I'd like to know the approximate number of Hindus that the English
killed during thier colonization of India. Also the total English that
were killed in thier wars since they frist colonized it . And for my
own amusement and an extra 20 buck for you if you answer this riddle.
Why do I want to know if the ratio is 1 to 7?

---

Request for Question Clarification by chromedome-ga on 07 Jun 2002 04:14 PDT

When you say, "Hindus," are you referring to ALL inhabitants of the
subcontinent generically, or this specific ethno-religious group in
particular?

(ie, should this include Sikhs, Muslims, Buddhists, etc)

---

Request for Question Clarification by websearcher-ga on 07 Jun 2002 07:30 PDT

It would also help to know whether by "killed in thier wars since they
frist colonized it" do you mean wars on the subcontinent or wars
worldwide?

Thanks.

---

Clarification of Question by barlyn-ga on 08 Jun 2002 03:58 PDT

Wow! Thank you for all the response.Websearcher got the closes on the
riddle. I won't be hard nose. The answer I was looking for to the
riddle is found in
Gen.4:15. "web" you'll have to tell how to get the money to you, took
me two hours to post this clarification.( it's a long story}.

Sa-ga: brilliant answer, I never would have thought of that. Sorry.

Huntman-ga: your guess to my riddle made my cerebral synapsis go off
and on. I tried to join the Menda society once. They not only said no
they sent me a 30 min tape with nothing on it but laughter. You
wouldn't think such smart people would be so cruel.HUH?

Political guru -ga: If your still in orbit: If grasshoppers could leap
to such assumption they would have beaten man into space by millions
of years. I haven't a clue as to were you are coming from except to
say that if I ever visit the dark side of the moon I'll try to look
you up and maybe we can talk it out.

Well I'll try to clarify my question. Wish me luck.
1. What is the approximate number of all the people in India who put
red dots on their foreheads ( I always thought that only Hindus did
such, maybe I'm wrong and there are other religions there as will)
that the British killed from the start of their colonization to the
end.
2. How many Britons were killed in all their wars ( world wide) during
that same time frame.

---

Request for Question Clarification by grimace-ga on 09 Jun 2002 09:36 PDT

Can you clarify what you mean by 'killed by the British'?

Does this include Indians who were, for instance, killed in wars while
fighting for the British? Does it include deaths from economic
factors, or famine? Does death caused by neglect count? Or are we just
talking about, say, Indians shot by British soldiers?

If you only mean the latter, you'll find the ratio stands at a lot
more than 7 to 1.

Hello and thank you for asking. 

Wow, what a question.  The answer is rather complicated, but from my
calculations the British to Hindu ratio is somewehre near 1 to 8.

All sources will be cited within the body of the answer.

To answer this question we will consider the length of British
colonization to be from 1757 to 1947 ( www.itihaas.com/modern ).

Though 1757 is not the first time that the British made contact with
India, the defeat at the Battle of Plassey in this year is considered
by most historians to be the beginning of the British colonization
process ( http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/freedom/the_story.htm )

This battle marked the beginning of "Modern India", the period which
continues to Independence in August 15, 1947.  These are the years in
which our death toll will be calculated.

We'll start with the British.

I was greatly helped by this little website (
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatz.htm#UK ). It often features
multiple tolls from different historians, so there will be two
different estimates, on high and one low.

DEAD BRITONS IN MILITARY CONFLICTS 1757-1947

1775-83 American Revolutionary War- 	31,000 dead
1803-15 Napoleonic Wars- 		311,806 dead
1853-56 Crimean War-  			22,182 dead
1879 Anglo-Zulu War-			1,430 dead
1899-1902 Boer War-			21000 or 28000 dead
1899-1901 Boxer Rebellion-		34 dead
1904 War with Tibet-			237 dead
1914-1918 World War I-  		715,000 (U.K. only)  or 908,371 (U.K. and
Empire) dead
1918-20 Russian Civil War-		350 dead
1939-1945 World War II-  		400,000 or 500,000 dead
1945-46 Dutch East Indies-		1000 dead
1945-48 Palestine-			223 or 347 dead

The total comes to 1,504,262 on the high end and 1,804,753 on the low
side.

This is a rough estimate.  Notably absent from this count are
conflicts like the French-Indian War (1755) and the Anglo-American War
(1812), so to err on the side of caution, we'll round up.
During the modern age of India, between 1757 and 1947, the British
empire lost some 1.5 to 2 million soldiers in conflicts worldwide.

Now during World War II, 2 million Indians died in Bengal because of
famine.
( http://lupus.northern.edu:90/hastingw/BREMPIRE.HTM ).

This was nothing new.  The history of India under the British is rife
with famine. In the 19th century, India suffered no less than 31
famines resulting in nearly 22 million deaths
( http://members.tripod.com/~INDIA_RESOURCE/colonial.html ).

Now comes the question, aAre the British responsible for those deaths?
 Can it be said that the British effectively "killed" these Indians?

In a word, Yes.  

During it's Modern period, India was under direct British rule.  As
the official government authority of India, the U.K. was responsible
for the Indian people.  It's not just as if the British were unable to
efectively relieve famine.  The British were the CAUSE of the famine. 
The British Colonical policy effectively turned India into one big
farm for the United Kingdom: most of the crops grown were exported to
England as raw materials for industry
( http://pittsford.monroe.edu/pittsfordmendon/socstud/jyager/BrIndia/sld012.htm
).  Most of the food grown in India during this period left the
country.

So our death toll is roughly 2 million Brits vs. at least 20 million
Indians.

This excludes Indian deaths from small pox and deaths from outright
massacre: between 1919-1938
23,000 Indian civilians were killed in uprisings against the British 
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat5.htm#Amritsar ).

81.3% of Indians are Hindu.  (
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ )
Assuming that the ratio remained relatively stable during the Modern
period you get roughly 16,250,000 Hindus.

If you calculate by military deaths, the ratio may be closer to your 7
to 1.  But as it stands right now, it's 1 to 8.


Hope this is sufficient!

--actualwolf


search strategy:
british colonisation of india
1757 british colonization india
timeline british wars
british kill india
effects of british colonization in india   


Links to sources:

"Chronology -- Modern India -- 1757 AD to 1947 AD"
www.itihaas.com/modern

"CIA World Factbook"
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook

"Death Tolls for the Man-made Megadeaths of the 20th Century"
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatx.htm

"History of the British Empire"
http://lupus.northern.edu:90/hastingw/BREMPIRE.HTM

"INDIA RESOURCE: History, Cultural Legacy and Current Affairs"
http://members.tripod.com/~INDIA_RESOURCE/

"The Story of India's Freedom Struggle"
http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/freedom/the_story.htm

I should have been more percise in my question. I wanted the number of
Hindus the British killed by violence only, during their colonization.
Plus the war dead of the British which actualwolf-ga did very well.
I'm impressed by all the info he gave me. Thank you.

Because you want to make some sort of comparison between European
history and contemporary Israeli behaviour:

“Even assault rounds as powerful as those fired by the Colt AR15 can
only ensure a one-shot kill if the target is hit in the head, a six by
six-inch target; or in the heart, a ten by ten inch target. Together
these areas form between one fifth and one seventh of the overall body
target area, so for every person killed there will be between five and
seven injured, expressed as "1 to 5" and "1 to 7".

From http://www.geocities.com/jewishterrorists/erfurt.html

No, no... Iv'e got it... beacuase you want to make some sort of
analogy with the current India/Pakistan conflict.

India has a population of 1,029,991,145.
Pakistan has a population of 144,616,639.
Ratio = 7.1 to 1.

Source: CIA FactBook.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

How about.....because there's some sort of religious/karmic law that
states that for every one person you kill, seven shall be killed of
your own?

My best guess, anyways. :-)

SA-GA - 

I didn't know referring to an antisemite propaganda site is an answer
or a comment. I wish those who spread hate will feel it back, just
like a boomerang. I do hope that barlyn-ga is not poisoned with such
hate.

Regarding the Karmic concept of "seven times stronger", some relevant
excerpts from the book "Fire in the Heart" by Kyracos C. Markides, are
quoted here:

Project X Newsletter, 17th issue - June the 19th, 1999 
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dungeon/3636/PXN17.htm

"It is the nature of these elementals [positive and negative thoughts
and feelings that we project into the world] to live within what
Daskalos and Kotas call the psychonetic dimensions of existence,
influencing people who vibrate on the same frequency as these
elementals in a subconscious way. They return to their source sooner
or later. Therefore whatever elemental we project, good or evil
returns back to us seven times stronger. This is the way Karma works."
 
"Karma is the law of cause and effect, and in that whatever you cause
an eventually effect will return unto you seven times stronger."

This is basically the same idea as The Golden Rule, "Do unto others as
you would have them do unto you", which has been expressed in many
cultures around the world (http://www.xrefer.com/entry/631025).
Contrary to popular belief, this phrase is not in the Bible:

Blue Letter Bible
"Sayings Not Found in Scripture"
http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/sayings.html

But it's still something we should all keep in mind,

huntsman

Hi barlyn-ga:

Well, I'm glad I was able to get the closest with my guess. :-) :-)

As for getting the "reward" to me, I can think of two possible ways
that won't break the Google Answers rules:

1. If you feel no one is going to answer the original question here,
you could let me "answer" it with the riddle answer and then I'd get
the original $20.

2. You could post another dummy question for $20 and title it "To be
answered by websearch-ga only". Explain in your question why I should
be the only one to answer it (i.e., I won this riddle) and I'd then
answer it and collect that $20.

Please leave a comment here in this question as to which option (or
another one you might have thought of) you'd like to take. (Or if you
have any questions about my ideas.)

Thanks!

websearcher-ga

Ms. websearch-ga. We'll try option number two. Thank you.

Thanks barlyn! 

I answered the new question. :-)

websearcher-ga