The British conquest of India, which spanned the late-18th and early-19th centuries, killing millions of people, and affecting the fate of hundreds of millions seems to be strangely absent.
They also seem to have forgotten those bloody Romans rocking up and duffing up us Britons in 55 and 54BC then in 43AD getting the job done. Then those blasted Saxons, Jutes and Angles wandering on in and doing the same to us Romano-Britons in about 400AD. Oh and vikings and that. Picts, Irish, Celts and stuff.
(lol) You'll never guess what. 1066. Fucking great bunch of neo-froggies, err Norsemen or something waft on in and duff up us Romano-British, Saxons, Angels, Welsh, Scots, Cornish, Old uncle Tom Cobbley and all (and all.)
I'm not sure which Britain actually invaded which variety of India because I don't think you can use such trite terms. The India of C18/19 is not the India of today and neither is Britain.
Today I personally identify as a Briton first and English second. Some of my forebears were German(ish) in C17. My surname is Gerdes: does that make me a German? How does that work out for my great uncle leaping out of a Dakota aircraft over war torn Arnhem. He's a Briton (Englishman) (a Saxon?), trying to liberate a part of the Netherlands - Dutch (Saxons?) from a bunch of Germans (Saxons?). Notice how close the English word Dutch is to Deutsche. I lived in West Germany as a British forces dependent for about 10 years. Those are years that I cherish.
I'm talking about history on a scale of about 30-70 years (we were in the Federal Republic of Germany in the 1970-80s) with direct personal attachment and you are alluding to something that happened ~300 years ago in a world that you may not have even been a part of.
History is history mate. You don't have to like it.
Yep, Britain in India is hopelessly complex. For most of the time they were there, the Brits (or, more precisely, the East India Company...power over which was nominally British but was actually responsible to no-one) were the balancing act in all the regional conflicts between the Marthas, Mughals, Bengals, the Portuguese, the French, etc.
It was only after the 1850s that power really consolidated, and that wasn't through war. Definitely, you had famines...but where do you the draw line or attribute agency? It is very tricky to say: this famine wouldn't have occurred otherwise (the only circumstance I have ever come across where this was true was Mao).
My main thesis is that you can't dive in with C21 ideals about something that happened 300 years ago! Its not just hopelessly complex, it's a different world.
Britain is not now the same Britain it was then. Back then Britain included Ireland in total, along with a shed load of extra bits, way bigger than these islands. It was a full on Empire where the map of the world had a lot of pink on it. A lot of pink.
Maybe he thinks that this would be many separate conflicts because of the different powers that partook and over different decades? Does seem to be a big deal.
It's not even mentioned as a footnote.