- In the 18th century, India's economy was thriving and its industries were dominant in manufacturing, textiles, shipbuilding, and metalworking.
- The British took advantage of the unstable political situation in India and established dominance by bribing and using force.
- The British saw India as a source of endless wealth and systematically dismantled native industries, imposed tariffs, and restricted trade.
- This led to the deindustrialization of India and the country becoming a mere exporter of raw materials.
- Skilled workers were forced into agriculture, leading to low wages, famines, and mass poverty.
- The British imposed high taxes on Indian cultivators, leading to extreme financial hardship and land confiscation.
- India became Britain's largest source of revenue, but the exploitative nature of colonial rule was acknowledged by many British officials.

- British officials openly admitted to exploiting India for its resources
- The British saw India as foreign and created an extractive colony
- The Mughals, although flawed, preserved India's wealth and contributed to its economic power
- The British extracted an estimated $43 trillion from India, causing a loss for the country
- The railways were an inefficient and exploitative investment by the British
- The railways facilitated the export of agricultural products, contributing to famines and 35 million preventable deaths
- The British government had no interest in helping famine-affected peasants and even tried to stop aid efforts
- Independent India has been better at providing for its people, with no large-scale famines since British rule ended.

Over 190 years of colonial rule, the British collapsed India's institutions and economy, and destroyed the equivalent of $45 TRILLION. This is the shocking story of how the British -- through the East India Company first, then the Crown -- actually accomplished such a horrible feat.

Special thanks to Shashi Tharoor for his book, "Inglorious Empire," which inspired this video.

In the year 1700, India's share in the world's economy was an asounding 27%!

250 years later, India's share had dropped to less than 3% and its people were left impoverished.

Strap in, adventurers, we're about to dive into a dark and messy history.

In 1707 CE, the death of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb sends the empire into a decades-long spiral.

In his wake, an endless parade of weak princelings force themselves upon the peacock throne.

With the Mughal Empire teetering on the brink of collapse, regional powers jostle for supremacy, land grabs and title claims, infighting and betrayal.

The situation is so precarious that, in 1739, Persian Emperor Nader Shah invades North India and sacks Delhi.

During this period of disorder, the British sensed opportunity.

Leveraging their unique advantages as a foreign power, they bribed and blasted their way into a dominant position in the subcontinent.

India was no stranger to dealing with foreign aggression, but the British were not like those who had come before.

They were not like Nadir Shah, who looted and simply left.

Nor were they like the Huns, who, while shedding Gupta blood, became Indian themselves.

Yes, the British were different, for they saw India as an inexhaustible gold mine whose resources were to be forever extracted.

By the time India won its independence in 1947, its native institutions had been demolished, its economy de-industrialized, its trade networks severed, and its people more deeply divided by caste and creed.

In just 200 years of colonial rule, the India that once inspired the world was unmade.

She has been drained of all the wealth she once possessed, and her energies have been cramped by a sordid system of misrule.

The deliberate bleeding of India by the British was so extreme that famed American scholar Will Durant referred to it as the greatest crime in all of history.

So let's pull back the curtain and see what India was like before colonialism.

Sunderland wrote about the India that the British found when they arrived.

India was a far greater industrial and manufacturing nation than any in Europe or Asia.

Her textile goods were famous all over the civilized world.

So was her exquisite jewelry and her precious stones.

So was her pottery, her porcelains and ceramics, so were her fine works in metal, iron, steel, silver, and gold.

She had great architecture, equal in beauty to any in the world.

She had great merchants, businessmen, bankers, and financiers.

She was not only a great shipbuilding nation, but had commerce and trade which extended to all civilized countries.

That may seem like heavy-handed praise, but the record does show that pre-colonial India was a dominant manufacturing economy.

Let's take a closer look at the textile, shipbuilding, and metalworking industries.

India was a textile superpower for most of its long history.

There were many textile centers in the subcontinent.

Coastal Andhra was a block printing hub, for example, while Gujarat and Bengal were known for their high-end woven products.

In fact, India enjoyed a mind-blowing 25% share of the global textile trade by the mid-18th century.

This thriving textile trade had knock-on effects for the entire economy.

For example, The popularity of Indian textiles led to the creation of stable international distribution networks.

By piggybacking on these networks, other Indian artisans could sell their goods worldwide at a reduced cost.

As a result, many different industries flourished alongside the Indian textile industry.

We know that international trade was conducted primarily along maritime routes, and so the Indian shipbuilding industry had developed into a behemoth too.

A significant number of Indian ports were engaged in the shipbuilding industry – Dhaka, Maslapatnam, Surat, Calicut, Kualon, and many, many others.

Entire rural communities were involved in the production and processing of materials used to construct ships.

Consider the Bengali merchant fleet in the early 17th century.

The fleet consisted of nearly 5,000 ships, each capable of carrying up to 500 tons of goods.

These ships were constructed in Bengali ports, by native artisans who had the skills to craft elaborate wood, iron, and brass fittings.

According to 1 British maritime observer, Indian vessels combine elegance and utility, and are models of fine workmanship.

Merchant contracts indicate that Bengali ships were much more durable than English ships.

Bengali ships had an average lifespan exceeding 20 years, while English ships were not known to last more than 12.

India was a long-time pioneer in the global steel industry.

As early as the 6th century CE, crucible formed steel, which came to be known as woots or damascus steel in the west, was being produced for export by Indian blacksmiths, particularly along the Malabar coast and in the Deccan.

Arab and European officers regularly imported blades from India.

While these blades were purchased as wartime implements, they were so robust and beautifully crafted that they also served as a mark of high status in times of peace.

Though we've barely scratched the surface, it should already be clear that India was a manufacturing juggernaut, a thriving exporter of high quality goods to markets throughout the world.

How did the British manage to unmake all of that?

The fundamental principle of the British has been to make the whole Indian nation subservient to the interests and benefits of themselves.

And so, once the British took power, they changed the entire dynamic of the Indian economy to suit their own interests.

To start, they established a legal monopoly over Indian textile goods and cut off the export market, which immediately disrupted longstanding trade links.

Having now made themselves the exclusive buyers of Indian textiles, the British then changed the way that they paid for those goods.

Instead of using foreign currency, they paid using the tax revenues extracted from India.

The Indian economy stagnated and prices collapsed.

Skilled artisans, who once fueled the vibrant Indian economic engine, were now significantly poorer and more restricted than ever before.

Soon enough, British manufacturers lobbied their government to completely eliminate the competition from the Indian textile industry.

See, despite the restrictions imposed on Indian industry, British manufacturers were still finding it difficult to compete with Indian products.

Company soldiers were sent to smash Indian looms.

According to several different accounts, they even went around breaking the thumbs of weavers so that they could no longer ply their trade.

To ensure that the Indian textile industry could not recover, adapt, or innovate itself back into relevancy, the British imposed an absurdly harsh 80% tariff.

This had an immediate catch-22 trap effect.

Exporting goods from India to the UK was now economically unviable.

But remember, Indians were restricted from selling to anyone else.

Similar restrictions were imposed on nearly every branch of manufacturing in India.

India was reduced to being a mere exporter of raw materials, like cotton and metal ore, so that the British could sell finished products back to Indians at a premium.

We conquered India as an outlet for the goods of Britain.

I'm not such a hypocrite to say that we hold India for the Indians.

The colonial deindustrialization process was so complete that by 1947, only 0.7% of India was employed in any form of manufacturing.

But skilled workers had to go somewhere, do something.

The British monopoly on industrial production drove Indian artisans, merchants, builders, and others into agriculture en masse.

Charles Hall, India's Population has been thrown back upon the soil because Britain's discriminating duties have ruined every branch of native manufacture.

Rural wages cratered to historical lows, and in fact, the land itself could not sustain the influx of newly disenfranchised workers.

Poor seasonal harvests and droughts gave way to catastrophic famines and mass poverty.

With most Indians now converted into peasant cultivators, the British sought to exploit them further.

They began to tax cultivators as the primary revenue source for the administration.

Taxes were extreme, pegged at 50-80% of gross income and calculated before the harvest.

Indian cultivators often owed more in taxes than they earned as income.

The British knew How harsh this really was.

They openly conceded that they were imposing the highest tax rates in the world, and that taxes were more than 3 times higher than they had ever been under Indian rulers.

To add insult to injury, the British even bragged about it in Parliament.

The Indians have been taxed to the utmost limit.

Every province has been made a field for higher exaction, and it has always been our boast how greatly we have raised the revenue above that which the native rulers were able to extort.

Colonial taxes were so burdensome that Two-thirds of the population in directly ruled British areas fled to the hinterlands where native Indian lords could at least minimally protect them from financial depredation.

The millions who stayed behind could hardly afford to pay taxes, and the situation was worsened by the fact that the British did not negotiate tax payments.

Horrors were perpetrated under the guise of sinless mathematical neutrality.

Tax defaulters were confined in cages and exposed to the burning sun.

Fathers sold their children to meet the rising rates.

Vulnerable Peasants were physically tortured to pay up, and when they didn't have the means to pay, the British confiscated their farmland for themselves.

Tens of millions of landless peasants were created for the first time in Indian history.

By the end of the 19th century, India was Britain's largest source of revenue by far, its largest purchaser of exports, and a source of highly paid employment for both British civil servants and soldiers, and they were all paid for by Indian taxes.

Many British officials freely acknowledged the exploitative nature of the colonial enterprise.

In fact, a Prime Minister of the UK, the Marquess of Salisbury, himself admitted, As India is to be bled of money, the lancet should be directed to those parts where the blood is congested.

And just like that, India and its people were bled dry.

The fundamental issue of British overlordship was the fact that the British had no intention to become 1 with the land or to rule it as their own.

The British saw India as innately and eternally foreign, and this justified their creation and maintenance of what scholars have referred to as an extractive colony.

For comparison's sake, consider the Turkic peoples who invaded India and eventually formed the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire.

They imposed unequal taxes, engaged in religious discrimination, plundered local treasuries, visited great violence upon their enemies, and exhibited a Persianized racial arrogance.

But 1 thing is clear, India's wealth was preserved at a foundational level.

After Nearly 2 centuries of Mughal rule, India was still a dominant economic power, responsible for 27% of global trade.

See, the Mughals had a foreign place of origin, Fergana, but they did not repatriate India's resources to their original homeland.

India may not have been for Ghana, but it had become their new home and so their loyalties and energies were owed solely to India.

Meanwhile, the British ruled India as disconnected tyrants.

The bulk of the revenue from India wasn't reinvested in India.

It was extracted and repatriated to their distant foggy homeland.

Modern economists have estimated that the total amount of wealth that the British extracted from India is in the ballpark of 43 trillion dollars.

When taxes are not spent in the country from which they are raised, they constitute an absolute loss and extinction of the whole amount withdrawn from the taxed country.

The money might as well be thrown into the sea.

Such is the nature of the tribute we have so long exacted from India." Apologists for colonial rule often point to the railways as some sort of extravagant counter to the argument of extraction and divestment.

But As modern scholars have pointed out, the railways serve as evidence for how exploitative and inefficient British investment in India really was.

First, there's the bold assumption that Indians would not have built railways, like the Japanese or others, either by importing the technology or by developing their own.

India had been far too advanced and cutting edge a civilization to not keep up had it been given the opportunity to do so.

When the British came to India, the country was the leader of Asiatic civilization.

Now In 50 years, Japan has revolutionized her history with the aid of modern arts of progress, and India, burdened by 150 years of English rule, is condemned to tutelage.

Initially, the Indian railways were positioned as a grand investment scheme for British shareholders.

The government guaranteed substantial returns of at least 5% per year.

And when the revenues were not enough to pay out these returns, Indian taxpayers covered all the losses.

Because of these taxpayer-backed guarantees, construction of the railways was extremely inefficient.

Every mile of Indian rail cost 18,000 pounds to construct, as compared to 2,000 pounds for the same mile built in the United States.

All the elements of railway construction—steel, wagons, gears, engines, and more—were produced by British manufacturers.

Indians weren't even given an opportunity to produce their own manufactured alternatives because the British government imposed restrictions that prevented Indians from competing.

Worse still, the essential purpose of the railways was to assist the British enterprise in the exploitation of the natural resources of India.

In fact, the railways made it possible for the British to export enormous amounts of grain and other agricultural products which sparked and exacerbated famines.

Over the course of British rule in India, an estimated 35 million preventable deaths were caused by famines.

That's millions more than those killed under Stalin or Mao.

And that's 5 times more than the Holocaust.

The British were directly responsible for this.

They mass exported Indian foodstuffs to Britain and other countries in Europe, even during drought periods.

Food in India became too expensive for peasants to afford.

Charles Hall, India starves so that its annual tax revenue to England may not be diminished by a dollar.

There is plenty of grain in India, the trouble is that the people have been ground down till they are too poor to buy it.

The British had no interest in provisioning for Indian lives.

Famine non-intervention was official government policy.

How ironic, given that heavy-handed British intervention and market manipulation is what sparked the famines in the first place.

And when good people, Indians and foreigners, worked together to help famine-affected peasants, the British government made efforts to stop them.

They were furious that the government's own failures were being highlighted.

Listen to this British officer in his own words.

Scores of corpses were tumbled into old wells because the deaths were too numerous for the relatives to perform funeral rites.

Mothers sold their children for a single meal.

Husbands flung their wives into ponds to escape the torment of seeing them perish from hunger.

But amid these scenes of death, the British government in India was unmoved.

Do not acknowledge that civilians are dying of hunger.

And if you think that Indians would have done a worse job, consider this.

There hasn't been a single large-scale Indian famine in the 70-plus years since British rule ended.

Independent India has its flaws, but it has been overwhelmingly better at providing for the care, safety, and prosperity of its own people.


Speaker 0: In the year 1700, India's share in the world's economy was an asounding 27%! More than all of Europe combined! 250 years later, India's share had dropped to less than 3% and its people were left impoverished. What happened? Strap in, adventurers, we're about to dive into a dark and messy history.

Welcome to 18th century India. In 1707 CE, the death of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb sends the empire into a decades-long spiral. In his wake, an endless parade of weak princelings force themselves upon the peacock throne. With the Mughal Empire teetering on the brink of collapse, regional powers jostle for supremacy, land grabs and title claims, infighting and betrayal. India is vulnerable.

The situation is so precarious that, in 1739, Persian Emperor Nader Shah invades North India and sacks Delhi. During this period of disorder, the British sensed opportunity. Leveraging their unique advantages as a foreign power, they bribed and blasted their way into a dominant position in the subcontinent. India was no stranger to dealing with foreign aggression, but the British were not like those who had come before. They were not like Nadir Shah, who looted and simply left.

Nor were they like the Huns, who, while shedding Gupta blood, became Indian themselves. Yes, the British were different, for they saw India as an inexhaustible gold mine whose resources were to be forever extracted. By the time India won its independence in 1947, its native institutions had been demolished, its economy de-industrialized, its trade networks severed, and its people more deeply divided by caste and creed. In just 200 years of colonial rule, the India that once inspired the world was unmade. The halcyon days of India are over.

She has been drained of all the wealth she once possessed, and her energies have been cramped by a sordid system of misrule. The deliberate bleeding of India by the British was so extreme that famed American scholar Will Durant referred to it as the greatest crime in all of history. So let's pull back the curtain and see what India was like before colonialism. In the 19th century, the American J.T. Sunderland wrote about the India that the British found when they arrived.

India was a far greater industrial and manufacturing nation than any in Europe or Asia. Her textile goods were famous all over the civilized world. So was her exquisite jewelry and her precious stones. So was her pottery, her porcelains and ceramics, so were her fine works in metal, iron, steel, silver, and gold. She had great architecture, equal in beauty to any in the world.

She had great merchants, businessmen, bankers, and financiers. She was not only a great shipbuilding nation, but had commerce and trade which extended to all civilized countries. That may seem like heavy-handed praise, but the record does show that pre-colonial India was a dominant manufacturing economy. Let's take a closer look at the textile, shipbuilding, and metalworking industries. India was a textile superpower for most of its long history.

There were many textile centers in the subcontinent. Coastal Andhra was a block printing hub, for example, while Gujarat and Bengal were known for their high-end woven products. There was global demand for these items. In fact, India enjoyed a mind-blowing 25% share of the global textile trade by the mid-18th century. This thriving textile trade had knock-on effects for the entire economy.

For example, The popularity of Indian textiles led to the creation of stable international distribution networks. By piggybacking on these networks, other Indian artisans could sell their goods worldwide at a reduced cost. As a result, many different industries flourished alongside the Indian textile industry. We know that international trade was conducted primarily along maritime routes, and so the Indian shipbuilding industry had developed into a behemoth too. A significant number of Indian ports were engaged in the shipbuilding industry – Dhaka, Maslapatnam, Surat, Calicut, Kualon, and many, many others.

Entire rural communities were involved in the production and processing of materials used to construct ships. Quality was paramount. Consider the Bengali merchant fleet in the early 17th century. The fleet consisted of nearly 5,000 ships, each capable of carrying up to 500 tons of goods. These ships were constructed in Bengali ports, by native artisans who had the skills to craft elaborate wood, iron, and brass fittings.

According to 1 British maritime observer, Indian vessels combine elegance and utility, and are models of fine workmanship. Merchant contracts indicate that Bengali ships were much more durable than English ships. Bengali ships had an average lifespan exceeding 20 years, while English ships were not known to last more than 12. Quite a difference. India was a long-time pioneer in the global steel industry.

As early as the 6th century CE, crucible formed steel, which came to be known as woots or damascus steel in the west, was being produced for export by Indian blacksmiths, particularly along the Malabar coast and in the Deccan. Arab and European officers regularly imported blades from India. While these blades were purchased as wartime implements, they were so robust and beautifully crafted that they also served as a mark of high status in times of peace. Though we've barely scratched the surface, it should already be clear that India was a manufacturing juggernaut, a thriving exporter of high quality goods to markets throughout the world. How did the British manage to unmake all of that?

The fundamental principle of the British has been to make the whole Indian nation subservient to the interests and benefits of themselves. And so, once the British took power, they changed the entire dynamic of the Indian economy to suit their own interests. The first step? Dismantling all native industry. To start, they established a legal monopoly over Indian textile goods and cut off the export market, which immediately disrupted longstanding trade links.

Having now made themselves the exclusive buyers of Indian textiles, the British then changed the way that they paid for those goods. Instead of using foreign currency, they paid using the tax revenues extracted from India. The Indian economy stagnated and prices collapsed. Skilled artisans, who once fueled the vibrant Indian economic engine, were now significantly poorer and more restricted than ever before. And it didn't stop there.

Soon enough, British manufacturers lobbied their government to completely eliminate the competition from the Indian textile industry. See, despite the restrictions imposed on Indian industry, British manufacturers were still finding it difficult to compete with Indian products. Company soldiers were sent to smash Indian looms. According to several different accounts, they even went around breaking the thumbs of weavers so that they could no longer ply their trade. But that's not all.

To ensure that the Indian textile industry could not recover, adapt, or innovate itself back into relevancy, the British imposed an absurdly harsh 80% tariff. This had an immediate catch-22 trap effect. Exporting goods from India to the UK was now economically unviable. But remember, Indians were restricted from selling to anyone else. Similar restrictions were imposed on nearly every branch of manufacturing in India.

India was reduced to being a mere exporter of raw materials, like cotton and metal ore, so that the British could sell finished products back to Indians at a premium. We conquered India as an outlet for the goods of Britain. I'm not such a hypocrite to say that we hold India for the Indians. The colonial deindustrialization process was so complete that by 1947, only 0.7% of India was employed in any form of manufacturing. But skilled workers had to go somewhere, do something.

The British monopoly on industrial production drove Indian artisans, merchants, builders, and others into agriculture en masse. In the words of Dr. Charles Hall, India's Population has been thrown back upon the soil because Britain's discriminating duties have ruined every branch of native manufacture. Rural wages cratered to historical lows, and in fact, the land itself could not sustain the influx of newly disenfranchised workers. Poor seasonal harvests and droughts gave way to catastrophic famines and mass poverty.

With most Indians now converted into peasant cultivators, the British sought to exploit them further. They began to tax cultivators as the primary revenue source for the administration. Taxes were extreme, pegged at 50-80% of gross income and calculated before the harvest. The result? Indian cultivators often owed more in taxes than they earned as income.

The British knew How harsh this really was. They openly conceded that they were imposing the highest tax rates in the world, and that taxes were more than 3 times higher than they had ever been under Indian rulers. To add insult to injury, the British even bragged about it in Parliament. The Indians have been taxed to the utmost limit. Every province has been made a field for higher exaction, and it has always been our boast how greatly we have raised the revenue above that which the native rulers were able to extort.

Colonial taxes were so burdensome that Two-thirds of the population in directly ruled British areas fled to the hinterlands where native Indian lords could at least minimally protect them from financial depredation. The millions who stayed behind could hardly afford to pay taxes, and the situation was worsened by the fact that the British did not negotiate tax payments. Horrors were perpetrated under the guise of sinless mathematical neutrality. Tax defaulters were confined in cages and exposed to the burning sun. Fathers sold their children to meet the rising rates.

Vulnerable Peasants were physically tortured to pay up, and when they didn't have the means to pay, the British confiscated their farmland for themselves. Tens of millions of landless peasants were created for the first time in Indian history. By the end of the 19th century, India was Britain's largest source of revenue by far, its largest purchaser of exports, and a source of highly paid employment for both British civil servants and soldiers, and they were all paid for by Indian taxes. Many British officials freely acknowledged the exploitative nature of the colonial enterprise. In fact, a Prime Minister of the UK, the Marquess of Salisbury, himself admitted, As India is to be bled of money, the lancet should be directed to those parts where the blood is congested.

And just like that, India and its people were bled dry. The fundamental issue of British overlordship was the fact that the British had no intention to become 1 with the land or to rule it as their own. The British saw India as innately and eternally foreign, and this justified their creation and maintenance of what scholars have referred to as an extractive colony. For comparison's sake, consider the Turkic peoples who invaded India and eventually formed the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire. Look, the Mughals were no heroes.

They imposed unequal taxes, engaged in religious discrimination, plundered local treasuries, visited great violence upon their enemies, and exhibited a Persianized racial arrogance. But 1 thing is clear, India's wealth was preserved at a foundational level. After Nearly 2 centuries of Mughal rule, India was still a dominant economic power, responsible for 27% of global trade. There's a simple reason for that. See, the Mughals had a foreign place of origin, Fergana, but they did not repatriate India's resources to their original homeland.

India may not have been for Ghana, but it had become their new home and so their loyalties and energies were owed solely to India. Meanwhile, the British ruled India as disconnected tyrants. The bulk of the revenue from India wasn't reinvested in India. No, no, no. It was extracted and repatriated to their distant foggy homeland.

How much? Modern economists have estimated that the total amount of wealth that the British extracted from India is in the ballpark of 43 trillion dollars. Yes, 43 trillion dollars. When taxes are not spent in the country from which they are raised, they constitute an absolute loss and extinction of the whole amount withdrawn from the taxed country. The money might as well be thrown into the sea.

Such is the nature of the tribute we have so long exacted from India." Apologists for colonial rule often point to the railways as some sort of extravagant counter to the argument of extraction and divestment. But As modern scholars have pointed out, the railways serve as evidence for how exploitative and inefficient British investment in India really was. First, there's the bold assumption that Indians would not have built railways, like the Japanese or others, either by importing the technology or by developing their own. India had been far too advanced and cutting edge a civilization to not keep up had it been given the opportunity to do so. When the British came to India, the country was the leader of Asiatic civilization.

Japan was nowhere. Now In 50 years, Japan has revolutionized her history with the aid of modern arts of progress, and India, burdened by 150 years of English rule, is condemned to tutelage. But let's ignore that for now. Initially, the Indian railways were positioned as a grand investment scheme for British shareholders. The government guaranteed substantial returns of at least 5% per year.

And when the revenues were not enough to pay out these returns, Indian taxpayers covered all the losses. Because of these taxpayer-backed guarantees, construction of the railways was extremely inefficient. Here's a fun stat. Every mile of Indian rail cost 18,000 pounds to construct, as compared to 2,000 pounds for the same mile built in the United States. All the elements of railway construction—steel, wagons, gears, engines, and more—were produced by British manufacturers.

Indians weren't even given an opportunity to produce their own manufactured alternatives because the British government imposed restrictions that prevented Indians from competing. Worse still, the essential purpose of the railways was to assist the British enterprise in the exploitation of the natural resources of India. In fact, the railways made it possible for the British to export enormous amounts of grain and other agricultural products which sparked and exacerbated famines. Over the course of British rule in India, an estimated 35 million preventable deaths were caused by famines. That's millions more than those killed under Stalin or Mao.

And that's 5 times more than the Holocaust. The British were directly responsible for this. They mass exported Indian foodstuffs to Britain and other countries in Europe, even during drought periods. Food in India became too expensive for peasants to afford. According to Dr.

Charles Hall, India starves so that its annual tax revenue to England may not be diminished by a dollar. There is plenty of grain in India, the trouble is that the people have been ground down till they are too poor to buy it. The British had no interest in provisioning for Indian lives. Famine non-intervention was official government policy. How ironic, given that heavy-handed British intervention and market manipulation is what sparked the famines in the first place.

And when good people, Indians and foreigners, worked together to help famine-affected peasants, the British government made efforts to stop them. They were furious that the government's own failures were being highlighted. Don't believe me? Listen to this British officer in his own words. Scores of corpses were tumbled into old wells because the deaths were too numerous for the relatives to perform funeral rites.

Mothers sold their children for a single meal. Husbands flung their wives into ponds to escape the torment of seeing them perish from hunger. But amid these scenes of death, the British government in India was unmoved. Newspapers were persuaded into silence. Strict orders were given to civilians.

Do not acknowledge that civilians are dying of hunger. And if you think that Indians would have done a worse job, consider this. There hasn't been a single large-scale Indian famine in the 70-plus years since British rule ended. Not 1. Independent India has its flaws, but it has been overwhelmingly better at providing for the care, safety, and prosperity of its own people.

And now you know.

Why did the Indians hate British rule? Write three paragraphs, each with a different reason. Write the most important reason in 5he first paragraph along with explanation and impact. Write the next reason in the next paragraph with explanation. Write the last reason in the last paragraph with explanation. Make this a seven mark answer

See all Odd Compass transcripts on Youtube

The Unmaking of India: How the British Impoverished the World’s Richest Country