4 ms·
I'm no expert on Indian history, but that seems implausible. Famines would only serve to increase unrest and undermine the stability of British rule. The famine
by finolex1 7y ago
I'm no expert on Indian history, but that seems implausible. Famines would only serve to increase unrest and undermine the stability of British rule. The famines seem to be more a result of neglect and mismanagement than active efforts.
Furthermore, India in the 1800s-1900s was not exactly like the Americas, Australia or South Africa. The population was much larger, and social, economic or cultural structures were much more robust, long-standing and harder to dismantle.
- ptah 7y agostarving people is more likely to make them stop fighting than make them start
- rusk 7y agoDead men can’t fight
- LeifCarrotson 7y agoThe history of revolutions and riots in France, Russia, Ireland, and others [1] show the opposite: Often, people will tolerate inequality and injustice if they're fed and comfortable, but when people get hungry they get angry. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_food_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_food_riots