My chief sources on the Bengal famine are –
- Poverty and Famines by Amartya Sen
- Unpatriotic history of the Second World War by James Hartfield
- Churchill’s Secret War by Madhulikha Mukherjee
Bengal Famine was mostly due to bad weather culminating to crop failure.
False. It has been established unequivocally by Sen that 43 had a bumper harvest, food supply was actually increased as compared to 1941. The British were however EXPORTING wheat and Rice was used as a substitute grain to make up for the shortfall caused by wheat exports and this caused a net shortfall.
I will repeat this, Bengal had a better than normal harvest, but the Brits were exporting wheat from India to sustain the British war effort and Rice was used to make up for this shortfall.
Burmese foodstocks were destroyed by the Japanese causing shortages in Bengal.
It was not the “Japs” that destroyed food stocks, the food stocks were destroyed even before the Japanese came into Burma thanks to a scorched earth policy. Not only this the Brits seized all modes of transport (primarily boats) that small farmers (the majority of them) used to transport said rice to small local markets. Repeated requests to release these modes of transport was rejected, and not till 1944 was this done. The INA even offered 100,000 tons of rice from captured areas (which the Brits hadn’t scorch earthed yet), the British rejected it.
Not only did the British reject Bose’s offer, they rejected an offer of 10,000 tons from Canada. The US made an offer for another 100,000 tons, but due to British pressure they backed down. Australia offered another ~ 25,000 tons of wheat but guess what Churchill did? He diverted these food stocks to the Mediterranean to stock up for the Tunisia Campaign – Churchill’s own command said they had adequate stocks, but nope, Churchill flat out refused to supply Bengal using Australian stocks.
With me so far? All this is meticulously documented via telegrams, cables, letters and memoirs.
What was Churchill’s response to this….request for food?
It was so bad (Churchill and his govt’s attitude) that no less a person than the Viceroy of India, Lord Wavell said,
Churchill’s attitude towards India and the famine is negligent, hostile and contemptuous.
Lord Wavell, Viceroy of India.
Lord Wavell bemoaned the fact that Argentina BURNED 2 Mn tonnes of wheat as a substitute for coal (as there was a global shortage) and his offers to ship wheat using Indian shipping was shot down by the Churchill govt.
It got so bad that the British Seceretary of State in India, Leopold Amery said that Churchill had a Hitler like attitude towards India and Indians. Yes, Churchill was called Hitler by his own Secy of state, but ‘famine was caused by ‘natural disasters’ right?
Now we go back in time (time for Economics 101) to 1939. India had been supporting the British war effort substantially, iirc we contributed to the tune of 3 Bn GBP (a huge huge sum in 1941) by 1942. How did the Colonial govt deal with this? They printed more Rupees. What does printing of currency do? Cause massive inflation. What does inflation do? Increase the prices of foodgrains (and everything else). Without the war effort such an inflation wouldn’t have occured, and 3 Mn Bengalis needn’t have died in vain.
With me so far?
- Churchill – Churchill was as racist and as much of a bully as Hitler was, but sadly see he is projected as an all conquering hero.
- India had to support the war effort in Europe while at the same time the INA were traitors.
Do you not see the ridiculous irony in the “brave allies” fighting for freedom and democracy while at the same time holding India as a colony?
What the f*** was the difference between German occupied France and British occupied India?
“First written by user/RajaRajaC on reddit, follow thread – Reddit India“