Latest / The Hidden History of Bengal: Kingdoms, Empires, and Revolution — Fexingo History / The Bengal Famine of 1943: War, Policy, and Starvation
Transcript
- Lucas: So, we've talked a lot about Bengal's pre-colonial and early colonial history — the Mughals, the Nawabs, the East India Company taking over. But there's one event that really casts a long shadow over the 20th century, and that's the Bengal Famine of 1943. Luna: Right, the one where millions died during World War II. But wasn't it really a man-made disaster? Lucas: Exactly. It's often called a famine, but it was really a policy disaster. The official death toll is around 1.5 million, but most historians now think it was closer to 2 to 3 million. And it happened even though there wasn't a significant drop in food production that year — at least not compared to previous years. The problem was distribution, hoarding, and colonial priorities. Luna: Wait, so there was enough rice to go around? How did it get so bad? Lucas: Well, there were some natural factors. In 1942, a cyclone hit the coast of Midnapore, destroying a lot of the rice crop. Then there was a fungal disease called Burkholderia glumae that affected the remaining rice. So production did drop locally. But the real issue was that the British were shipping rice out of Bengal to feed their troops and even to export to other colonies. Meanwhile, prices shot up — the price of rice quadrupled between 1942 and 1943. Ordinary people just couldn't afford it. Luna: So the war effort took precedence over feeding the locals. Lucas: Exactly. And there's a particularly controversial policy called the 'denial policy.' The British were terrified that the Japanese would invade Bengal — they'd already taken Burma in 1942. So they ordered the confiscation or destruction of thousands of boats in the coastal districts to prevent them from falling into enemy hands. But those boats were the lifeblood of the local economy — for fishing, for transport, for trade. Without them, people couldn't move food or earn a living. Luna: That sounds like it would have crippled the region even without a famine. Did it actually help against the Japanese? Lucas: Not really. The Japanese never invaded Bengal. So the policy just created immense hardship for no military gain. On top of that, the British also implemented a 'scorched earth' policy in some areas, burning rice stocks to deny them to the enemy. And they prioritised feeding the army and civil servants over the general population. Meanwhile, Churchill's war cabinet in London refused to divert grain ships to India, arguing that it would compromise the war effort. There's a famous quote from Churchill — he said the famine was 'their own fault for breeding like rabbits.' Luna: That's... horrifying. So there was a racial or colonial mindset behind it. Lucas: Absolutely. Historians like Madhusree Mukerjee have made a strong case that Churchill's personal animosity toward Indians and his prioritisation of British and European needs were central to the disaster. Even when the Bengal government appealed for food imports, they were denied. And when the famine was at its peak in late 1943, the British were still exporting rice from Bengal to Ceylon and other places. Luna: What was the immediate response on the ground? Was anyone trying to help? Lucas: There were some efforts. The Indian National Congress, even though many of its leaders were in prison after the Quit India movement, tried to organise relief. There were also individuals like the writer and activist Sir Penderel Moon, who was a British civil servant that tried to sound the alarm. But the colonial administration was slow and ineffective. The Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, actually downplayed the severity of the crisis. It wasn't until September 1943, when the famine was already in full swing, that the military was finally ordered to distribute grain. By then, millions had already died or were on the move, searching for food. Luna: So the response was too little, too late. What about the long-term impact? Did it affect the independence movement? Lucas: Massively. The famine deepened the resentment against British rule. It showed that the colonial government was willing to let Indians starve for the sake of the war. This fed directly into the Quit India movement and the growing demand for independence. It also shattered the myth of British paternalism — the idea that the Raj was there to 'civilise' and protect Indians. After the famine, many Indians, even moderates, became convinced that colonial rule had to end. Luna: And there's a famous book by Amartya Sen that analyses this famine, right? Lucas: Yes, Sen's book 'Poverty and Famines' argued that the Bengal famine was not caused by a lack of food, but by a failure of 'entitlements' — meaning that people didn't have the means to acquire food, even when it was available. That became a foundational idea in the study of famines. Sen later won the Nobel Prize, partly for that work. And he showed that democratic countries with free press and elections rarely suffer famines — because governments are forced to respond. The Bengal famine, happening under colonial rule with no accountability, is a perfect example of that. Luna: It's a stark lesson in how political systems determine who eats and who starves. Lucas: Exactly. And I think that's something we can reflect on, especially as we dive into these histories. If you've been following along with us through these conversations about South Asia, maybe you've found yourself thinking about how power and policy shape ordinary lives. For anyone coming with us through these conversations, we try to bring you stories that are both specific and thought-provoking. And a couple of dollars a month is genuinely what keeps these going — buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo, if you've gotten something out of them. It really helps us keep the show ad-free and focused on the history that matters. Luna: Yeah, it's a small way to support the kind of deep dives we love doing. And it does make a real difference. Lucas: Anyway, back to the famine. So, by the end of 1943, the immediate crisis had passed, but the scars remained. Orphaned children, broken families, and a deep sense of betrayal. The famine also accelerated the decline of the zamindari system, as many landlords sold off land to pay debts or buy food. And it pushed many rural people into cities like Calcutta, where they lived in squalid conditions. The social fabric of Bengal was permanently altered. Luna: It's a tragedy that still echoes today. And I guess it's a reminder that 'famine' is often a political word, not just a natural one. Lucas: Absolutely. And that's the story of the Bengal Famine of 1943 — a catastrophe that didn't have to happen, but did, because of choices made in London and Calcutta. It's a sobering chapter, but one we need to remember.