The Bengal Famine: How the British engineered the worst genocide in human history for profit

[Gibbs]

My son, just look at any historical map from when the British arrived. Perhaps in Shit Lanka they don't teach history so you will need to self educate yourself I'm afraid faggot

Lol.. First of all a false flagged cock sucker cannot afford to call anybody "son" .. And be careful when you mention shit.. Cos the whole world know who is synonymous with shit.. .

I guess you're days are numbered here anyway pooftah.. The Mods are specially strict on veggie farts with false flags

So what mountbatten simply said to the princesly states to fuk off you are on your own. But it was Patel who had to coerce them into joining the union. Even resorting to military action as in the case of Junagadh and Hyderabad.
Not only the political integration but establishing a new constitution, division of state on linguistic lines, distribution of power in a federal structure these were herculean task . India is far more diverse and populous compared to even europe, to run a functional democracy when many of neighbours fell to autocratic dictatorship is no mean task.
Look at Sri lanka for example you have only 2 main ethnic groups the Sinhalese and Tamils and still you had bloody civil war for 3 decades. India being home to so many ethnic groups from many caste creed and religion is still intact and thriving is a testament to our visionary founding fathers.

I never disputed the fact that India remains what it is today because of the architect's of the independence.. To call them founding fathers is a misconception.. They made a strong constitution to pacfy various groups and keep them in the union through enough devolution and strong central govts and armed forces.. The nation that the Brits handed over to them.. That's a fact

And you're completely right thats one aspect post independence leaders of Ceylon failed miserably.. Nation building

But it is also a fact remains India what it is today is a creation of the British and will remain so

 

[dray]

But it is also a fact remains India what it is today is a creation of the British and will remain so

It was just that British were present in India when people of India were forming political parties and moving from monarchies to modern nation state just like most parts of the world, that change was the demand of the time. Countries that were not under British colonial rule also transformed into nation states with changing times, and then there are countries that were under British colonial rule but failed to build nation states with strong political base.

 

[Luca1]

Rubbish... When we invented number system and zero, we weren't under British occupation. When we built a civilization with 25% of world's GDP, we weren't under british occupation. When Asoka built his empire from present Afghanistan to Burma, there were no british. The only thing british gave us was death and destruction.

Britain gave India a nation, a government system, a language to unify India, cricket, etc... India should be thankful.

So what mountbatten simply said to the princesly states to fuk off you are on your own. But it was Patel who had to coerce them into joining the union. Even resorting to military action as in the case of Junagadh and Hyderabad.
Not only the political integration but establishing a new constitution, division of state on linguistic lines, distribution of power in a federal structure these were herculean task . India is far more diverse and populous compared to even europe, to run a functional democracy when many of neighbours fell to autocratic dictatorship is no mean task.
Look at Sri lanka for example you have only 2 main ethnic groups the Sinhalese and Tamils and still you had bloody civil war for 3 decades. India being home to so many ethnic groups from many caste creed and religion is still intact and thriving is a testament to our visionary founding fathers.

India is unnaturally forged together by the British. If India wants true independence, it need to revert itself back to itself before British arrival.

In 1750's, India's share of World Economy was 23%. The question is, why did it reduced drastically reduced to 4% when it left India during 1940's. This figure wasnt quoted by us. But by a British Universities.

And ya, as for the small kingdoms, independence etc every country was like the same during such times. We might have been living under the Mughals or the Marathas under a single entity if not for British. (However it may or may not be). When the British gained India, Marathas were the dominant force with nearly 60% of the country. If not for British, it "might" have been Marathas ruling from Delhi or Mumbai now.

The railways were never built for Indian people. Were they? It was fast evacuation of loots and spoils of Indian people.

The one thing the british did give us positively was the laws , penal code , courts mechanism, which have helped a modern India. Rest of which does not deserve merit from Indian people



If we had even try that options(in Pakistan as well), I dont think the thakedars of Islam would have received it in good spirits

India in 1750 was not a country. Britain created India. SoIndian subcontinent has an estimated share of world economy does not imply India existed.

India needs all the help considering it has the world's worst sanitation problem, rape, illiteracy, malnutrition, caste system, no infrastructure, corruption, religious nuts, separatist movements all over the country.

People starve to death in India.

Are there still death by starvation in India today's? If so, what is the starvation rate in India?

 

[Lonely Hermit]

India is unnaturally forged together by the British. If India wants true independence, it need to revert itself back to itself before British arrival.

Are you some kind of bot ?

 

[dray]

Are you some kind of bot ?

Yes, 100% it is. ver.2.2

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

India in 1750 was not a country. Britain created India. SoIndian subcontinent has an estimated share of world economy does not imply India existed.

Perhaps a troll like you can never understand. I told India would have been under Marathas. Yes, India had more than 1000 fiefdoms in 1750. But they were never independent. They were under the Marathas or Mughals or British. Even in 1947, 98% of so called independent kingdoms, can never even make Independent laws, and thus under the British.

In 18th century, Marathas had defeated the Mughals comprehensively, and if not for British, would have unified the whole of India. In such a scenario, we might have not got cities like Kolkata, Madras or Mumbai. But Tanjore , Madurai and Dhaka

 

[dray]

To British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, “the starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis (was) less serious than sturdy Greeks”.

Read the horrifying account of the situations that led to one of the worst famines.

Bengal Famine: A Forgotten Genocide, A Ruthless Empire And An Overrated Prime Minister

“Famine or no famine, Indians will breed like rabbits.”
– Winston Churchill.

In the winter of 1942 the shores of Bengal were hit by several cyclones and experienced severe flooding, leading to widespread damage to life and property. At the same time a fungus attacked the rice crops and destroyed up to 90% of many rice varieties in Bengal (which, back then, comprised of West Bengal, Bangladesh and parts of Bihar and Odisha). This led to the onset of famine, which was worsened due to artificial reasons, as explained below.

1942-43 was the height of the Second World War. India – after being forced into the War without any notice – was fighting on the side of the Allies. The Eastern Front was dominated by Japan, whose troops had quickly conquered most of Southeast Asia, and were steadily making their way up to Bengal and Northeast India. The alarmed British government gathered all the rice and hoarded it – so that it could be used to feed Allied troops back in Europe.

In March 1942, the Japanese occupied Burma, which was the largest exporter of food grains to Bengal. The subsequent influx of Burmese refugees in Bengal and the hasty expansion of the British Indian Army in the region increased demand for rice and grains.

As such, in the period between March and October 1943 the price of rice increased 4 times, forcing the poor to sell their lands and belongings, and the landless to starve to their deaths. These factors only escalated the already massive food shortage.

The Bengal tragedy was further worsened by the wartime policies of British PM Winston Churchill. Not only were food grains forcibly exported from starving Bengal to Britain, but food from Australia which could have fed Bengali mouths was diverted to the Balkans. Also, inexplicably, Churchill turned down offers of food from Canada and the US.

The animosity that the British PM had towards Indians is well-documented. A typical colonialist, he deemed Indians as backward and the plight of millions of Indians starving and dying did not move him one bit. When notified about the rising humanitarian crisis in Bengal by authorities in New Delhi, Churchill’s reply was: “If food is so scarce, why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?”

4 million people died in the Bengal holocaust, a number which could have been greatly reduced had it not been for British policy failure. It was a colossal loss of life, one of the most extreme in history, and yet we don’t find explicit mention of the famine in our textbooks or any history documentaries. Indian research on the famine is also unsatisfactory. And most biographies of Churchill omit his role in this genocide.

A child who starved to death during the Bengal famine of 1943.

Famines were historically frequent in India, but what set the famine of 1943 apart was how
• Its disastrous effects were mainly man-made.
• The colonial government overlooked Indian lives for British lives.
• The famine has gone missing from history textbooks and documentaries.

The Bengal famine is a perfect example of how ineffective policymaking can lead to disaster. It also teaches us that history does repeat itself if we are not careful – the 1943 Bengal famine was very similar to the 1770 Bengal famine where 10 million died. Then too, the main reason behind escalation of tragedy was harmful policymaking – by the British East India Company.

The famine also reminds us that Indian history is not documented well enough, given that there is not adequate research on the issue at all. Also, it warns us to not elevate historical figures like Winston Churchill to the status of legends without analyzing their work from all points of view.

Bengal Famine: A Forgotten Genocide, A Ruthless Empire And An Overrated Prime Minister

 

[Guynextdoor2]

I swear, if Chrichill or General Dyer were alive today, I'd have gladly joined the assassin groups trying to avenge cirmes done to us. I wouldn't have shot them direct. I'd have shot off one of their balls so that they die a slow and horrible death.

Lol nice try buddy

Even one of our own most esteemed personalities - Nobel laureate amartya sen has unconditionally dismissed any explicit role of Churchill in creating the famine , in fact with his astute analysis he even argues how the victims were at fault for their own I'll faith. His theories are widely accepted and criticality acclaimed

I'd rather believe a Nobel laureate than some b grade blog writer

yeah right, that's why he wrote 'if people are dying why hasn't Gandhi died yet'. And gimme link that Amrtya Sen didn't support that idea, I think you just pulled that out of your rear.