The British Created an Indian Holocaust

This is an alarming story, Katha, and I didn't know the specifics of this story in any way.

I am so glad you took the time to educate us all and I thank you for your insight and quite fine analysis.

What a fact !!! I am indian and I wasnt aware of this till now. Great piece of research !!!

Yes, the British have the bloodiest hostory of all mankind, and yet they act so high and pricey now. its a shame, that country

Hi David,

Thank you for publishing the article.

"India" was known as famine prone, either because of flood or draught - as the economy was 100% dependant on agriculture.

The “administrator” took the advantage of it in a very clever way.

We all know about the famines, but we don’t know that it was man-made.

Hi Pat,

Not only you, the rest of the world doesn't know the was strategically created.

I have nothing against the country at this point, I am merely stating the fact.

Right, Katha! Using history and circumstance to cover the lie is an incredible example of duplicity among nations.

Hi David,

in 18th century India's global GDP was 22.6%, from there it went down to a mere 4.2% in 1950.

This tells all - !

http://indianeconomy.org/2007/06/15/colonialism-as-a-cause-of-income-inequality/

http://www.ccs.in/gdas/?page_id=70

The want for money is the root of evil in everything, isn't it, Katha?

David,

everybody wants money and look for upward social mobility, it depends on the "how" and whether it is a collaborative effort or a selfish one.

Right on target, Katha! You nailed it!

Yes we British at one time or another had most of the world under our thumb and rule. Not an illustrious history and it is shocking what was done by those that came before us.

Thanks for posting the article, never seen the pictures before, I wonder why!

Hi Katha,

I'm like everyone else. I had never heard of this before either.

Spalding Gray said in "Swimming to Cambodia" something along the lines of evil lands in the world every so often and causes a holocaust. WWII, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Darfur are probably just the most recent events that we remember.

Humankind always has the propensity to engage in these types of activities, even though we always want to believe the best in people.

Hi Micheal,

Thanks for joining!

You don't see the images very often because people don't talk about it much. The world takes it as a victim/result of natural disaster.

http://images.google.com/images?q=Bengal+famine+image&hl=en&um=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=title

Hi Katha,

I'm wondering if some of the blame for the Bengal famine should lie at the hands of the Japanese.

The Great Bengal Famine of 1943 was one of the worst famines to have struck this region. A series of crop failures beginning from 1938 and other disruptive events accompanying the Second World War precipitated this famine.

Interruption of normal imports of foodgrains from Burma due to its fall to the Japanese, dislocation of trade, irregular movement of foodgrains due to the war in the East, and building up of provincial and district barriers (cordons) against the movement of grains and other essential supplies, increased demand for food to meet the want of the army, and inflow of refugees were some important factors leading to the famine of 1943. And the failure on the part of the administration to foresee these crises at the beginning of the war added further fuel to the fire.

Emphasis added

http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/F_0015.htm

Hi Chris,

Yes, in fact most Indians don't know/recognize the strategy behind it. Only humankind is capable of doing this and we can only hope that we would use our good judgement!

Hi Chris,

The British feared a Japanese invasion as they lost Singapore and Burma and started stock piling the food - which was known as "rice denial scheme" -

http://www.samarthbharat.com/bengalholocaust.htm

In fact, the Indian National Army joined the Japanese and the British tried to dampen the spirit - in every sense of the term.

http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/I_0046.htm

wow, I didn't know any of this, and I pride myself on knowing a few things about history! I wonder if my Indian girlfriend is aware of this?

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I think...

Hi freeluncher,

Welcome to Urban Semiotic!

I am curious if your girl friend is aware of it...do let us know!

David, adding to your excellent comments here-- the British killed even more millions of people in India, and quite *actively*, in the late 1800's, with a series of incomprehensibly murderous policies that quite intentionally prevented Indians from growing and distributing their own grain. I first read this in Amartya Sen's works for an econ class years ago, then in Mike Davis's excellent "Late Victorian Holocausts."

When you look at the evidence, what the British did in India is much, much worse than what the Nazis did in their 12 years in Germany-- and this is just in India, before we get to British atrocities in Australia/New Zealand for example, where the British government deliberately, nearly wiped out the aboriginal peoples by paying British farmers to shoot and scalp them, even the aboriginal women and kids. There's also South Africa-- the British concentration camps in the Boer Wars that killed tens of thousands of Boers and rebellious African tribespeople, in this case almost all of them women and children. Then there's Ireland, which needs little introduction-- centuries of British brutality and state-sanctioned murder there, as the Irish readily point out. Then there's the Opium Wars, where the British went to war to force opium on the malnourished Chinese peasantry. Then the British distribution of smallpox-infested blankets to American Indians, heavy British involvement in the slave trade.

And note, the British did these things when they were a quite wealthy country, mostly in the Victorian period, with an Empire-- unlike the rise of Nazi Germany, which occurred in the wake of the global Great Depression and the Versailles Treaty resentment. IOW from an Aristotelian "fundamental ethics" perspective, the British committed far more atrocities over a much longer period, and with much less of an excuse for it.

I sense that the British often try to play up the Holocaust as a way of buying themselves a few more years before they're forced to face up to their own miserable imperial history. IOW, when some British hypocrite high-handedly mentions the Holocaust, I always say, "Hey buddy, you just look in the mirror." Unfortunately for them, the British have a Hell on earth soon awaiting them if they refrain from finally facing up to these things.

BTW, as to why these British atrocities aren't better known, I'm not so sure it's a matter of "winners writing history" as it's often said-- the British have been the losers in many of these recent wars even more than the winners. Remember, the British were defeated badly in three different wars in Afghanistan (two during the Victorian period), defeated in two invasion attempts of South America by Spanish/Creole/mercenary soldiers around 1805-ish, and the British suffered horrid damage, bankruptcy and the destruction of the British Empire due to their losses in the two World Wars.

Likewise, the British were defeated in a number of wars against their (intended) imperial subjects in the 20th century-- it wasn't British indulgence that granted freedom to the Irish, for example, but military defeat at the hands of Irish forces. In fact, in the Anglo-Irish War of 1920-21, the Irish not only defeated the British, the undertrained, underequipped Irish Resistance forces actually inflicted more casualties on the British forces than the British could visit upon the Irish fighters, a very rare result in a conflict of this type. The British invaded Indonesia in late 1945 to maintain an Anglo-Dutch hegemony there, but were soundly defeated by the native Indonesian resistance forces (e.g. Battle of Surabaya). The British also suffered defeats in Israel/Palestine (kicked out in 1948), at the hands of the Egyptian military in the Suez Conflict of 1956 (albeit with the valuable help of Dwight Eisenhower), against the Yemenis in the Aden Crisis, even against Cypriot patriots in the 1950's, who faced and defeated the British in guerrilla fighting, expelling the British from the island.

IOW, there's been no shortage of British defeats in the past 150 years or so, and in many countries, these British atrocities very much *are* widely talked about. The Chinese, for example, have no hesitation in sticking it to the British over the First and Second Opium Wars, likewise in celebrating their own military victories over the British since the late 19th-century. (Some little-known-- in the West-- British landing attempts in eastern China proper that were defeated and repulsed by Chinese militias, warlords or Manchu soldiers in the late 1800's/first decade of the 1900's and, of course, the Korean War. Though this was a draw against the North Koreans, the Chinese very clearly achieved victory against the Anglo-American led forces when they entered in 1950, decisively pushing them back from the Yalu River-- a big shock at the time for both the British and the Americans.) Dozens of Chinese films commemorate these events with an openly anti-British venom, which the Chinese never apologize for.

Similarly, many Bollywood films in India portray the British in a very unfavorable, murderous light, and don't hesitate to e.g. point out the British atrocities in the Bengal Famine or other British-induced famines within India. There is IIRC a TV series in Uruguay and other South American countries that celebrates Liniers defeat of the British there around 1805, plus many Muslim countries commemorate Afghan, Egyptian, Yemeni and other victories over the British that expelled them from the region.

Nah, I think the explanation for the lack of attention to these incidents in the USA and Britain is more a matter of sheer laziness and unprofessionalism on the part of some "professional" historians who aren't doing their homework. In fact, any general or "world history" textbook used for students, that neglects to teach about the British atrocities in India, Australia, Ireland, South Africa and the New World, should be categorically rejected, and its authors dinged for poor performance as historians. It's ridiculous to be neglecting these events.

Hi Randall,

Thank you for the brilliant comment!

Any public education is "political" by nature, it depends upon the administrator what they want to feed their nation depending on their agenda - you understand the rest!

Well

Another interesting point is that Subhash Chandra Bose's Free India government offered to ship rice from Burma to Bengal as a humanitarian gesture. It was rejected outright by the Brits as they did not recognize "any such government".

Katha,

Hiler was responsible for the deaths of 50 million people in 6 years.

10 million Jews, Soviet POWs and other undesirables alone died in forced camps in 4 short years.

Yet you say Hitler was amatuerish compared to the British??

I guess the next thing you'll write would be that the Indians should have let the Japanese take over.

[Comment edited by David W. Boles to remove personal insult.]

Hey Randall, take a look in the mirror "buddee". You claim that the British were doing worse things to the indians than what the Germans were to the British and other countries, but it was VERY interesting to see that you totally forgot to mention all about the Americans stealing the place that they call "America" from the Indians!! You say the British are hypocrites, well, now you can join them; as nothing is more hypocritical than what you just said!! All the things you said the British done, YOU ALL DID EVEN MORE THAN THAT!!! AND WE WILL NEVER REALLY KNOW WHAT YOU ALL DID!!!!! But dont worry, I will take a REALLY good guess for you!! Every single one of you "freedom loving" yanks raped killed stole and took everything for your selves. So why dont "You just take a look in the mirror"B-U-D-D-Y!!!!!

Mr. Cornell,

I would very much have preferred the Japanese taking over from the Brits. Nothing wrong with being a patriotic Brit, and I certainly don't hold your generation responsible for British atrocities so many decades ago. But for crying out loud, denying that the UK did these atrocities is akin to burying your head in the sand.

Hi JNS,

Welcome!

I have heard about the similar fact but I don't have evidence to prove it.

Probably the British did whatever they felt right because they couldn't accept something from a free Indian government and the same time keep on ruling them – I guess!

Hi John,

Hitler does look amateurish if we consider what the British did to India for 200 years and to the whole world.

I was not present at that point, but after a careful review of history I think India was better off even taken by the aliens than the British.

Oh yes, please read our comment policy before participating.

Kathakali,

I saw it in the movie Bose - The Forgotten Hero. Given that it was directed by Shyam Benegal who is not given to flights of fancy, I am sure it was a well-researched fact. This is what is stated on Wikipedia

"At the time of the Great Bengal Famine of 1943, during which millions died of starvation as a consequence of British inefficiency and indifference, Bose had offered (through radio) to provide Burmese rice to the victims of the famine. The British authorities in India (and in the UK) refused the offer, arguing that it was made for propaganda purposes."

It is also stated in

Uppal, J.N. (1984) Bengal famine of 1943. A man-made tragedy (Atma Ram & Sons, Delhi).

Gordon, L.A. (1990) Brothers against the Raj (Columbia University Press, New York).

Hi JNS,

Thanks for mentioning those resources!

I haven't seen "Bose - The Forgotten Hero" but I believe Shyam Benegal more than Wikipedia and your other sources.

http://urbansemiotic.com/2007/03/16/the-deadly-danger-of-wikipedia-and-corrupt-community-research/

Thanks again!

JNS,

""
Mr. Cornell,

""I would very much have preferred the Japanese taking over from the Brits. ""

I guess you missed what the Japanese did to the citizens of Nanking, or the other ten million they BUTCHERED in less than a decade in China?

I'm beginning to wish the Japanese did take over India too.

Stop living in your narrow minded 'Indian' world and take a squint at what other nations and peoples went through.

""Nothing wrong with being a patriotic Brit, and I certainly don’t hold your generation responsible for British atrocities so many decades ago.""

Thanks. How noble of you. I don't hold Danes or Italians responsbile for what the Vikings and Romans did to my people.

"" But for crying out loud, denying that the UK did these atrocities is akin to burying your head in the sand.""

Can you point to my comment where I denied anything? I decried the nonsensical and idiotic comments calling Hitler an amateur compared to the British. Nobody deliberately and systematically wiped out as many people in as short a time span as Hilter and his Nazi henchmen did. If they were not stopped they would have carried on until every single Jew, gypsy, homosexual or god knows what else would have been completely and utterly wiped off the face of the earth.

This wasn't negligence or incompetent administration. Hitler perpetrated and planned DELIBERATE EXTERMINATION of an entire race of people, plus many other desireables on top

6 millions Jews were DELIBERATELY AND SYSTEMATICALLY wiped out in 3 short years.

On top of this, another 4 million Soviet POWs and other 'undesirables' were starved to death in 4 years.

This is without adding in battlefront casualties of both the military and civilian kind, which run into the tens of millions in a few short years.

It is a complete and utter insult, not to mention pure ignorance, to suggest the British in India made Hitler look like an amateur.

""Hi John,

Hitler does look amateurish if we consider what the British did to India for 200 years and to the whole world.""

Then you need to look at what OTHERS did around the world and get it into the proper context and perspective.

When did the British deliberately and systematically attempt to wipe out an entire people, just becuase they were not liked?

If the British were so god damn awful, none of these "oppressed" and "downtrodden" ex colonies would have wanted anything else to do with Britain after independance. Instead, most of them willingly and eagerly joined the Commonwealth, with Britain as it's head and kept close ties and friendship with Britain.

I don't recal ex Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, French, Nazi or Soviet colonies/satellites all willing and wishing to keep closely tied and alligned with their former 'oppressors'.

Despite your revisionism, the British Empire WAS the source for a lot of good. It was not ALL bad.

If it wasn't for the British then Indians woud still be ruled by bloodthirtsty Mughal tyrants with awful archaic and barbaric practices, the caste system would be ten times worse, you wouldn't have a universal language that makes common communication in all parts of India from north to south to east to west a lot easier than it otherwise would have been, you wouldn't have a single government but would be a series of seperately ruled territories and lastly but not leastly you wouldn't have a proper railway system, which is still the lifeblood of your nation to this day.

""I was not present at that point, but after a careful review of history I think India was better off even taken by the aliens than the British. ""

If you don't like the fact that the British ruled India then please stop speaking our language and give up cricket.

Hypocrite.

John,

I appreciate your comment.

First, I do not have any resentment against the British now. Nor do I want to “accuse” the present generation.

I am merely stating the history.

I am a little skeptical to accept that the British were trying to be the “Mother Theresa” in the colonial period.

Even “Mother Teresa” had an agenda.

So did the British.

Whatever the British did – good, bad or ugly – they did it for their own reason.

Do not speculate or justify with “if /then” or try rewrite the history by saying –

“if it wasn’t for the British then Indians woud still be ruled by bloodthirtsty Mughal tyrants with awful archaic and barbaric practices…”

No one knows what “could” happen if the British was not there.

Statistics show that in 1700 India’s share of global GDP was 22% and from there it went down to a mere 4.2% in 1900.

http://www.ccs.in/gdas/?page_id=70

If the “truth” bothers you so much then you should stop reading anything other than your daily diary.

Thank you.

Mr. Cornell,

I will gladly give up using the English language as soon as the UK gives up using the Indian numerical system which includes the binary system - so stop using the Internet too. That's a start.

I shall also gladly give up following cricket the moment you stop serving chicken tikka and stick to Fish n' Chips in the UK.

These are results of cultural diffusion and have nothing to do with the Brits wanting to do anything good.

As far as the Railways are concerned, they were built to facilitate the transport of goods to feed the industrial revolution in UK. The UK built railways in Africa too, however Africa is as divided as ever - in fact, within African nations there are loads of civil wars. The Railways can hardly be described as a unifying force.

As far as the "Rape of Nanking" is concerned, I am aware of Japanese atrocities in China as well as Korea. That does not mean they were going to replicate that in India, given the way they treated Bose and the INA. Indian troops who remained loyal to the Allies and were Japanese POWs, were not mistreated as they themselves claim when they were liberated by Aussie troops.

Churchill (voted the Greatest Brit of all time) famously said about the women in the Middle East that their women are far more worthless than their cattle and that he would not blink an eyelid before using chemical weapons against Kurds.

As far as being part of the Commonwealth is concerned, the UK is certainly not the head - the presidency keeps rotating. Nehru stated that India would join the Commonwealth only if the moniker was changed from "British Commonwealth of Nations" to merely "Commonwealth of Nations" and that is precisely what happened.

And wasn't it Chamberlain - the great British Prime Minister who handed Czechoslovakia to the Germans on a platter? Who made the Germans sign the ridiculous Treaty of Versailles which gave birth to a tyrant like Hitler? Didn't the UK ally itself with the Soviet Union despite Stalin carving up Poland between himself and Hitler?

Israel and Germany have cordial relations today and if you go to Tel Aviv you shall see a lot of VWs - Hitler's peoples car. That does not mean that they have either forgiven or forgotten the atrocities of the past. Similar is the case with the UK. We might be friends, but no one is going to bury the past for the sake of this friendship.

The Belgians killed a lot of people in the Congo too. The track record of Aussies (who are basically Brits) is abysmal with regard to Aboriginals. They were discriminated against right until the 1970s. See the movie "Rabbit-Proof Fence" if you get the chance.

As far as being tyrannical is concerned, it was the Brits who transplanted thousands of Indians to places like Fiji and Surinam where they happen to be in the majority today. This was done to circumvent the slave laws - though the state of these Indians wasn't much better than slaves.

I do not know if the UK curriculum teaches you that the British were a force of good in their colonial days. That is absurd. Whenever I go to the UK, I don't usually find much hint of racism. It is a fine country TODAY and is quite multi-cultural. That certainly does not mean they can wash their hands off their bloody past.

John,

The "idiotic/insulting/ignorant comment" came from a fellow British, I repeated it.

http://web.uknet.com/blog/michael/2007/03/

JNS - thanks!

Kathakali

Do you have similar stuff about Kalapani?

Hi JNS,

Sorry to reply late!

You mean details on "Kalapani"?

The relatively similar version of Abu Ghraib?

I don't think there are many evidence - but will figure it out.

Hello everyone, I'm a Brit and I have been reading this thread with mixed feelings.

First off, despite being a teen I have always had great shame for my country's imperial past, I think my extreme shame of my country could actually be patriotism for it; disappointment, sadness and anger it couldn't be better or more peaceful.

However, my gripe is one which is yet to be addressed. There was a forgotten victim by the British Empire, and that was the British people themselves. In retrospect, its easy to say the British people prospered under the empire, which isn't actually true for everyone.

In port towns, it was a common occurence for poor people to be kidnapped and forced to serve aboard vessels against their will. Many who lived a rural existence were forced through various means away from their land due to the industrial revolution, and others lived in atrocious conditions even in places like London. These people, were the ancestors of many of the British today who didn't immigrate to the country after WW2, never once prospering from the empire but yet are the most blamed for it. One half of my family lived in a slum in the East End of London right up to WW2, the other came from all manner of countries, many being countries oppressed by the empire. It was simply a case where the rich and those who perpetrated these acts being the only ones to truly get the spoils of wealth, but not completely the spoils of the terrible legacy which they deserved.

On a different note, I am fully in support of compensation for the slave trade, but as I said before it should only be the banks and businesses who profitted from the barbaric trade who should pay, not the general public who once again bear the brunt of the blame. The companies can afford them, the people cannot, and it would only serve to drive people further apart.

I am forever apologising in my heart for what my country did, even if most of my fellow countrymen do not. Every single person on this planet is the legacy of a war or a misdeed, where one part of their ancestry is the part of the victim, but equally another part are of an aggressor. So I have trouble feeling for people of another country, in particular the USA who have much of a criminal past as we have but yet turn a blind eye to their 'gift to the world' in their condemnation of ours. Be mindful, whilst wars split us apart and divide us, we are all ultimately united in being the children of a horrible human history.

Thanks for your message, Chris, and welcome to Urban Semiotic.

Katha is currently preparing for a longterm trip to India and so she does not have regular access to the internet right now. I'm certain that when she has time she will address your thoughts accordingly.

Hi Chris,

I really appreciate your fine, thoughtful and touching comment.

I am sorry for replying late - I am a bit busy with travelling.

First let me clear something - I have no animocity towards the country now.

At the same time I do not support the idea of forgetting the crude past or glorifying it.

You do not have to be apologetic for your predecessors but I truly commend you for accepting their actions.

That's how friendship starts - with honesty!

You guys are gonna love this one too

http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,2155324,00.html

British military scientists sent hundreds of Indian soldiers into gas chambers to test mustard gas during more than a decade of experiments that began before World War II, a media report said.

British military did not check up on the Indian soldiers after the experiments to see if they developed any illnesses.

It is now recognised that mustard gas can cause cancer and other diseases, The Guardian reported on Saturday.

Many suffered severe burns on their skin, including their genitals, leaving them in pain for days and even weeks.

Some had to be treated in hospital.

The experiments began in the early 1930s and lasted more than 10 years at a military site in Rawalpindi, now in Pakistan, the paper reported, citing newly discovered National Archive documents.

The Indian troops were serving under the command of the British military at a time when undivided India was under colonial rule.

"Severely burned patients are often very miserable and depressed and in considerable discomfort, which must be experienced to be properly realised," it said.

The experiments in Rawalpindi were part of a much larger programme intended to test the effects of chemical weapons on humans, the paper reported.

The UK Ministry of Defence could not could not say whether the Indian soldiers were volunteers in the experiments.

It said: "The studies undertaken at the Chemical Defence Research Establishment in India included defensive research, weapons research and physiological research. These studies supported those conducted in simulated conditions in the UK in a different environment."

Hello I just found this blog. I am living in the United States as a first generational immigrant. The biggest concern of mine with Western culture is its influence upon the world through the internet. The internet is the most powerful tool ever created by man. It is much stronger than television or even the wheel. The reason is because it allows instantaneous data transmission to occur.

In America, things are very bad in particular regarding feminism. I have been around American guys much of my life. They are quite useless and only think about carnal pleasures all the time, it seems. However, American women are even worse! They have absolutely no respect for men and have no dedication to marriage. The marriage system in America is a chaotic joke. They don't know the meaning of commitment in their marriages.

If Indian culture is to survive, it is very important to teach women the proper ways of marriage. It is very important to teach Indian women and Indian daughters the place of the house they occupy. It has become so bad because of the internet that it is now necessary to say these things, which were once obvious and taught to children by parents.

Any thoughts on this? Men and women input is welcome.

Not for the first time, this comparison of the British colonialists and Nazis amuses me.

[URL removed by David W. Boles.]

I removed the URL, Shefaly. It's sort of bad form to irregularly pop into a blog and post URLs pointing people to other blogs unless you're an everyday regular. It comes across as Spamming.

David: Thanks for your note.

I do read your blog regularly and comment often too. But of course, it is your blog and you set the ground rules, so if you wish to remove the URL, that is fine by me.

I had cited the link as it is a similar piece of writing by Nita, who is a widely read commentator on issues relating to India. The post also predated Katha's post. It was not intended as "spam". However since it is your blog, you are free to ascribe intent to my comment.

Thanks for making me feel very welcome!

Hi David. Shefaly has a left a link of this post on my post too, so it was sort of equalized! :) And the subject is the same so it was a natural reaction on her part.

Shefaly --

Your comment on Katha's article isn't quite clear to me in intention or exposition -- except to set up the link you then provided as, I guess, the answer to your own "amusement?"

If the other author had come here to comment on Katha's article and then provided the link as further exposition, it might be a different story.

That process we are objecting to is called "Blog Pimping" where someone goes on another blog to "pimp" another blog by posting a brief comment and a link. It's bad form.

I'm not sure what you're implying when you say "The post also predated Katha's post." What's your point?