Latest / The Hidden History of Bengal: Kingdoms, Empires, and Revolution — Fexingo History / The Bengal Famine of 1943: Churchill, War, and the Great Calcutta Deaths
Transcript
- Lucas: So we've covered a lot of Bengal's colonial history — the battles, the rebellions, the early famines. But there's one catastrophe that looms over everything else, and it's surprisingly underexplored in our series: the Bengal Famine of 1943. Luna: The one during World War II? I've heard about it — something like two to three million people died? Lucas: That's right. Between two and three million, estimates vary. But unlike the famine of 1770, which was triggered by drought and Company mismanagement, this one was almost entirely man-made. And it happened at a time when Bengal was still the rice bowl of the subcontinent. Lucas: To understand it, you have to look at the war situation in early 1943. Japan had conquered Burma in 1942, cutting off a major source of rice that Bengal had long depended on. At the same time, the British were terrified of a Japanese invasion of India — so they implemented what was called the 'denial policy'. Luna: Denial policy? As in, denying resources to the Japanese? Lucas: Exactly. In the coastal districts of Bengal — places like Midnapore, 24 Parganas, Khulna — the British forcibly removed or destroyed tens of thousands of boats. They also confiscated rice and dismantled the local trading networks, all to prevent anything from falling into Japanese hands. But the result was that the entire internal distribution system collapsed. Lucas: On top of that, the British were stockpiling rice for the war effort — for troops in India and for export to Ceylon and the Middle East. And Churchill personally insisted that no grain be diverted to relieve the famine. He even said, and I quote, 'the starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks'. Luna: That's... shocking. So it was politics and racism as much as anything. Lucas: Absolutely. The colonial government under Viceroy Linlithgow was slow to act, partly because they didn't want to admit there was a famine — they called it a 'food shortage' well into the crisis. And when the Famine Commission finally reported in 1945, they pointed to a combination of war policies, inflation, and administrative failure. But many historians today argue that Churchill's decisions — particularly diverting ships from carrying grain to Bengal to carrying war materials — were a key factor. Luna: What about the Indian response? Were there any relief efforts? Lucas: Yes, and they were remarkable considering the circumstances. The Muslim League politician Suhrawardy — the same man who later became Prime Minister of Pakistan — organized free kitchens in Calcutta that fed thousands daily. The communists, especially the Bengal Provincial Kisan Sabha, mobilized volunteers in the countryside. Even the Hindu Mahasabha and the Congress set up relief camps. But it was too little, too late. Lucas: And then there's Subhas Chandra Bose. From his base in Singapore, he broadcast in Bengali and Hindi, using the famine as propaganda to show British incompetence. He even air-dropped leaflets over Bengal urging people to join the Indian National Army. The famine became a rallying cry for independence. Luna: So the famine directly fuelled the freedom movement? Lucas: Without a doubt. It shattered any remaining trust in British rule. The Quit India Movement had already started in 1942, but the famine radicalised millions more. And when independence came in 1947, the trauma of 1943 was still fresh — it shaped Bengali politics for decades. Luna: You know, I've seen photographs from that famine — the skeletal figures, the bodies on the streets of Calcutta. It's hard to imagine that happening in a city that was the jewel of the British Empire. Lucas: Exactly. Calcutta was the second city of the Empire after London. And yet, in 1943, people were dying on its pavements every day. The writer Tapan Raychaudhuri, who was a child at the time, later wrote about seeing corpses stacked like firewood. That image stayed with him his whole life. Lucas: One of the most haunting accounts comes from the photojournalist Sunil Janah, who took those iconic pictures. He said the British authorities tried to suppress them — they didn't want the world to see what was happening. But some images got out, and they became a powerful indictment of colonial rule. Luna: So why isn't this famine more widely known? I mean, we learn about the Irish Potato Famine, but this one seems almost forgotten. Lucas: Partly because it's overshadowed by the war itself, but also because it's a uncomfortable chapter for Britain. It took decades for historians to really dig into Churchill's role. It wasn't until the 2010s, with works like Madhusree Mukerjee's 'Churchill's Secret War', that the full story reached a broader audience. Even now, there's resistance to calling it a genocide, as some have argued. Lucas: But regardless of the label, the famine of 1943 was a turning point. It showed that the Raj had neither the will nor the ability to protect its own subjects. And it left a scar on Bengal that never fully healed. Luna: It's a sobering note to end on, but an important one. Lucas: It is. And it reminds us that history isn't just about kings and battles — it's also about ordinary people caught in extraordinary circumstances. That's the hidden history we're trying to uncover.