Talk:Bengal famine of 1943

Errors etc in the "The Churchill Project" article

• Did Churchill Exacerbate the Bengal Famine? (The Churchill Project at Hillsdale.edu)
• I am too exhausted by all this, and by the insular fake that is FAC (yes, it's all an oversized fake, Wikipedians... stop believing in FAC as legitimate.. no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny, and definitely no legitimate FAC)... too exhausted to ever, ever, ever look at another source again. I decline. I refuse. No sources. Ever.
• I also won't pursue this thread after starting it. I'm done with this.
• But this Hillsdale page is gonna keep popping up. It's a fairly skillfully-woven fig leaf thrown over actual events. So I'll start this thread to let others examine its contents.
  • A few errors jump out:

1. Check the chronology of the events listed very closely! That page has Churchill requesting wheat for India after the food crisis was abated.
2. The Hillsdale article likes to make the point that India as a whole had a surplus of grain. But there was not a famine across India as a whole. It was just Bengal and Orissa.
3. Suggesting that Churchill helped the crisis by appointing Wavell is deeply misleading. Wavell fought Churchill and the Cabinet. Wavell threatened to resign at one point. Wavell also had absolutely zero positive to say about Churchill. I don't recall the quotes... you can look them up.OneOffUserName (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Addressing whether or not it was a Genocide

After reading through the current version of this article, I felt very concerned that it did not give a fair and neutral depiction of the topic, insofar that it never addresses it as a genocide, even as a minority perspective. The most recent edit to attempt to address it as one was apparently reverted on the grounds of "insufficient evidence."

I understand that whether or not the British administration simply misgoverned the circumstance or knowingly starved the rural population is a matter of debate, but I think it is very important to the content of the article to provide, at least in some part, a depiction of the genocide narrative, as this is a common view. This would be analogous to & consistent with Wikipedia's coverage of the Holodomor, addressing the accusation of genocide readily in the introductory paragraphs of that article.

I'm bringing this to the talk page so as to garner consensus and to show my good faith towards resolving this problem appropriately. In the coming days I'll be providing some edits to better integrate the genocide perspective into the content of this article unless forced to do otherwise by consensus.

Thanks,

Altoids0 (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

When you describe it as a common view, do you mean common in popular literature and websites, or do you mean a common scholarly view? If you wish to build consensus, you'll need to say what sources you propose using. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

A genocide by whom and of whom? By the British (led by Churchill) of Indians? By the Raj of its constituents? By the Indian provincial government of Bengal (headed up by a Muslim) of its constituents? By the Japanese who had bombed Burmese rice to smithereens of Bengal's rice eaters? By the grain-hoarding merchants of Calcutta of their customers? By the Hindu absentee landlords of East Bengal of their Muslim tenant-farmers and landless laborers? Or, by the mostly Hindu, Indian men—who in a last-ditch bid to save the patriline and unconversant with the Birkenhead drill, had slinked away to the cities— of the abandoned women and children of rural Bengal? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this article for years. To me it seems there is an empirical, objective, acid test of determining the turning point (not necessarily the cause): Bengal under Linlithgow, and Bengal under Wavell. I think the real turning point is here: "Auriol Law-Smith's discussion of contributing causes of the famine also lays blame on the British Government of India, primarily emphasising Viceroy Linlithgow's lack of political will to 'infringe provincial autonomy' by using his authority to remove interprovincial barriers, which would have ensured the free movement of life-saving grain." Yes, all the factors Foweler&fowler mentioned above made the crisis much, much, much worse. [Although he/she forgot to mention the UK military's very, very significant negative impact.] Everyone and everything mentioned above had a hand in making it worse. But if Linlithgow had the political will to use his emergency powers (he still had such emergency powers, but I forget the name of the act that granted them) to say "What? People are starving? Send in grain from other provinces!!" then the outcome would have been different. Yes, Linlithgow's problem was huge and was significantly compounded by a basic lack of understanding of the problem (previous famines had always been caused by drought). But a lack of food is fixed by an influx of food, simple and plain. India as a whole already had enough to share with Bengal, as Wavell correctly perceived, and Wavell addressed the issue correctly. So on this view... the fact that this event fell during the intersection of two key events in global history 1) the transition period (broadly defined) between British and Indian rule (as noted even by those at the time), and 2) a huge freaking World War, is probably the crux of the problem. Linlithgow focused on the political setting rather than the simple facts of "need food, so get food, and damn the politics of it all". The good crop months later nearly eliminated the food crisis, but the food crisis could only have been a case (perhaps serious) of food distress in the absence of inter-provincial barriers. So there ya go. My two cents. Auriol Law-Smith hit the nail on the head... No way on earth I'll edit anything in the article tho. Too many POV warriors from both sides (tho the UK folks rule FAC, of course).OneOffUserName (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd ask the editors to consider the treatment of the Bengali Famine, and the questions raised above, juxtaposed against the treatment of Holodomor. Both tragedies resulted in comparable numbers of death (well within an order of magnitude) and lasting human impact. Both can be viewed as the result of a multitude of factors including global upheaval, failures of the prevailing economic system, the (arguably willful) indifference of political leaders, as well as natural factors. The page for Holodomor says the word genocide 100 times, while the page for the Bengal Famine doesn't mention the term once, let alone seriously address the entirely legitimate question. Yes this speaks more to the treatment of history in general (i.e. communism evil, capitalism good). The Bengal Famine is treated as an event of complexity, with that complexity used to obscure, bury, and entirely omit legitimate critique of a deeply immoral imperial system, built and maintained by xenophobic capitalists and imperialists. By contrast Holodomor is treated as an unambiguous genocidal act willfully acted on the Ukrainian people by the Soviet regime, with the complexities of the situations being backgrounded. I concede that it is difficult to treat these subjects with true subjectivity. I doubt that such a goal is even achievable. But this example is a pretty obvious indictment on the inherent biases of this community and this project as a whole. I am not a historian, amateur or otherwise, but I'm educated enough to know that the sources to present a case for genocide are aplenty, if the editors wish to treat them in anything close to the same manner as the sources for Holodomor or other genocides/tragedies are treated. I'd argue the statements of Churchill vis a vis Indians, juxtaposed to the statements of Stalin vis a vis Ukrainians speak for themselves. Additionally, I would like to note the word 'tragedy' only appears twice in this article as opposed to 11 times for Holodomor. The word "tragedy" is undoubtedly a subjective value judgement. Is this distinction indicative of a more dispassionate academic approach or is it an example an orientalist dehumanization of the victims of the Bengali Famine. 69.51.119.18 (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• You've raised many points. First, as a test of your thesis that this famine can be equated with Holodomor, I would suggest that you get a piece of paper and a pen. Draw a vertical line straight down the middle of the page. Label one side "UK actions (and inaction) in Bengal". On the other side write "Soviet actions (and inaction) in Holodomor". Be careful that the lists are very specific about the duration of each action, and the numbers of people affected. For example, (from my very poor memory... stop me if I'm wrong) yeah the UK seized some rice...only once... and not too much, IIRC. On the Soviet side, grain seizures and taxes were immensely greater. Then take a look at the list of "seven crucial policies" in Causes of the Holodomor. I won't copy/paste here, but the list includes deeply brutal instances of repression. There was also "liquidation of the kulaks as a class"... and "A [Soviet] campaign of political repression, including arrests, deportations, and executions of people proclaimed traitors engaged in sabotaging collectivism" I also see "Immediate cessation of delivery of goods, complete suspension of cooperative and state trade in the villages, and removal of all available goods from cooperative and state stores. Full prohibition of collective farm trade for both collective farms and collective farmers, and for private farmers. Cessation of any sort of credit and demand for early repayment of credit and other financial obligations."... And collectivism itself included things such as to "forcibly [deporting]" Ukrainian Kulaks who opposed its collectivization policies"... I haven't even mentioned other points; the list of atrocities goes on and on. And on. And on. I do not believe these famines can be treated as even vaguely or generally equivalent. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Original poster has put their finger on the issue: its one of recognition. The Holodomor is recognized by the Ukraine government there is no similar position by either the British or Indian governments. The Colonial viewpoint is deeply rooted in the Western English-speaking world and the Imperial state has successfully obfuscated and covered up the scale of its global atrocities. It was standard practice around the world. Ireland, Wales, the American Colonies, Kenya, India, West Africa, the China trade all have had aspects of British Colonial policies implemented.

For example in the American Colonies the British expected them to pay for the French and Indian war! India got the full Colonial Imperial package: no national flag, Government of India, Viceroy, state politics but no control of budgets, home charges, divide and rule, import restrictions, currency controls, no population wide access to education, non-payment of goods and services are just a few. The mechanism of their full exploitation remains obscure to most people even Western scholars. (see Dadabhai Naoroji)

Did the British commit genocide when they exported and allocated food for the army; refused all offers of help from Canada and Australia; and "somehow" 4 million people died, oops? No it was genocide through utter neglect for human life. And because they were the rulers then the "buck" stops at 10 Downing St.

The British did make sure that the Famine Inquiry Commission report was thoroughly misleading (see the Nanavati papers); that unlike Churchill's Council of Dominion Prime Ministers India had a Viceroy (V. Hope then A. Wavell); did not have any control over its own budget. 2 million Indians fought for the Empire during WWII; yet their contributions have been white washed (lit.) away.

Cheer up though you can (maybe) post something to Wikipedia till its gets reverted or erased!

Uncovering the brutal truth about the British empire Germsteel (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• I call POV Warrior here. Heads up on all future edits: Anti-UK POV warrior.Used.to.be.Lingzhi (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  'Well actually the 1933 Soviet Famine and the 1943 Bengal Famine aren't remotely comparable because here's a very one-sided list of things that the Soviets did, without any attempt to account for similar actions (or lack thereof) on the part of the British Empire in Bengal' = very cool person with a valid neutral POV

  'Well the British clearly implemented colonial policies and the British Empire was based on exploitation hence their refusal to aid the famine for a long time including offers from other nations to give aid to Bengal' = very bad stupid incorrect "POV warrior"

  'What? You think I'm enforcing bias on the examination of complex historical events on Wikipedia? You think I'm hiding this bias behind a veneer of objectivity which is really just rejecting all evidence I don't like/acting as if it doesn't exist and marking anyone who brings it up as a "POV warrior"? Nah, you must be one of those non-objective people if you think that.' 144.32.240.81 (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The issue of Holodmor is completely 100% irrelevant to this discussion. Volunteer Marek 17:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No it’s not, it’s perfectly reasonable to find similarities between the two events. 2601:601:8582:4F40:105E:3DEA:C179:C729 (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Bowbrick

To the best of my knowledge, Peter Bowbrick has neither held an academic appointment of any significance nor been particularly preeminent in the field of famine studies. Almost all of his contributions are singularly focussed at discrediting Sen though self-admittedly winning negligibly-few converts in four decades. His website — at some point of time — had a rant about why the Nobel Prize, conferred upon Sen, ought to have been withdrawn which is not a great marker of sanity I dare say. Interestingly not just Sen but also other scholars have accused him of wilful dishonesty.

So, in light of that, I am particularly interested in our mention of his curious defense of Churchill's refusal to ship food predicated upon the "half-hearted nature" of Viceroy Linlithgow's demands! As Mukherjee (2014; p. 185-188) shows — I am intentionally choosing to not rely upon the rather-shrill Mukerjee (2010); see below —, Churchill remained similarly unbothered by Viceroy Wavell's frantic requests. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Bizarre

There's some bizarre stuff on this page. Like Roy's — he might be a preeminent economic historian but doesn't specialize on famines — comments on Churchill's views about Indians not affecting the War Cabinet policy, sourced from one of his shabbier books.

And I say that as no fan of Mukerjee who — as Sen and a NLR review notes —, in her intense desire to peg the nail on Churchill not only excused a multitude of callous behavior from the administration but also chose to paint the mostly complicit upper-class-Indian-nationalists in a saintly light.

That is, what's the point of using such poor critiques when far better ones exist? TrangaBellam (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)