>they stole 30+ trillion dollars
>they murdered 50+ million people
>they intentionally caused famines
>they intentionally riled up ethnic tensions
>they intentionally riled up religious tensions
>they intentionally riled up caste tensions
>they fed babies to crocodiles for sport
How much of those were actually true?
Basically none of it. Modern Indian Nationalists (and a lot of self hating westerners) love to blame Britain/Europe for absolutely everything wrong with India/colonised countries long after they were given their independence - and most of them are perfectly happy to blame their former masters for absolutely everything that went wrong during the occupied period of their history - including literal bad weather.
Basically all of it
The ethnic, religious and caste tensions were definitely true but anyone colonizing a place will figure out who's most reliable and align with those people. Or in the EIC's case, recruit them to the presidency armies (which obviously is why you don't see so many British people in India today)
India was the richest and most advanced Nation on earth until the Britishers genocided them and stole their riches and forced them to stop industrialising
>India was the richest and most advanced Nation on earth
How did Britain conquer Indo-wakanda and all its magical hover tanks then Pajeet?
The Britishers invented division to sow hatred and the violence of anger between Moslems and Hindus. Partition to weaken the natural Indian state
Ah, yes, the Muslim Imperialist Overlords who had been shitting on the Hindus for centuries by that point. Those Muslims the Hindus loved so much that the country descended into widespread bloodshed the moment they got independence. Those Muslims.
The real answer is narrative control. They appealed to the enslaved through their global crusade on slavery which also conveniently gave them control of the planet.
This is nonsense. Even the famed Bengal textile trade was very inefficient compared to the British textile industry. India's advantage was its population; several million people in Bengal will of course create a lot of cloth, but Britain had already invented the spinning jenny, a machine that was far more efficient than the hand loom weavers of Bengal.
it was efficient but India would still have produced more cloth of a higher quality than Britain.
it's sad to see how the British mismanaged India and could improve its industry, instead regressing them to agricultural status using protectionism
>Haha the strong control the weak that's how the world works
The argument these days is that India benefited from british administration, if you say that you are admitting the british could not deal with the responsibility of managing india
>The argument these days is that India benefited from british administration, if you say that you are admitting the british could not deal with the responsibility of managing india
Not the guy you are responding to, but how does one follow the other?
>"they established a good administration, this shows that they couldn't administrate"??
>how does one follow the other?
Don't expect a deranged Anglophobe to make sense, it seems to be basically impossible for them to say anything that actually correlates with reality on that subject.
If tge bengal textile trade was so inefficent why did the british literally dismantle bengal looms and ship them to briton to be used by british workers?
Indians had flying toilets before britishers destroyed it
The final stages of any atrocity discourse:
>a) It didn't happen
>b) it happened and it was good
or
>c) it didn't happen but it should have
Cope to distract Indians from the fact that they are living in hell
all of those things are true, but the British didn't kill enough, if they had killed 200 or 300 million then India's population would be more sustainable at maybe 500 million instead of 1.5 billion
There is 1.5 BILLION of them now so clearly they didn't do enough
i have to poop
imagine youre country was raped for centuries by muslims and you almost have the independence and form a new empire for your people and then you are enslaved and colonised and genocided by people with pink skin for another 400.
>they stole 30+ trillion dollars
If by stealing you mean being given the right to collect taxes in Indian lands by the ruling class, and industrializing and reorganizing agricultural production, then sure
>they murdered 50+ million people
Ehh dubious at best, millions did die but it wasn’t policy to outright murder them. Are criminals who are given the death penalty murdered? Are starving veterans murdered? Are rebellions put down counted as murder? Millions died under the Mughals too…
>they intentionally caused famines
No capitalist regime has ever intentionally caused famines, it’s not good for profits. The monsoon season is fricked
>they intentionally riled up ethnic tensions
Yes, that’s the traditional way to control India
>they intentionally riled up religious tensions
Yes, that’s the traditional way to control India
>they intentionally riled up caste tensions
Yes, that’s the traditional way to control India
>they fed babies to crocodiles for sport
lol no
>>No capitalist regime has ever intentionally caused famines, it’s not good for profits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
That doesn't count because I am a gay moron
A Nazi posted this
>Japan invades Burma, fricking with the rice supply
>Literally during WW2
>caused mainly by population surplus in undeveloped areas
From your source:
Field Marshal Archibald Wavell replaced Linlithgow that October, within two weeks he had requested military support for the transport and distribution of crucial supplies. This assistance was delivered promptly, including "a full division of... 15,000 British soldiers...military lorries and the Royal Air Force" and distribution to even the most distant rural areas began on a large scale. In particular, grain was imported from the Punjab, and medical resources were made far more available. Rank-and-file soldiers, who had sometimes fed the destitute from their rations, were held in esteem by Bengalis for the efficiency of their work in distributing relief. That December, the "largest paddy crop ever seen" in Bengal was harvested
Wavell went on to make several other key policy steps, including promising that aid from other provinces would continue to feed the Bengal countryside, setting up a minimum rations scheme, and prevailing upon Great Britain to increase international imports. He has been widely praised for his decisive and effective response to the crisis. All official food relief work ended in December 1943 and January 1944
Yeah I’m thinking unintentional
>No capitalist regime has ever intentionally caused famines, it’s not good for profits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%931878
That's true but these famines were greatly exacerbated by the, often intentional, mismanagement of British rule. There have been no famines in India since the end of British rule, despite terrible Monsoon seasons.
seems the indians are always starving anyhow
it's not like famines are exactly rare in indian history
95% of famines in India occurred under direct orders from Britishers
were the british in charge of india in 1335?
>they fed babies to crocodiles for sport
that's more of an african american claim about huwhitey
It's an often repeated claim in Indian anti-colonial atrocity propaganda, if you google it, you find dozens of articles about it.
They did force people in the eastern regions (centred around Bihar) to grow opium against their will, they forced them into signing contracts where the British would give them an advance but the money wasn't even enough to cover all the labour and expenses involved with growing it. They had to sell it to the British who then reaped all the profit in selling to China because they pretty much had a monopoly, around the beginning of the trade anyway.
Meanwhile in the west (specifically the hinterland around Mumbai) the native kingdoms there were able to resist British rule a lot longer, and they started growing and selling opium themselves, undercutting the British, and farmers actually chose to do it there because it was profitable for them to do it themselves.
You can look at the contrast between those areas today as an indicator of how much British rule fricked them over, the eastern areas where they were colonised early and forced to grow opium are poor as frick while the western areas have a legacy of industriousness and are much richer.
This is the only action where I can agree with the otherwise despicable English