[cubancigar11]

Yes you are infantilizing Indians when you say 'since when is it a function of government to feed the hungry and clothe the naked', implying that Indians were hungary and naked before British came, or probably due to some reason that doesn't involve a direct role of British government, laying all the irresponsibility at door steps of famine stricken people. BULL-SH*T. And I am not going to copy-paste well articulated reasons here for you. Go read the next paragraph and preferabbly the whole article.

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."'