The Great Indian Famines
In the film Distant Thunder, a doctor named Gangacharan and his wife Angana live a relaxed existence in a rural village in Bengal. As World War II progresses, the village slips further and further into starvation. We see the way that hunger causes a breakdown of social norms within the community, and the loss of humanity overall.
The events of the movie transpired in an event known as the Bengal Famine of 1943, a relatively unknown event in the west that is estimated to have killed somewhere between 3-4.5 million people. This event is part of a larger group of famines that killed a total of 44-75 million people and appear to be completely ignored in most history classrooms. In many cases, the famines were a result of negligence, bureaucratic mismanagement, and discriminatory practices by Upper-Caste kings and subsequently by the British Colonial Administration. In the west, my opinion is that it is to uphold appearances - there is a desire for those of European descent to uphold their moral superiority. In India, facts about the role of caste discrimination may be hidden in order to uphold the fable of Hindu Superiority (Hindutva), which in and of itself is simply an ideology that aims to maintain Upper-Caste hegemony over its society.
Regardless, here are the statistics on the famines that happened during the time of the British Raj, compiled from this Wikpedia page:
| Events | Deaths | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Great Bengal Famine (1769-1770) | 2-10m | Widespread crop failure during this period, in conjunction with forced tax collection by the British East India Company during a dual administration of Mughal India and the company, caused this to spiral into chaos. |
| Chalisa Famine (1783-1784) | 11m | This famine primarily affected areas managed by various Indian rulers. In British territory, only Madras city was affected. |
| Doji bara Famine (1791-1792) | 11m | Triggered by prolonged droughts. Most accounts of it were recorded by surgeon William Roxburgh of the British East India Company. Territorial extent of famine included both the Indian kingdoms (Maratha Confederacy, Hyderabad, etc.) and various parts of British India. Famine was worse in territories controlled by Indian kingdoms. |
| Agra Famine (1837-1838) | 0.8m | Caused by drought, this famine occurred just after the North-western Provinces were created in the newly-unified company-led India. |
| Orissa Famine (1866-1867) | 4-5m | This famine was caused by drought. It was exacerbated by incorrect food aid estimates and pricing misestimations. During this time, 200m pounds of rice were allocated to Great Britain even while millions perished from famine within India. It is sometimes seen as a turning point in which Indian nationalism began to grow. |
| Rajputana Famine (1869) | 1.5m | This famine was triggered by light monsoons. It affected both the princely states of Rajputana and the British territory of Ajmer. Due to the mismanagement of the Orissa famines, British officers were encouraged to actually address the issues. They were subsequently swamped with incoming individuals from Rajput territories, where no aid was given whatsoever. |
| Great Famine (1876-1878) | 5.5m | Intensified drought brought about this famine. Mismanagement by British India highly exacerbated conditions in this event. Edward Lytton forced exports of 320,000 tons of grain to Great Britain, which made conditions worse. Furthermore, aid redistribution was frowned upon by the British crown. For instance, relief efforts by Sir Richard Temple were criticized in an earlier famine for being excessively charitable. As a result, he imposed harsh guidelines and imposed meager rations for Indian citizens, while simultaneously advocating for exports of grain to his homeland. |
| Indian Famine I (1896-1897) | 12-16m | Large-scale famine throughout British India. Aid was only given to those who worked through starvation. |
| Indian Famine II (1899-1900) | 3-10m | Caused by drought, the famine mainly affected the Bombay Presidency. Due to the economic theories of the time, laissez-faire economics was practiced by British leaders. Colonial administrators hoarded grain during good times such that they could price gouge during bad times. Land was handed over to these robber-barons, or sahukars, so that they could eat. Little to no intervention was done by the British government. On the other hand, contrasting with previous famines, Princely states fared better than Presidencies due to interventions by authorities to prevent hoarding and price gouging. |
| Bengal Famine (1943) | 3.6-4.5m | Millions died in this famine as a result of a mix of malnutrition, population displacement, and disease. Military escalation resulted in wartime inflation. After the Japanese escalation in Burma, rice supply was cut off to Bengal. A combination of this and inflation made foodstuffs unaffordable to many poorer rural dwellers. Families were broken up as men searched for employment in the Army and women/children migrated to cities in search of aid. |
| Partition of India (1947) | 1-2m | Both Hindus and Muslims called for the need for their own states. A man named Cyril Radcliffe, who had never been east of Paris, drew a line known as the Radcliffe Line. This line was drawn in secret, and then arbitrarily announced between August 9th and 12th of 1947. A total of 14 million people, 7 million on each side, left to go to their respective new homes. Communal violence erupted and killed between 1-2m people. |
| TOTAL DEATHS | 44-75m |
To me, it is fascinating that we simply don’t talk about this within the context of World History. I recall in my high school history class that this was never mentioned. In contrast, we talked about two European mass-death events, the Holocaust and the Holomodor, in great detail. This is despite the fact that the Holocaust killed 12 million people, 6 million of which were Jews, and the Holomodor killed between 3.5 million and 5 million citizens of the USSR. A person I know, a White American who I grew up with, put the reasons for this better than I ever could: “There are too many Indians so why do we care if they die?” I think this was an interesting statement. Ultimately, it seems that brown lives are statistically less valuable than white lives, I suppose, and the way our history is taught reflects that.
An alternative viewpoint is that the way that these people died makes it less shocking. If there are a few million people who die because a government actively rounded them up and burned them alive or tossed them in a gas chamber, that is simply horrible. It is first degree murder in a way that is simply morally reprehensible. On the flip side, starvation due to governmental negligence? That is more like second-degree murder, and is not quite as jarring to read or hear about.
I personally hope to learn more about this topic, and hopefully you do, too. There is a book called Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World by Mike Davis. It seems like a further investigation into the items discussed in this blog post.