[Sherman Logan]

I’m the last person to defend the British record in India, especially in the early days.

However. In pre-modern societies population growth is a reasonable surrogate for peace and prosperity, as the main constraints on it are war, famine and disease.

It is just a fact that Indian population increased greatly under British rule From 190M in 1871 to 294M in 1901. That’s not a sign of a population suffering under tyranny and oppression.

[James C. Bennett]

Between 1960 and 2010, Afghanistan’s population multiplied triple-fold, and then some (3.5 times, actually).

Does that mean that the pathetic excuse of a country’s population did not suffer any oppression during the time?

[ravager]

Of course you are defending the British rule albeit in a veiled, subtle manner you are spewing old British propagandist garbage that has long been rejected even by credible British historian themselves.

“It is just a fact that Indian population increased greatly under British rule From 190M in 1871 to 294M in 1901. That’s not a sign of a population suffering under tyranny and oppression.”

Do you know how may man-made famines occurred during the said period? Did the average life span increase during the said period? Population increase means nothing really. Population actually increases faster in poorer countries because people try to bear more children to guard against the possibility that many of them may not survive till adulthood.

[ravager]

As bad as the Muslims may have bee the Mughal (Muslim) rule was actually a golden age for Bengal when compared to British rule. Bengal was the richest state in India under the Mughals and never ever experienced starvation.

British caused perenial famines wiped out a third of the population of Bengal.