Latest / The Hidden History of Bengal: Kingdoms, Empires, and Revolution — Fexingo History / The Famine That Made Bengal British: The 1770 Company Catastrophe
Transcript
- Luna: We've talked a lot about the East India Company's rise in Bengal — Plassey, the diwani, the Black Hole. But I keep hearing about a famine that killed millions. What actually happened? Lucas: The Great Bengal Famine of 1770. It's one of the deadliest famines in Indian history, and it's directly tied to the Company's takeover. To understand it, you have to go back to 1765 — when the Company got the diwani, the right to collect revenue in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. Suddenly, they controlled the tax system. Luna: And they had no idea how to run it. Lucas: Exactly. They kept the existing Mughal-era framework — zamindars collected taxes — but they cranked up the pressure. In 1769, the monsoon failed. Crops withered. By early 1770, grain prices had skyrocketed. But the Company's response? They kept demanding the same revenue, and in some cases increased it. Luna: So they taxed people who were already starving. Luna: What were the numbers? I've heard ten million. Lucas: Contemporary estimates range from seven to ten million dead — roughly a third of Bengal's population. That's more than the Holocaust, more than the entire Irish Famine. Villages were depopulated, fields turned to jungle, and the economy collapsed. The Company actually had to remit some revenue because there was no one left to tax. Luna: It sounds like a deliberate policy of extraction, not just incompetence. Lucas: Historians debate that. Some argue it was incompetence — the Company simply didn't understand traditional famine prevention methods, like grain storage and public works. But others point to the fact that Company officials personally profited from grain speculation. There's a famous case of a Company servant named John Shore who made a fortune buying grain at low prices and selling it during the famine. Luna: So it was grift, pure and simple. Lucas: Partly. The Company's primary concern was maintaining its dividend payments to shareholders in London. They needed revenue to fund their wars and expansion. So when the famine hit, they didn't pivot — they doubled down on extraction. The zamindars, who were the local tax collectors, were squeezed too. Many fled or went bankrupt. The ones who stayed often became absentee landlords. Luna: And what about the Mughal emperor? Didn't he have any say? Lucas: By 1770, the Mughal emperor Shah Alam II was essentially a pensioner of the Company. He had no real power. The Nawab of Bengal was a figurehead. Real control rested with the Company's Governor and his council. So there was no Indian authority to intervene. Some zamindars tried to help, but they were limited by the Company's demands. Luna: It reminds me of the Irish Famine — British rule, laissez-faire ideology, and millions dead. Lucas: There are strong parallels. In both cases, food was exported from the starving region. In both cases, the ruling power insisted on free trade and didn't suspend taxes. And in both cases, the long-term result was depopulation, economic restructuring, and deep resentment. The 1770 famine is often called the first great colonial famine of the British Empire. Luna: Did it spark any immediate resistance? Lucas: Not a coordinated rebellion, but there were local riots. In some places, peasants attacked grain merchants. There were bandit gangs — the Sannyasi and Fakir rebels, whom we've covered, became more active in the years after the famine. The famine also weakened the peasantry, making them more vulnerable to subsequent famines. Another one hit in 1783, and then again in 1866 and 1874. Luna: So the pattern was set — famine as a recurring feature of colonial rule. Lucas: Exactly. And it's not just a historical footnote. The 1770 famine shaped Bengal's economy for generations. The land revenue system that the Company imposed — the Permanent Settlement of 1793 — was a direct response to the famine's chaos. They wanted a stable, predictable tax base, but it ended up creating a class of parasitic landlords and landless peasants. Luna: Before we get too deep into the economics — I want to ask about something personal. You mentioned Warren Hastings. What was his role? He's often seen as a great administrator. Lucas: He was in charge during the famine's aftermath. He took office in 1772, after the worst was over. He did investigate the famine, and he recommended some reforms, like remitting revenue in the worst-hit areas. But he also defended the Company's overall record. Later, during his impeachment trial in London, the famine was used as evidence against him, but he was ultimately acquitted. Luna: So he gets a mixed legacy. Lucas: Very mixed. On one hand, he was a brilliant administrator who stabilized Bengal's finances. On the other, he oversaw a system that let millions die. And his personal wealth grew during the famine. He was not a monster, but he was a product of his time — a time when the bottom line mattered more than human life. Luna: That's a sobering thought. I want to shift gears slightly — you mentioned the Permanent Settlement. That's a huge topic, but maybe we can save it for another episode. Lucas: Absolutely. But before we move on, I want to circle back to something. You know, it's easy to talk about these numbers — ten million — and lose sight of what it meant. Entire villages disappeared. Families were wiped out. The social fabric tore. And the Company's response — or lack thereof — left a scar that's still visible in Bengal's development today. Luna: It's a heavy topic. I'm glad we're covering it, though. It's a part of history that often gets glossed over. Lucas: Yeah, and honestly, episodes like this are why we do the show. We want to dig into the real stories, the uncomfortable ones. And that takes time — research, writing, editing. If you've been following along and getting something out of these conversations, and you can spare a couple of dollars a month, it genuinely makes a difference. It's what keeps the podcast ad-free and independent. Luna: Yeah, every little bit helps. We've got a simple page — buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. No pressure, but if you're in a position to chip in, it supports the work we do. Lucas: Right. And now, back to the story. One of the most striking things about the 1770 famine is how it changed the Company's relationship with its Indian subjects. Before the famine, the Company was seen as a trading partner, albeit a powerful one. After, it was seen as a predatory state. That shift in perception fueled the resistance movements of the late eighteenth century. Luna: So the famine was a turning point in how Indians viewed British rule. Lucas: Absolutely. It discredited the idea that the Company was a benevolent force. When the Sannyasi and Fakir rebels raided Company treasuries, they often framed it as retribution for the famine. The memory of those starving years was passed down orally, and it fed into later nationalist narratives. In the nineteenth century, Indian intellectuals pointed to 1770 as proof of British exploitation. Luna: It's interesting — the famine itself didn't cause a rebellion, but it laid the groundwork for later movements. Lucas: Exactly. It created a reservoir of grievance. And the Company's response — or lack of it — became a template for how famines were handled in India for the next century and a half. Even after the Crown took over in 1858, the basic approach didn't change much. It wasn't until after independence that India developed a robust famine prevention system. Luna: So in a way, the 1770 famine cast a long shadow over Indian history. Lucas: A very long shadow. And it's a reminder that history isn't just about battles and treaties — it's about the people who lived and died under those policies. The Great Bengal Famine of 1770 is a case study in how imperial economics can turn a natural disaster into a human catastrophe. Luna: Thanks for walking through that, Lucas. Next episode, I think we should look at the Permanent Settlement — it sounds like the next chapter in this story. Lucas: Absolutely. We'll see how the Company tried to fix the mess — and made it worse.