Absolutely! While Hitler& Stalin has to be criticized heavily for their attitudes towards Untermenschen, they cannot be solely blamed for 9+ and 5+ million deaths respectively directly as a consequence of their orders. It was a culmination of n number of major factors.
Apparently in spite of this "huge loss of Burmese rice", as the famine got worse, 70,000 tons of rice were exported from India between January and July, 1943.
Famine not frm drought (which was in early-1940) as rainfall was above average in late-1943, considered to be the peak of the famine. The army+police systematically destroyed crops and grain stores of peasants deemed rebellious in the 1942 movement.
Secular, non-Hindutvavadi authors like Sugata Bose or O'Grada pose that fraction of import dependence on overall grain production was small. The fraction of army stationed Calcutta+population (which thinned out fleeing bombing) wd be very small compared to the rural population.
Among "workers" and "elite+buddhijivis" only those directly connected to wartime services deemed "essential" wd be ensured supply: noting that open or black market price was wildly highly, making it equally difficult for "non-essential" ones.
Deliberate burning and destruction of native maritime infrastructure as part of British admin policy of "denial" to impending Japanese forces, forcible seizure and diversion of stocks from traders, continued export of rice, refusal to allow grain movement for relief.
The imperialist scoundrel Churchill is on record of being made aware of the situation (we know how well informed he was when he "misplaced" US supplies meant for Europe into the Burma campaign on Dickie birdie's whine on need to prepare against the "weak" Japanese army).
Churchill's on record response to the famine, and his keen involvement in the entire military mobilization for Burma "theatre" shows he was aware of what he had done - his words showed the scum scoundrel relished doing what he did (just as he did what his "boys" did in Ireland).
I guess the Churchill stuti is kind of driven by warm glow inside of seeing Churchill as having dealt the hated uppity Bongs a lesson (apparently those pesky challengers to Gandhian trusteeship never learned anyway).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Both US and UK media constructs and uses distinct geographical identity as "race" to either "other" or dissolve in a single block as per political or ideological needs. Here BBC forgets or absorbs Jamaica also in Asia because its as convenient as hiding Pakistan in "South Asia".
Rascality of media's language construction itself shows up in how they never ever use "British/French-American" or any of the western European as prefix to American, but "Irish/Italian/Hispanic/Asian" freely -implying the false narrative that somehow "west Europeans" are natives.
What is insidious in Harris's construction as "Asian-American" is that it is culturally too diverse to be meaningful as an identity, and ignoring Harris's own distance from the cultures of "Asia" and proximity to US -implying a "racial other" who needs an additional qualifier..
Ideas we don't like should be fought with ideas, words challenged with words, falsities with facts: banishing voices is an acknowledgment that our ideas, words, facts are weaker than our opponent's, and its the first step in a long journey towards eventual defeat.
physically silencing those one hates is typical of totalitarianism, and very characteristic of both Fascists and Communists. Both are totally intolerant of contrary voices, and seek at their earliest to physically silence them, showing how insecure they are in their own beliefs.
all this talk of "moderating content" becomes totally hypocritical - when the very definition of "hate" is totally selective and arbitrary, a matter of arbitrary labeling without justification of the selectivity or honestly acknowledging the underlying preference ordering.
Parliament clearings in history hv only succeeded with military backing - frm Cromwell, to Napoleon to Lenin. Some of them profoundly strengthening the country in the long run, long after the cleaners themselves wr cleaned. Not sure why US one was attempted without preparation.
if antifa/BLM were all spontaneous and had no investment/careful prep because they were massive eruptions of grievances - then the "capitol" takeover has to be spontaneous too : there can't be partisan preference on logic. And its immaturity shows all the more it was unplanned.
The lib/dem (I dont see them as "Left" - they are just the non-"right" faction of the same wealthy, networked elite, often only playacting as socialists while sitting over or having given right to tap into massive wealth) wont get far on the economy, on "race", on pandemic.
Indian academic history construction has actually been a very European academic history construction -sharing a common drive to focus on and coopt those parts of non-European history that can be stretched to fit European political, religious goals. All that doesnt fit is trashed.
European history making is obsessed with ancient Egypt for example, but it obsesses more on Amenhotep IV because they hope to put him in an essentially medieval post-Roman imperial imperialist religious frame of continuity with future Abrahamic trajectory to Christianity.
Modern Europe absolutely excludes anything on the African continent as its own - it can at best be a "colony" of inferior subjects, but never one of its own: one of the reasons Europe never took root in colonies where it cdnt effectively exterminate the natives.
This is a blatant subversion of the sovereignty of people in being the final decision maker over its relationship with a state form the people are acknowledged to have created in the first place. The "basic structure" is a self-contradictory proposition.
Lets start with the implied theory of "original doctrine" - a la Abrahamic revelation. The claim of "basic structure" relies on the interpretation by a small group of individuals who are not answerable to the people - of an earlier document, to reconstruct an "orginal doctrine".
The very legitimacy claim for this "original doctrine" relies on legitimacy and primacy of whatever was done at a past historical point and rigid unchangeability of whatever supposedly was formulated at that past historical point.
Since a Christian can't accept a Gita offered, apparently Charles Wilkins, and the ruthless Warren Hastings under whose pressure& patronage Wilkins first translated into Emglish and published the Gita in 1785 for wider dissemination among the British - were not Christians.
Hastings saw Gita “of a sublimity of conception, reasoning& diction almost unequaled, &single exception among all the known religions of mankind of a theology accurately corresponding with that of the Christian dispensation& most powerfully illustrating its fundamental doctrines”
This bad not-a-Christian Hastings also thought Gita "will survive when the British domination in India shall have long ceased to exist". There wr other bad European not-Christians fascinated (in the positive sense) with the Gita enough to translate it directly from Sanskrit.