>This staggering figure does not include the tens of millions more Indians who died in human-made famines that were caused by the British empire. Does it not?

>This staggering figure does not include the tens of millions more Indians who died in human-made famines that were caused by the British empire. Does it not? The figures are based on excess deaths. Unless there were human made famines before the British empire, so there wouldn't be excess deaths? I'm struggling to work out how excess deaths is a meaningful figure over such a long time frame. Am I misunderstanding, or is this essentially reflecting a rising population. If someone dies a year 'early' is that booked as an excess death for the period? Is it reasonable to say the British empire killed them?