Latest / The Hidden History of Bengal: Kingdoms, Empires, and Revolution — Fexingo History / Bengal's Famine of 1770: The Great Hunger That Broke an Empire
Transcript
- Lucas: So, we've covered a lot of Bengal's political and military history — the battles, the empires, the Nawabs. But there's one event that arguably changed the region more than any single war or ruler. The Great Bengal Famine of 1770. Luna: I've heard about that — it was devastating. Like, ten million people died? Lucas: At least. Contemporary estimates range from seven to ten million, out of a population of roughly thirty million. That's around a third of Bengal's people gone in a single year. And this wasn't just a natural disaster — it was a man-made catastrophe, shaped by British colonial policies. Luna: How did the East India Company respond? Or did they just… let it happen? Lucas: That's the grim part. The Company had just acquired the diwani — the right to collect revenue — in 1765 after Buxar. So by 1770, they were firmly in charge of Bengal's economy. And their priority was maximizing revenue, not feeding people. Warren Hastings, who became Governor in 1772, actually defended the Company's actions, claiming they did what they could. But historians have been much less charitable. Luna: What actually caused the famine? Was it a drought? Lucas: There was a drought, yes — the monsoon failed in 1768 and again in 1769, leading to a poor harvest. But that alone wouldn't have caused a famine of this scale. What made it catastrophic was the combination of British revenue demands, which remained relentlessly high, and the hoarding of grain by Company officials and Indian merchants who speculated on rising prices. The Company even increased the land tax during the famine, collecting over 90% of the usual revenue. Luna: So they squeezed the peasantry while they were starving. Lucas: Exactly. And the effects were felt across the entire society. The weaving industry, which had made Bengal famous for its muslin, collapsed because weavers either died or fled. The population of Dhaka, the great muslin center, dropped by half. This famine essentially accelerated the deindustrialization of Bengal, turning it from a manufacturing powerhouse into an exporter of raw materials like opium and indigo. Luna: And this is the backdrop for the later colonial exploitation we talked about in the muslin episode. Lucas: Right. One of the most disturbing accounts comes from a British surgeon named John Z. Holwell — we mentioned him in the Black Hole episode — who actually wrote a report describing how the roads were littered with corpses, and how the living were too weak to bury the dead. He estimated that 80,000 people died in the city of Murshidabad alone. The vultures and jackals had a feast. Luna: And Hastings? What was his excuse? Lucas: Hastings argued that the famine was an act of God, and that the Company had actually remitted some revenue in the worst-affected areas. But modern historians point out that the remission was minimal — maybe 5% of the total demand — and that the Company continued to export grain from Bengal to other parts of India and even to Europe during the famine. Luna: Wait, they exported grain while people were starving? Lucas: Yes. For instance, the Company's own records show that in 1769-70, ships carried rice from Bengal to Madras and Bombay. They also sent silver to China to pay for tea. The logic was that the Company's trade must continue at all costs. The famine was seen as a temporary disruption, not a humanitarian emergency. Luna: That's brutal. Did anyone in Britain call for an inquiry? Lucas: There were parliamentary inquiries in the 1770s and 1780s, but they were more concerned with the Company's financial losses due to depopulation — fewer taxpayers — than with the human suffering. Edmund Burke, during the impeachment of Warren Hastings, did highlight the famine as a crime, arguing that the Company's rapacious revenue policy had caused it. But Hastings was ultimately acquitted. Luna: So the people who suffered never got justice. Lucas: Not really. The famine also had lasting economic consequences. The population took decades to recover. The zamindars — the local landlords — were often ruined because their tenants died or fled. The Company then tightened its grip on the land revenue system, eventually leading to the Permanent Settlement of 1793, which locked in revenue rates and further impoverished the peasantry. Luna: It's like the famine was used to justify even more control. Lucas: Absolutely. And one detail that's often overlooked: the famine wasn't just a rural tragedy. In the cities, the wealthy — Indian bankers and merchants like the Jagat Seths — actually profited from grain speculation. The Jagat Seths, who we've mentioned in earlier episodes, were accused of hoarding rice and selling it at exorbitant prices. There's a story that when a desperate mother asked to buy grain, a merchant told her to sell her child. Luna: My god. That's horrifying. Lucas: It's a measure of how desperate things got. And this kind of episode is important to remember because it shows that colonialism wasn't just about battles and treaties — it was about systemic economic violence. The famine of 1770 was a direct result of the Company's revenue-maximizing policies, and it set a precedent for future famines in India. Luna: If today was actually useful to you, the way these stay ad-free is listener support — buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Lucas: Yeah, it's a small way to keep these conversations going. And we really appreciate it. Luna: Absolutely. So, going back to the famine — you mentioned the population took decades to recover. What was the long-term impact on Bengal's economy? Lucas: Good question. The famine essentially destroyed the traditional agrarian economy. Many villages were abandoned and reclaimed by jungle. The Company responded by encouraging the cultivation of cash crops like opium and indigo, which were more profitable for them but left the region vulnerable to food shortages. Bengal's textile industry never fully recovered, and the province became more dependent on the Company for its economic survival. Luna: So it was a turning point in Bengal's decline. Lucas: Definitely. And it's a forgotten turning point. Most people know about the Irish Potato Famine, or the Bengal Famine of 1943, but the 1770 famine is often overlooked. Yet it was arguably more devastating in relative terms — a third of the population gone in a year. Luna: And the British response set a pattern for how famines were handled — or not handled — in colonial India. Lucas: Exactly. The laissez-faire attitude, the prioritization of trade over human life, the blaming of nature — all of that became the standard response for the next 150 years. So understanding 1770 is key to understanding later famines, including the Great Famine of 1876-78 and the Bengal Famine of 1943. Luna: It's a dark lesson in how policy can kill more than any army. Lucas: Absolutely. And that's why it's important to talk about these events — to remember that history's biggest killers are often not bullets but bureaucratic decisions. The famine of 1770 is a stark reminder of how economic policies, when divorced from human considerations, can cause immense suffering. Luna: Next time, maybe we can talk about how the Company's opium trade in Bengal grew out of this disaster. Lucas: That's a great idea. The opium trade was directly tied to the Company's need to finance its tea purchases from China, and the famine created a surplus of land and labor that could be diverted to opium cultivation. So yes, we'll get into that soon. Luna: Looking forward to it.