group, and present them as some monsters whose life aim is to oppress others.

That is imprecise.

It involves prejudiced Brahmins, prejudiced Banias (read the history of the Gita Press), and prejudiced Thakurs, Gujjars, Jats and Yadavs. It also involves a wide range of OBCs who act as grunts with no concrete grievance against Muslims, and only the titillation of mob action.

As for condemning Brahmins without differentiation, you failed to notice that my examples are taken from the reports and research of, among others, Brahmins. It is the bigots among them that are to be feared.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Then in same breath talk about police reports against Muslims, how many reports have your read and covered? Are you a total authority what has happened in past 75 years in India? Are you telling me that, Muslims have never done anything against Hindus in these communal riots? How are you so sure ?

I can only point you to published research, knowing very well that your questions are rhetorical questions made in bad faith, with no intention of examining the premises to convince yourself either way. You don't want to know the answers, you only want to cloak yourself in outrage.

What does demonize mean? You have no idea? How exactly do you expect Brahmins, leave aside all other groups (as you have clearly aimed now openly, that this is the group which runs Illuminati group and holds IP rights to oppression) generation after generation to react or behave? Don't be squeamish, I can take it and will be interesting to see the hatred you have for a Brahmin.

Then look within, look at your friends and relatives, look at the behaviour of groups, not merely at individuals who have risen above these due to superior character and intellect. The examples are readily at hand; it is for you to open your eyes and look at them, or to make a hurried defence and slip away.

This is the Internet, after all.

Who will hold you accountable?

 

[JohnyD]

Joe and Indu killed more than British