Tag: British Rule of India

  • British Genocide of 1.8 Billion Indians Detailed Breakup.

    British Genocide of 1.8 Billion Indians Detailed Breakup.

    Showing Reddit comments

    Some comments on my article ‘ Genocide of 1.8 Billion Indians by the British’ By Redditors.

    I normally do my research before writing any article and I was surprised that I missed out .I did further research. I found one of the links on the basis of which I had written had become Private.And during the process, I found evidence of the Genocide of Indians related news items, articles,blogs have either disappeared (!) .One article on Bengal famine death toll was questioned saying that it was Not Churchill who was responsible and the figures were inflated. Fact is Winston Churchill said on Bengal Famine,India: Churchill claimed “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion”. Churchill seized millions of tons of inessential rice to send the Middle East. Four million Bengals starved to death, and he said ‘famine’ was their own fault “for breeding like rabbits”
    6:33 AM · Jun 8, 2020′. I shall be writing on this in detail and on Bengal Famine.

    I am providing a researched paper on the Genocide of 1.8 Billion Indians by the British.

    Originally published: CounterCurrents by Dr Gideon Polya (December 28, 2018 )  |  – Posted Jan 15, 2019

    Note on the author of the information. ‘

    Bengal Famine image

    Professor Utsa Patnaik is professor emeritus at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Utsa Patnaik is a Marxist economist and taught at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning in the School of Social Sciences at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) from 1973 until her retirement in 2010. She obtained her PhD in economics from Oxford University, UK, and has researched the transition from agricultural  peasant societies to industrial societies, and food security and poverty, especially in India.(1) Utsa Patnaik’s  latest book, co-authored with Prabhat Patnaik, is “A Theory of Imperialism” (2016).(2)

    (B) 1.8 billion Indians died avoidably from egregious deprivation under the British.

    Imposed poverty kills. Poverty-derived  avoidable mortality (avoidable death, excess mortality, excess death, premature death, untimely death, death that should not have happened) can be estimated as the difference between the actual deaths in a country and the deaths expected for a peaceful, decently governed country with same demographics (birth rate and percentage of children).(12) Below are listed in rough  chronological order some shocking salient features of the deadly impact of rapacious British imperialism over 2 centuries in British India, Britain’s Auschwitz.

    In the 1769-1770  Great Bengal Famine 10 million out of 30 million over-taxed Bengalis starved to death(6)(13).

    Scores of millions of Indians perished in man-made famines between the  1769-1770  Great Bengal Famine and the 1942-1945 WW2 Bengal Famine.(6)

    Using Indian census data 1870-1950, assuming an Indian population of about 200 million in the period 1760-1870, and estimating by interpolation from available data an Indian avoidable death rate in (deaths per 1,000 of population) of 37 (1757-1920), 35 (1920-1930), 30 (1930-1940) and 24 (1940-1950), one can estimate Indian excess deaths of 592 million (1757-1837), 497 million (1837-1901) and 418 million (1901-1947), roughly 1.5 billion in total or 1.8 billion including the Native States.(14)

    Scores of millions of distant British keeping hundreds of millions of Indians on the edge of starvation was enabled by relatively small numbers of British soldiers and much greater numbers of well-fed Indian soldiers threatening requisite violence.(6) It has been estimated by Amaresh Misra that 10 million Indians were massacred in the decade after the 1857 Indian Mutiny (Indian Rebellion) as reprisals for 2,000 British deaths.(15)(16)

    Despite a very high birth rate, the Indian population did not increase between 1860 (292 million) and 1934 (292 million) [17]. This is indicative of massive avoidable deaths from imposed deprivation that can be estimated as 745 million (1860-1934) or an average of about 10 million Indian avoidable deaths from deprivation per year.(14)

    Addressing the House of Commons in 1935, racist, imperialist and mass murderer Winston Churchill made an extraordinary confession in stating of the subjugated Indians: “In the standard of life they have nothing to spare. The slightest fall from the present standard of life in India means slow starvation, and the actual squeezing out of life, not only of millions but of scores of millions of people, who have come into the world at your invitation and under the shield and protection of British power”.(6)(18)(19) 7 years later Churchill commenced  the deliberate starving to death over 4 years of 6-7 million Indians in Bengal, Orissa, Bihar and Assam as the British exported grain from India and slashed grain imports.(6)

    8. In the 1942-1945 WW2 Bengali Holocaust (Indian Holocaust, WW2 Bengal Famine) 6-7 million Indians were deliberately starved to death for strategic reasons by the British with Australian complicity (Australia was complicit by denying starving India food from its huge wartime food stores).(6)(12)(14),  (19)(27) This atrocity has been white-washed from history and general public perception by successive generations of Anglo journalist, editor, politician and academic presstitutes. Indeed perpetrator Churchill made no mention for this atrocity in his 6-volume history “The Second World War” for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature.(6)

    According  to Professor Utsa Patnaik Indian per capita annual consumption of food  was 200 kg in 1900, but went down to 137 kg during World War II and in 1946.(28) This is consonant with the following data from my book “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History”: “The population of India at that time [1940] was about 400 million and total grain production was 50 to 70 million tons annually. The population was growing at a rate of about 5% per year and there was a requirement of net imports of about 1-2 million tons of grain per annum to make up for deficiencies… Behrens’ figures for grain shipments (in tons) for India in 1942-1945 are as follows: 1942 (30,000), 1943 (303,000), 1944 (639,000) and 1945 (871,000). The 1942 shipment involved 2 lots from Australia contracted for at the rate of 15,000 tons per month to supply the Indian Army (the balance of the demand was not shipped that year). 2.4 million men served in the Indian Army during World War 2. This estimate can be “reduced” since not all of these were in the Army at the same time, scores of thousands were in the Mediterranean theatre (250,000 served there), had been captured by the Japanese or had died. Taking the gross Indian annual grain production estimates of about 60 million tons for 400 million people, we see that the average consumption was 0.15 tons per person per year (obviously more for adults and less for children). The annual requirement for about 2 million men in the “reduced” Indian Army was therefore 0.3 million tons. We can arrive at a figure having a similar order of magnitude from the 1942 contracted requirement of 15,000 tons per month i.e. 0.18 million tons for a whole year. If we assume that an Indian Army soldier required 50% more food than the average Indian we would estimate that the annual grain requirement for a 2 million strong Indian Army would be about 0.45 million tons. The average yearly importation in 1942-1945 was 0.46 million tons and thus we can see that the grain actually imported was merely enough to feed the Indian Army” (pages 156-158, Chapter 15 (6))…Things got much better after Indian Independence. The 1.8 billion avoidable Indian deaths from deprivation under the genocidal British over 2 centuries is not that surprising when one considers that despite modern medicine, antibiotics, and the essential absence of famine, avoidable deaths from deprivation in the period 1950-2005 in India totalled 0.35 billion.(14)  Annual avoidable deaths as a percentage of population fell from a genocidal 2.4% per year  in 1947 under the British to 0.35% per year in 2005, but the population of India increased from 380 million in 1947 to about 1,100 million in 2005. Today 4 million Indians die avoidably from deprivation each year as compared to zero (0) in China that, unlike capitalist India, has overcome endemic poverty. https://mronline.org/2019/01/15/britain-robbed-india-of-45-trillion-thence-1-8-billion-indians-died-from-deprivation/

    Multi Lingual Blog English Tamil Kannada Hindi Indian History Verified Vedic Thoughts Hinduism around The World Tamils History

  • Break The Backbone Sanskrit Indian Culture ,Indians Support this?

    That Lord Macaulay introduced English to India is known to every one.

    It is also , not so well-known that he introduced it, because,

     

    “I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.”

    -Lord Macaulay’s speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835.

    Macaulay on India.png
    Thomas Babington Macaulay On Hinduism,speech on introduction of English in India.

    Now a concerted attempt is on to justify(?) Macaulay by stating that ,

    Are we to keep the people of India ignorant in order that we may keep them submissive? Or do we think that we can give them knowledge without awakening ambition? Or do we mean to awaken ambition and to provide it with no legitimate vent? Who will answer any of these questions in the affirmative? Yet one of them must be answered in the affirmative, by every person who maintains that we ought permanently to exclude the natives from high office. I have no fears. The path of duty is plain before us: and it is also the path of wisdom, of national prosperity, of national honor.[See the full text here]”

    What is the position?

    Voltaire French Philospher on Hinduism.jpg
    Voltaire on Hinduism

    Macaulay’s speech excerpts and Minutes.

     

    Education and the English Empire in India

    I feel that, for the good of India itself, the admission of natives to high office must be effected by slow degrees. But that, when the fulness of time is come, when the interest of India requires the change, we ought to refuse to make that change lest we should endanger our own power, this is a doctrine of which I cannot think without indignation. Governments, like men, may buy existence too dear. “Propter vitam vivendi perdere causas,” [“To lose the reason for living, for the sake of staying alive”] is a despicable policy both in individuals and in states. In the present case, such a policy would be not only despicable, but absurd. The mere extent of empire is not necessarily an advantage. To many governments it has been cumbersome; to some it has been fatal. It will be allowed by every statesman of our time that the prosperity of a community is made up of the prosperity of those who compose the community, and that it is the most childish ambition to covet dominion which adds to no man’s comfort or security. To the great trading nation, to the great manufacturing nation, no progress which any portion of the human race can make in knowledge, in taste for the conveniences of life, or in the wealth by which those conveniences are produced, can be matter of indifference. It is scarcely possible to calculate the benefits which we might derive from the diffusion of European civilisation among the vast population of the East. It would be, on the most selfish view of the case, far better for us that the people of India were well governed and independent of us, than ill governed and subject to us; that they were ruled by their own kings, but wearing our broadcloth, and working with our cutlery, than that they were performing their salams to English collectors and English magistrates, but were too ignorant to value, or too poor to buy, English manufactures. To trade with civilised men is infinitely more profitable than to govern savages. That would, indeed, be a doting wisdom, which, in order that India might remain a dependency, would make it an useless and costly dependency, which would keep a hundred millions of men from being our customers in order that they might continue to be our slaves.

    Are we to keep the people of India ignorant in order that we may keep them submissive? Or do we think that we can give them knowledge without awakening ambition? Or do we mean to awaken ambition and to provide it with no legitimate vent? Who will answer any of these questions in the affirmative? Yet one of them must be answered in the affirmative, by every person who maintains that we ought permanently to exclude the natives from high office. 1 have no fears. The path of duty is plain before us: and it is also the path of wisdom, of national prosperity, of national honor.

    Source

    From Thomas Babington Macaulay, “Speech in Parliament on the Government of India Bill, 10 July 1833,” Macaulay, Prose and Poetry, selected by G.M. Young (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957), pp. 716-18

    I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic.-But I have done what I could to form a correct estimate of their value. I have read translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanscrit works. I have conversed both here and at home with men distinguished by their proficiency in the Eastern tongues. I am quite ready to take the Oriental learning at the valuation of the Orientalists themselves. I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature is, indeed, fully admitted by those members of the Committee who support the Oriental plan of education.

    It will hardly be disputed, I suppose, that the department of literature in which the Eastern writers stand highest is poetry. And I certainly never met with any Orientalist who ventured to maintain that the Arabic and Sanscrit poetry could be compared to that of the great European nations. But when we pass from works of imagination to works in which facts are recorded, and general principles investigated, the superiority of the Europeans becomes absolutely immeasurable. It is, I believe, no exaggeration to say, that all the historical information which has been collected from all the books written in the Sanscrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgements used at preparatory schools in England. In every branch of physical or moral philosophy, the relative position of the two nations is nearly the same.”

     

    The apologists Macaulay claim that,

     

     “

    Clearly, Macaulay was saying something directly opposite to what has been quoted as his!
    There is indeed a clear reason why this distorted quote was invented. This is indeed RSS and its followers, who put words on Macaulay. I now know RSS even referred to English speaking Indians as ‘Children of Macaulay’! The quote above, passed on by my trusting friend, is a spoof, RSS trying to interpret what Macaulay might have meant. [I am sure those who did it knew that Macaulay also put Arabic on the same boat as Sanksrit]”
    Macaulay on Indian Culture.

    “I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.”

    Now one can judge as to what are the intentions of Macaulay.

    Citations.

    http://books.google.co.in/books?id=0kSMosMLUMwC&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq=lord+macaulay+2nd+february+1835+india&source=web&ots=wmjOO95mYR&sig=Q6U0FlzLCJH3Tl21qCOIqva-oy8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=lord%20macaulay%202nd%20february%201835%20india&f=false

    http://sundayposts.blogspot.in/2008/01/lord-macaulays-quote-on-india.html#.VKyg3cn4C4o

    http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1833macaulay-india.asp

    http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/hinduism/macaulay.html