How else do you get the argument that Churchill was intentionally killing Indians because he "had a bad attitude" toward them and because he didn't risk enough merchant shipping during a world war to ship food there?
I am not sure if you are trolling or you are deliberately distorting the view. India was being ruled by Britain, Indians were paying more taxes (if somehow you think it was just tax and not outright looting) than any living or dead British has ever paid to the crown. Why shouldn't 'hungry Indians' expect to be fed? You do realize your bigotry is very visible when you refer to a famine by 'hungry people expect government to feed them', implying Indians were just lazy. Have you read the article I posted? Have you ever read any historical documents written _by the British themselves_ while the famine was going on?
"What is the cause of these famines... there seems to be no evidence that the rains fail worse now than they did a hundred years ago... rains have never failed over areas so extensive as to prevent the raising of enough food in the land to supply the needs of the entire population... Not because there was lack of food in the famine areas, brought by railways or otherwise within easy reach of all... the chief and fundamental cause has been and is... a poverty so severe and terrible that it keeps the majority of the entire population on the very verge of starvation even in years of greatest plenty, prevents them from laying up anything against times of extremity, and hence leaves them, when their crops fail, absolutely undone—with nothing between them and death...
And the people are growing poorer and poorer. The late Mr. William Digby, of London, long an Indian resident, in his recent book entitled "Prosperous" India, shows from official estimates and Parliamentary and Indian Blue Books, that, whereas the average daily income of the people of India in the year 1850 was estimated as four cents per person (a pittance on which one wonders that any human being can live), in 1882 it had fallen to three cents per person, and in 1900 actually to less than two cents per person.
What causes this awful and growing impoverishment of the Indian people? Said John Bright, "If a country be found possessing a most fertile soil, and capable of bearing every variety of production, and, notwithstanding, the people are in a state of extreme destitution and suffering, the chances are there is some fundamental error in the government of that country."
Seriously man, try to read the very next paragraph in the article.
I am not calling Indians lazy. I am challenging the assumption that "If it was theoretically possible that somehow X could have saved Y from a famine, no matter how unlikely, then X is responsible for the famine." It is beyond outrageous to argue that Britain intentionally killed millions of Indians based on that stupid theory. It is not I who am infantilizing Indians, but you sir.
I mean, the article was published in 1908 - three decades prior to WW2 and emergence of welfare states in europe - and 100 years ago from today. Yet it is sufficient to refute you! Do I really need to show the triviality in whatever you are trying to debate? Well done creating the strawman of welfare states. And stop referring to systematic famines where millions died by calling it 'hungry naked irresponsible people'. Britain actively and systematically refused to take responsibility of its 'subjects', knowing full well what it implied in human costs, for the only reason that it didn't consider Indians human enough. Churchill is the poster boy of this colonial thinking. Ref.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#Indian_indep...
'In response to an urgent request by the Secretary of State for India, Leo Amery, and Viceroy of India, Wavell, to release food stocks for India, Churchill responded with a telegram to Wavell asking, if food was so scarce, "why Gandhi hadn't died yet."'
