Talk:Great Bengal famine of 1770

East India Company Responsibility

There are several claims about the Honourable East India Trading Company which are sourced and unsourced, but seem contrary to this famine. "Sushil Chaudhury writes that the destruction of food crops in Bengal to make way for opium poppy cultivation for export reduced food availability and contributed to the famine" Opium cultivation wouldn't be a major enterprise until the early 19th century, precipitating the Opium wars. At best this famine is caused by cotton plantations. Either the Opium wars article is wrong, or this one is. Smalltime0 (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

there are some images on the bengal famine at [1]. but copyright status is uncertain. barma 14:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The following points are missing: a) The characterization of the Company's behavior as"Free Trade" - characterizing the relationship as 'trade' is a whitewashing of the behavior of the Company, which included mass hangings, systematic rapings, and violent tax collection. b) References and impact of famine on Bengali literature Wiki article on [2] can be a model for this article. In 1765 Reja Khan was appointed as the tax collector by East India company. He immediately increased the tax by 20% for the Jamindars. Bamkim Chandra's [3] novel Anandamath highlighted the tragedy. Later Anandamath became a source of inspiration for Indian freedom movement.

Neutrality issues

It is critical that scholarship not mitigate the shocking crimes of the British in India. There was not a weather pattern that lasted only during British colonialism and improved upon their removal. Aggressive attempts to shift blame for these atrocities to nature or to Indians themselves (see comments above) are nothing short of holocaust denial. Critical review of the facts makes such attempts obvious, as in the quote below, where the writer tries to describe a strange weather phenomena that existed for only 60 years and then resolved: 'Although all scholars will admit that the famine was exacerbated by British policy using words like "fault" implies that the famine was man-made when there are multiple sources that indicate that shortages in rainfall led to food shortages for as long as 60 years (starting from 1752 in Murshidabad, when the East India Company was not in power). Also the fact that the rains failed in 1769 needs to be reiterated instead of putting absolute blame on the Company.'

c.f. The New Cambridge History of India, Bengal:The British Bridgehead (Eastern India 1740-1828). Marshall, P.J. 1988. Cambridge University Press pp 18-19. --Antorjal 15:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, there was not a weather pattern that lasted only during the colonial period, hence India suffering famines before the colonial period as well as after it. Avoid using terms such as "holocaust denial", nobody denied that a famine took place. I have checked Antorjal's source, and he/she is correct, there was a serious famine in 1752, and after 1770 there wasn't a serious famine for several decades. Although taxation and non-intervention by the company undeniable exacerabted the famine, it did not cause it.Led125 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely, unequivolcally, is holocaust denial - a heinous crime committed by the British, by people still heroes to the British (Clive, Macaulay, Hastings, etc.), and now vigorously denied by British scholars who have developed a deep complex about their own history. A crime by which, and its prior and subsequent crimes, led to the rise of a previously backward and impoverished nation (England), and the dramatic decline of what was historically the most wealthy and advanced of nations (India). Even in the impeachment trial of Hastings in 1787 the British parliament acknowledged the famine as a direct result of the excesses, greed, and cruelty of the British presence in India, though now British scholars vehemently deny it. Nonintervention is a ridiculous characterization of the company’s role in the famine – taxes were dramatically hiked and forced out of the Indian artisan and farmer by the most cruel and despotic of means: public raping of their virgin daughters, followed by tearing of their nipples or cutting off of their breasts, forcing children to shoot their parents, hanging of innocent men in figure eights, etc. Clives own assessment of Bengal prior to his conquest of it was that it was the most highly developed and productive economy in the world (though it was by no means wealthy per India’s standards) – what followed after his conquest was misery, famine, disease and mass abject poverty, that hasn’t yet resolved. It is no coincidence that Bengal and Bangladesh were the poorest part of India at independence, as it was the longest occupied by a demonic and greedy British rule. It is no coincidence that there was such dramatic extraction of Bengals wealth in the years prior to the famine (by one estimate the region controlled by the Company exceed the combined economies of the British’s rivals France and Spain), that the newfound wealth in England transformed its society and economy and fostered what the British scholar likes to wholly claim their own – the Industrial Revolution.

In regards to the above: India, like all other regions of the world, suffered famines before the colonial period, but at a starkly lower rate than during colonialism. Bhatia is the oft cited source, though arguably pro-Anglo source, says there were 14 famines in the 600 years preceeding British occupation. Sen says there were 32 in the 90 years after the First War of Independence - from roughly 2 per century to 1 every 2-3 years. An economically exploited civilization will not be able to handle the typical variations in weather - in effect oscillating from the brink of famine to famine. After independence there was one event, largely deemed a 'near miss' in Bihar in 1967. So, 1-2 famines per century before the British, 1 famine every few years during the British, and none in the 60 years since the British. Is it not obviouse that British colonialization was wholly responsible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.146.139 (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is no way of comparing the famines in pre-colonial India to the nineteenth century famines because good data only began to be gathered from 1878 onwards. "One cannot compare, for instance, the absence of complaints or solicitations for relief rice in Mughal India with their replete presence in colonial records and assume this means Mughal kings took care of their populations during famines and British colonial officals did not. It MIGHT mean this, although the historical evidence is certainly weighed against such a conclusion. But it is also possible, and perhaps probable, that the absence of solicitations in Mughal documents means that no one expected the Mughal officials to supply any relief, so it was pointless to ask" Darren C. Zook in Agrarian Environments: Resources, Representations, and Rule in India, page 112. On Bhatia I will cite [url]http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0507(197903)39:1<143:DFARTC>2.0.CO;2-M]this article[/url] by Michelle Burge McAlpin as well as her book Subject to Famine. Deficient rainfall caused crop failures and improved communications actually mitigated the severity of famines. This view is support by Neil Charlesworth in his book "Pesants and Imperial Rule" and Tirthankar Roy in his "Rethinking Economic Change in India". Finally INdia did suffer a famine in 1972-73 which claimed 130,000 lives. See Cormac O'Grada's article "Making Famine History" (you can find ti by googleing it)Led125 (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It is utter nonsense that there were no records of famines prior to 1878, There are records of famines at least as early at the 8th century – famines which were, like the Bengal famine of 1770, political and economic events more so than they were about crop yield and weather variations (see above comment about low rainfall).

Arguments that one cannot compare the incidence of famines during Mughal rule to that during British rule are without merit. India has amongst the most ancient written histories in the world, not held entirely by monarchs or foreign rulers. Even better evidence than documentation of the famines is that India remained a land of great wealth and advancement throughout history and despite foreign rule until the arrival of the British. A famine of 130,000, while tragic, is hardly worth mentioning when discussing a famine of 10 million, especially when the land remained economically developed after that relatively small event. Regardless, the British arrived to the most complex and productive economy in the world, an economy which was in direct competition to its own, in ships, artisan goods, grains, spices, and most importantly - cotton. Many European wool and linen laborers/farmers were displaced by the flood of Indian goods, so much that there were protests in London and and prohibition of Indian cotton goods in France. This was a major motivation for the invasion, (as discussed in the British Parliament) with the ultimate goal eliminating a competitor and of making profit. These profits were realized, and were transformational, though in dramatically different ways, for England and India both. A mature UK, like its cousin America, will eventually come to grips with its history and particularly its crimes, discuss them openly, without mitigation, and acknowledge both the devastation they wreaked on the subjugated and the tremendous benefit they brought to their own society. As it stands now, western Europeans and particularly the British, are perplexingly unable to talk about the crimes of their ancestors, and they maintain a perversely distorted self image. I would modify the comment at the start of this discussion page about holocaust denial and call this wiki topic 'fascist genocide denial'.

The claim that England was "backward" in 1770, contrasted with India as "advanced", is absurd. England was and is a model for forward-thinking and egalitarian domestic policy, not to mention the home of many of the greatest scientists, writers, and politicians the world has ever seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.21 (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and in per capita terms England in 1600 and thereafter was richer than India too, or so it seems from statistics to be found elsewhere in Wikipedia and seemingly largely derived from Maddison. Seadowns (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

See the argument is not that Britain had a better economy or India did but the fact that the British did deplete whatever economy was there and brought it down to the 1947 levels. You are using a fallacy here to divert the argument. It does not matter if Britain was a more advanced nation than India, the fact remains that they did depleted the country and did not use the taxes and money they earned to improve the country but used them to fill their own coffers and that of England. Unsigned User, you seem proud of England's "advanced" nature and "excellent" nature but did this give them the justification to loot India? Britain might have had egalitarian domestic policies but the thing is they remained domestic only; The British Governor-Generals did not use "egalitarian" policies in their colonial territories. Your comment was published a long time ago so I do not expect you to respond but I take my chances and throw my dice across the veil of time and hope that your beliefs regarding these crimes would be changed. Today, you deny that the crimes of England were severe, tomorrow you will deny that there were any crimes at all and after that, you would say that you actually "civilised" us. Oh wait! You have started doing that today only.

So many colonies the British had and they repeated all of this everywhere. So much trouble for what?

A dying nation slowly becoming obsure

Yours Forever,

A citizen of another oppressed country

FlyingNinja1 (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect calculation?

The lead paragraph says "... the deaths of 10 million people (one out of three, reducing the population to thirty million in Bengal..." Something's wrong — reducing from 40 million to 30 million is one out of four not three. Or is the thirty million figure incorrect? I don't know enough about the subject work out which needs correcting.--A bit iffy (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right. 172.10.53.154 (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Came to this page because I saw the same issue. Glad it's not just me.

Possible sources and expansion ideas

• McLane, Land and Local Kingship in 18th century Bengal

Suggests that the one third mortality rate was exaggerated, at least in Barddhaman. Based on land revenues which plunged 1.52cr to 1.31cr between 1768 and 1769, then rose to 1.53cr by 1772. States however that Warren Hastings acknowledged 'violent' tax collecting after 1771.

• Dreadful Visitations: Confronting Natural Catastrophe in the Age of Enlightenment. ed. Alessa Johns.

Article on the subject.

• Merchants, Politics and Society in Early Modern India: Bihar: 1733-1820. Kumkum Chatterjee

Discusses the grain trade, monopolies,

• Agrarian Environments edited by Arun Agrawal, K Sivaramakrishnan

Suggests that the historical importance of the famine dated from a century later, when it became a useful stick to beat the British with.

• Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History by Gideon Polya
• Mostly the 1943 famine. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s19040.htm

Found the above included as hidden-comments at the end of the article. Don't know when or by whom they were added. Moving here, in case there is something worth following up. Abecedare (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Bias

The statement that "The Great Bengal famine of 1770 was one of a series of famines in India under British colonial rule that would continue killing tens of millions of Indians into the late 19th century and beyond" suggests that these famines were due to British rule. That is incorrect and biased.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Bengal famine of 1770. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205020541/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/f/fiske/john/f54u/chapter9.html to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/f/fiske/john/f54u/chapter9.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External Link issuesQuod Felix (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The first external link is broken. (http://www.swaraj.org) The book is available on Amazon, however.

The third external link is blocked as untrustworthy by my school's filter. (www.bengalweb.com/hist/)

The last external link is broken. (www.factsdose.com)

With so few scholarly and accessible sources, this hardly seems to merit a "B" classification.

William Dalrymple

Dalrymple writes popular histories, which are typically published by trade presses. As far as I know, he has no academic expertise in any branch of famine history. No serious famine historian considers him as one of their fraternity, either.

Why is his view so prominently mentioned in lead? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't agree more. I haven't really paid attention to this article in years, but I notice that it seems to be plagued now with a kind of WP:RECENTISM applied to sourcing (not events, obviously). The sources cited in the lead to make the case for revised mortality estimates are somewhat obscure, not the kind of WP:TERTIARY sources, mainly widely used undergraduate history textbooks which are vetted for WP:DUE. Those as far as I'm aware still consider the famine to have depopulated by (death or migration) a large proportion of Bengal's population. I don't have much time right now, but I will attempt to do this for the lead now. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I have to run now. I've whittled down the lead to what is commonly considered WP:Due. There is really no need to stuff references titled Scottish Environmentalism in the lead, but I've let them stand for now because they are used later. The main problem with the article is that the main body is in very poor shape. That is where the work needs to be done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a very understudied topic, fwiw. I will attempt to rewrite the article prim. depending on CEH, Rajat Dutta and Vinita Damodaran. Tertiary sources hardly cover the topic in a significant way but I will be glad to know otherwise. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I meant tertiary sources only for the lead. In other words, it is better for them to summarize the literature at a higher level than for us. I usually start with a lead cited to tertiary sources as a template, then expand the article using secondary and tertiary sources, and then rewrite the lead in summary style, but not veering too far from the template. A semi-tertiary source from which I will summarize later (in the lead) is Tim Dyson's A Population History of India, Oxford, 2019, which has a couple of pages on the famine. It considers 10 million to be exaggerated (this was before the first census of Bengal), even though he is agnostic about Rajat Datta's lowered estimate of between one and two million. Dyson makes some insightful comments on the depopulation numbers (a third), which he states are hard to believe. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

error requires attention

Impact on demographics Population of Bengal declined by 33% or 4% which was it. 70.31.166.89 (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)