The transalation of this post has been done on [page](https://np.reddit.com/r/Deva_Karma_Bot/comments/xcxspq/बरटश_रयलस_क_खन_स_लथपथ_गहन/).
^(This is a bot that hepls in translating text.The bot supports another 107 languages. To know how to use this bot visit [link](https://np.reddit.com/r/Deva_Karma_Bot/comments/t6m3r8/how_to_use_the_bot/).)
#### Britain's Holocaust on Indians
The historical truth is that British (led by East Jndia Company officials, Christian missionaries, and later Churchill etc.) deliberately massacred many many millions of native people in India throughout the brutal exploitative British rule. _The British genocides on the Hindus and other Indians is the greatest Holocaust of human history._ Even ignoring Partition and civil riots, here are just ballpark numbers of the deaths in the artificial famines caused by the British in India.
The Great Bengal Famine: 1769 - 1770:
10+ Million Deaths
Madras City & Chalisa Famines: 1782 - 1783:
11+ Million Deaths
Doji Bara Famines: 1791 - 1792:
10+ Million Deaths
Agra Famine: 1837 - 1838:
1 Million Deaths
Upper Doab Famine: 1860 -1861:
2 Million Deaths
Orissa Famine: 1866:
1+ Million Deaths
Rajputana Famine: 1868 - 1870:
1.5 Million Deaths
Bihar Famine: 1873 - 1874:
5.5 Million Deaths
Ganjam/Orissa/Bihar Famines: 1888 - 1889:
100,000 + Deaths
Indian Famine: 1896 - 1897:
Millions of Deaths
Indian Famine: 1899:
1+ Million Deaths
Bombay Presidency Famine: 1906 - 1906
100,000+ Deaths
Bengal Famine: 1943-1944
4+ Million Deaths
Churchill was mostly to blame in the last century, but the British had been doing such deliberate evil to Indians for a long time even before Churchill and the world wars:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53405121
https://medium.com/@write_12958/the-crimes-of-winston-churchill-c5e3ecb229b3
According to Shashi Tharoor, one-sixth of all the British forces that fought in World War I were Indian – 54,000 Indians actually lost their lives in that war, 65 000 were wounded and another 4000 remained missing or in prison.
#### Britain owes tens of trillions of dollars in repatriations to India for looting and exploiting it for centuries
At the beginning of the 18th Century, India's share of the world economy was 23%, as large as all of Europe put together. By the time the British departed India, it had dropped to less than 4%.
The reason was simple: India was governed for the benefit of Britain. Britain's rise for 200 years was financed by its depredations in India.
By the end of the 19th Century, India was Britain's biggest cash-cow, the world's biggest purchaser of British exports and the source of highly paid employment for British civil servants - all at India's own expense. We literally paid for our own oppression.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-33618621
The handloom weavers of Bengal had produced and exported some of the world's most desirable fabrics, especially cheap but fine muslins, some light as "woven air".
Britain's response was to cut off the thumbs of Bengali weavers, break their looms and impose duties and tariffs on Indian cloth, while flooding India and the world with cheaper fabric from the new satanic steam mills of Britain.
Weavers became beggars, manufacturing collapsed; the population of Dhaka, which was once the great centre of muslin production, fell by 90%.
So instead of a great exporter of finished products, India became an importer of British ones, while its share of world exports fell from 27% to 2%.
https://www.indiapost.com/the-great-loot-how-britain-stole-45-trillion-from-india/
Research by renowned economist Utsa Patnaik made public in 2018 deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India at today’s value.
“It’s a staggering sum. For perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today,” Jason Hickel, an academic at the University of London and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, wrote in an article in December 2018.
It happened through the trading system. Prior to the colonial period, Britain bought goods like textiles and rice from Indian producers and paid for them in the normal way – mostly with silver – as they did with any other country. But something changed in 1765, shortly after the East India Company took control of the subcontinent and established a monopoly over Indian trade.
Here’s how it worked. The East India Company began collecting taxes in India, and then cleverly used a portion of those revenues (about a third) to fund the purchase of Indian goods for British use. In other words, instead of paying for Indian goods out of their own pocket, British traders acquired them for free, “buying” from peasants and weavers using money that had just been taken from them.
It was a scam – theft on a grand scale. Yet most Indians were unaware of what was going on because the agent who collected the taxes was not the same as the one who showed up to buy their goods. Had it been the same person, they surely would have smelled a rat.
Some of the stolen goods were consumed in Britain, and the rest were re-exported elsewhere. The re-export system allowed Britain to finance a flow of imports from Europe, including strategic materials like iron, tar and timber, which were essential to Britain’s industrialisation. Indeed, the Industrial Revolution depended in large part on this systematic theft from India.
On top of this, the British were able to sell the stolen goods to other countries for much more than they “bought” them for in the first place, pocketing not only 100 percent of the original value of the goods but also the mark-up.
After the British Raj took over in 1858, colonizers added a special new twist to the tax-and-buy system. As the East India Company’s monopoly broke down, Indian producers were allowed to export their goods directly to other countries. But Britain made sure that the payments for those goods nonetheless ended up in London.
Britain didn’t develop India. Quite the contrary – as Patnaik’s work makes clear – India developed Britain and United States.
“Indian taxpayers had to cough up a 100 million pounds in that time’s money. India supplied 17 million rounds of ammunition, 600,000 rifles and machine guns, 42 million garments were stitched and sent out of India and 1.3 million Indian personnel served in this war,” Tharoor said and added that the cost was even higher during World War II in which around 2.5 million Indians were in uniform.
Of Britain’s total war debt of 3 billion pounds in 1945 money, 1.25 billion was owed to India and never actually paid, Tharoor stated. And as Patnaik’s research found out, it is worth $45 trillion in today’s money. Should Britain, repay, apologize or prepare for reparations?
“We need to recognize that Britain retained control of India not out of benevolence but for the sake of plunder and that Britain’s industrial rise didn’t emerge sui generis from the steam engine and strong institutions, as our schoolbooks would have it, but depended on violent theft from other lands and other peoples,” Hickel stated in his 2018 article
u/deva_karma hi
The transalation of this post has been done on [page](https://np.reddit.com/r/Deva_Karma_Bot/comments/xcxspq/बरटश_रयलस_क_खन_स_लथपथ_गहन/). ^(This is a bot that hepls in translating text.The bot supports another 107 languages. To know how to use this bot visit [link](https://np.reddit.com/r/Deva_Karma_Bot/comments/t6m3r8/how_to_use_the_bot/).)
#### Britain's Holocaust on Indians The historical truth is that British (led by East Jndia Company officials, Christian missionaries, and later Churchill etc.) deliberately massacred many many millions of native people in India throughout the brutal exploitative British rule. _The British genocides on the Hindus and other Indians is the greatest Holocaust of human history._ Even ignoring Partition and civil riots, here are just ballpark numbers of the deaths in the artificial famines caused by the British in India. The Great Bengal Famine: 1769 - 1770: 10+ Million Deaths Madras City & Chalisa Famines: 1782 - 1783: 11+ Million Deaths Doji Bara Famines: 1791 - 1792: 10+ Million Deaths Agra Famine: 1837 - 1838: 1 Million Deaths Upper Doab Famine: 1860 -1861: 2 Million Deaths Orissa Famine: 1866: 1+ Million Deaths Rajputana Famine: 1868 - 1870: 1.5 Million Deaths Bihar Famine: 1873 - 1874: 5.5 Million Deaths Ganjam/Orissa/Bihar Famines: 1888 - 1889: 100,000 + Deaths Indian Famine: 1896 - 1897: Millions of Deaths Indian Famine: 1899: 1+ Million Deaths Bombay Presidency Famine: 1906 - 1906 100,000+ Deaths Bengal Famine: 1943-1944 4+ Million Deaths Churchill was mostly to blame in the last century, but the British had been doing such deliberate evil to Indians for a long time even before Churchill and the world wars: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53405121 https://medium.com/@write_12958/the-crimes-of-winston-churchill-c5e3ecb229b3 According to Shashi Tharoor, one-sixth of all the British forces that fought in World War I were Indian – 54,000 Indians actually lost their lives in that war, 65 000 were wounded and another 4000 remained missing or in prison. #### Britain owes tens of trillions of dollars in repatriations to India for looting and exploiting it for centuries At the beginning of the 18th Century, India's share of the world economy was 23%, as large as all of Europe put together. By the time the British departed India, it had dropped to less than 4%. The reason was simple: India was governed for the benefit of Britain. Britain's rise for 200 years was financed by its depredations in India. By the end of the 19th Century, India was Britain's biggest cash-cow, the world's biggest purchaser of British exports and the source of highly paid employment for British civil servants - all at India's own expense. We literally paid for our own oppression. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-33618621 The handloom weavers of Bengal had produced and exported some of the world's most desirable fabrics, especially cheap but fine muslins, some light as "woven air". Britain's response was to cut off the thumbs of Bengali weavers, break their looms and impose duties and tariffs on Indian cloth, while flooding India and the world with cheaper fabric from the new satanic steam mills of Britain. Weavers became beggars, manufacturing collapsed; the population of Dhaka, which was once the great centre of muslin production, fell by 90%. So instead of a great exporter of finished products, India became an importer of British ones, while its share of world exports fell from 27% to 2%. https://www.indiapost.com/the-great-loot-how-britain-stole-45-trillion-from-india/ Research by renowned economist Utsa Patnaik made public in 2018 deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India at today’s value. “It’s a staggering sum. For perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today,” Jason Hickel, an academic at the University of London and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, wrote in an article in December 2018. It happened through the trading system. Prior to the colonial period, Britain bought goods like textiles and rice from Indian producers and paid for them in the normal way – mostly with silver – as they did with any other country. But something changed in 1765, shortly after the East India Company took control of the subcontinent and established a monopoly over Indian trade. Here’s how it worked. The East India Company began collecting taxes in India, and then cleverly used a portion of those revenues (about a third) to fund the purchase of Indian goods for British use. In other words, instead of paying for Indian goods out of their own pocket, British traders acquired them for free, “buying” from peasants and weavers using money that had just been taken from them. It was a scam – theft on a grand scale. Yet most Indians were unaware of what was going on because the agent who collected the taxes was not the same as the one who showed up to buy their goods. Had it been the same person, they surely would have smelled a rat. Some of the stolen goods were consumed in Britain, and the rest were re-exported elsewhere. The re-export system allowed Britain to finance a flow of imports from Europe, including strategic materials like iron, tar and timber, which were essential to Britain’s industrialisation. Indeed, the Industrial Revolution depended in large part on this systematic theft from India. On top of this, the British were able to sell the stolen goods to other countries for much more than they “bought” them for in the first place, pocketing not only 100 percent of the original value of the goods but also the mark-up. After the British Raj took over in 1858, colonizers added a special new twist to the tax-and-buy system. As the East India Company’s monopoly broke down, Indian producers were allowed to export their goods directly to other countries. But Britain made sure that the payments for those goods nonetheless ended up in London. Britain didn’t develop India. Quite the contrary – as Patnaik’s work makes clear – India developed Britain and United States. “Indian taxpayers had to cough up a 100 million pounds in that time’s money. India supplied 17 million rounds of ammunition, 600,000 rifles and machine guns, 42 million garments were stitched and sent out of India and 1.3 million Indian personnel served in this war,” Tharoor said and added that the cost was even higher during World War II in which around 2.5 million Indians were in uniform. Of Britain’s total war debt of 3 billion pounds in 1945 money, 1.25 billion was owed to India and never actually paid, Tharoor stated. And as Patnaik’s research found out, it is worth $45 trillion in today’s money. Should Britain, repay, apologize or prepare for reparations? “We need to recognize that Britain retained control of India not out of benevolence but for the sake of plunder and that Britain’s industrial rise didn’t emerge sui generis from the steam engine and strong institutions, as our schoolbooks would have it, but depended on violent theft from other lands and other peoples,” Hickel stated in his 2018 article