What about the Indian holocaust?

Yet colonial governments developed those local economies.

The fact remains that they haven't had a famine killing millions of people. Coming close is irrelevant: it hasn't happened, demonstrating the superiority of democracy and freedom.

As for "developing these local economies", that's hardly the case. India's share of GDP fell dramatically due to colonial rule, and remained stagnant. Incomes, too, remains stagnant, as did life expectancy. Significant improvements in all of these areas came from India gained freedom and democracy.

The statistics show the same picture wherever you look: colonialism is one of humanity's most disgusting inventions.

I'm a bit busy at the moment, I'll try to get in a full reply later, but there's no doubt that colonial governments would have used brutal violence to impose their own bad economic policies on other countries and oppress them. And, indeed, they did so on many occasions.

The important thing is that, since India gained independence, there have been no major famines. In fact, no major famine has ever taken place in a democracy.

Yes, It was a Genocide which have been even forgotten by India, Due to bad policies and Racial attitudes of British and specially Churchill, they treated famines in India as Indians were born to die in famine which was created by loot of Indian resources by British.

Only the 1943 Bengal Famine claimed somewhere between 2-4 Million lives.

Let me quote from a article.
Remembering India’s forgotten holocaust | Rakesh Krishnan Simha | Tehelka.com
The Bengal Famine of 1943-44 must rank as the greatest disaster in the subcontinent in the 20th century. Nearly 4 million Indians died because of an artificial famine created by the British government.

It took Adolf Hitler and his Nazi cohorts 12 years to round up and murder 6 million Jews, but their Teutonic cousins, the British, managed to kill almost 4 million Indians in just over a year, with Prime Minister Winston Churchill cheering from the sidelines.

Churchill was totally remorseless in diverting food to the British troops and Greek civilians. To him, “the starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis (was) less serious than sturdy Greeks”, a sentiment with which Secretary of State for India and Burma, Leopold Amery, concurred.

another article which estimates the death toll to be around 3 Million
Bengal Famine Of 1943 - A Man-Made Holocaust
when he (Churchill) first received a telegram from the British colonial authorities in New Delhi about the rising toll of famine deaths in Bengal, his reaction was simply that he regretted that nationalist leader Mahatma Gandhi was not one of the victims.Later at a War Cabinet meeting, Churchill blamed the Indians themselves for the famine, saying that they “breed like rabbits.”His attitude toward Indians was made crystal clear when he told Secretary of State for India Leopold Amery: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."

Wow they should teach this kind of stuff in school .

Genocide; "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group."

The actions of the British in India were appalling, and shameful. But the famines don't constitute genocide. They were made worse by British policy, certainly, but it wasn't deliberate.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I'm a bit busy at the moment, I'll try to get in a full reply later, but there's no doubt that colonial governments would have used brutal violence to impose their own bad economic policies on other countries and oppress them. And, indeed, they did so on many occasions.

The important thing is that, since India gained independence, there have been no major famines. In fact, no major famine has ever taken place in a democracy.

Just because we are not white our genocide is forgotten.

Thank you for talking sense.

A lot of people blame mao for genocide during the famine in China. Finally someone speak logic now.