4 ms·

Not on the scale as afterwards, no.

karencarits 4y ago
Are you sure? I couldn't find any good sources on British genocide, but Wikipedia has a list of massacres in India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_India In sum, the number of casualties from Colonial India is orders of magnitude lower than both pre-colonial and independent India
- rvz 4y ago
- n4r9 4y ago
  None of the pre-colonial massacres exceed 500k; the Bengal famine alone killed over 2 million: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
rr888 4y ago
The problem with ancient history as that you never really knew what happened and exactly how many people died. Europeans certainly weren't the first empire to lay claim to India. Warfare, invasions and famine are as old as human history. India is one of the oldest civilised parts of the world so has had its fair share of all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India
- kaesar14 4y ago
  - mr_toad 4y ago
    > If there’s an archaeological record of anything as terrible as the Bengal famine The Mongol invasion of China, and the German invasion of the Soviet Union caused far more deaths.
    - kaesar14 4y ago
      I wasn’t aware those places were in India, the subject of this exchange. Entirely possible and supported by mainstream historians that the colonial regime did lead to a number of deaths around the same magnitude of both of those events though, fwiw.
  - poulpy123 4y ago
    the india famine of the end of the 19e century (also british caused) and of course all the indian famines before the british put a foot there
22SAS 4y ago
Hahahaha, I am Indian and your statement is so wrong. The Brits were nowhere close to the Islamic invaders when it come to genocides in India. The latter would kill people from tens thousands to hundreds of thousands, in one go just because they didn't happen to be Muslim.
- kaesar14 4y ago
  I’m also Indian. The British regime is likely responsible for tens, if not hundreds of millions of deaths through the forcible extraction of food and wealth, and the impoverishment of generations of Indians since. The atrocities of the Mughals are not to be ignored but the simple fact remains that India’s population grew greatly during the period of colonization, as did the brutality and extremity of the methods of extraction. One source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-35-million-deaths-britain-shashi-tharoor-british-empire-a7627041.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-35-milli...

Are you sure? I couldn't find any good sources on British genocide, but Wikipedia has a list of massacres in India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_India In sum, the number of casualties from Colonial India is orders of magnitude lower than both pre-colonial and independent India

rvz 4y ago
n4r9 4y ago
None of the pre-colonial massacres exceed 500k; the Bengal famine alone killed over 2 million: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

rr888 4y ago

The problem with ancient history as that you never really knew what happened and exactly how many people died. Europeans certainly weren't the first empire to lay claim to India. Warfare, invasions and famine are as old as human history. India is one of the oldest civilised parts of the world so has had its fair share of all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India

kaesar14 4y ago
- mr_toad 4y ago
  > If there’s an archaeological record of anything as terrible as the Bengal famine The Mongol invasion of China, and the German invasion of the Soviet Union caused far more deaths.
  - kaesar14 4y ago
    I wasn’t aware those places were in India, the subject of this exchange. Entirely possible and supported by mainstream historians that the colonial regime did lead to a number of deaths around the same magnitude of both of those events though, fwiw.
- poulpy123 4y ago
  the india famine of the end of the 19e century (also british caused) and of course all the indian famines before the british put a foot there

22SAS 4y ago

Hahahaha, I am Indian and your statement is so wrong. The Brits were nowhere close to the Islamic invaders when it come to genocides in India. The latter would kill people from tens thousands to hundreds of thousands, in one go just because they didn't happen to be Muslim.

kaesar14 4y ago
I’m also Indian. The British regime is likely responsible for tens, if not hundreds of millions of deaths through the forcible extraction of food and wealth, and the impoverishment of generations of Indians since. The atrocities of the Mughals are not to be ignored but the simple fact remains that India’s population grew greatly during the period of colonization, as did the brutality and extremity of the methods of extraction. One source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-35-million-deaths-britain-shashi-tharoor-british-empire-a7627041.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-35-milli...