Latest / The Rise of Colonialism: How Europe Divided the World — Fexingo History / The Bengal Famine of 1770: Britain's First Colonial Catastrophe
Transcript
- Lucas: So we've spent a lot of time on Plassey, on Buxar, on the Diwani Grant — the moments when the East India Company seized power in Bengal. But there's a darker chapter that follows almost immediately, one that's often glossed over in the standard narrative. Luna: The famine of 1770, right? Lucas: Exactly. The Bengal Famine of 1770. It's estimated that between one and ten million people died — roughly a third of the population. The range itself tells you how chaotic the record-keeping was, but even the low end is catastrophic. And it happened just five years after the Company became the de facto tax collector of Bengal. Luna: And that timeline can't be a coincidence. Lucas: No, it really can't. Before the Company, Bengal had a diversified economy — agriculture, textiles, banking. The Mughal revenue system, while far from perfect, had checks and balances. But the Company's focus was maximising revenue to pay for its military adventures and send dividends to London. They squeezed the province dry. Lucas: The trigger was a failed monsoon in 1769. But the real killer was the Company's response — or rather, its lack of one. They actually increased the land tax in 1770, even as the crops failed. Collectors were given targets, and if they fell short, they were replaced. So they extracted grain from starving villages. Luna: That's horrific. So they were literally taking the food out of people's mouths. Lucas: Worse — they were hoarding it. European officials and Indian merchants allied with the Company bought up grain stores and sold them at inflated prices. Warren Hastings, who became governor in 1772, later argued that the market corrected itself. But contemporary accounts describe roads lined with corpses, villages abandoned, and survivors reduced to eating leaves and clay. Luna: And Hastings was the one who later faced impeachment for corruption and cruelty. This famine was part of the case against him. Lucas: It was. Edmund Burke, in his famous impeachment speeches, pointed to the famine as proof that the Company's rule was fundamentally destructive. But Hastings was acquitted, and the Company's methods continued. The famine didn't lead to reform — it led to more extraction. The Company even used it to justify taking over more territory, 'to prevent future famines'. Luna: So the same people who caused the famine used it as an excuse to expand. Lucas: Exactly. And this pattern — extractive taxation, environmental stress, and then blaming the victims — becomes a template for colonial governance elsewhere. The Irish Potato Famine, the famines in British India in the 19th century, they all echo this logic. Lucas: There's one detail that always sticks with me. An English observer named William Bolts, who worked for the Company, wrote that 'the poor, the indigent, and the helpless were left to perish without mercy.' He was one of the few who spoke out, but he was silenced. The Company didn't want the story getting out. Luna: And the numbers — we still don't know exactly how many died? Lucas: Historians debate it. The official Company estimate was about 1.2 million, but modern scholars like Rajat Datta argue it could be as high as 10 million. The census methods were primitive, and many deaths went unrecorded. What we do know is that Bengal's population didn't recover for decades. Luna: Speaking of recovery — and I know this is a bit of a shift — but this reminds me that the work we do here, telling these stories, it takes time and resources. If you've been coming with us through these conversations about the British in India, and you find value in them, listener support is what keeps this ad-free and independent. Lucas: That's right. It's a small thing, but if you're able, you can buy us a coffee at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Every bit helps us dig into these deeper histories. Luna: And now back to the famine. One thing I wonder — did anyone in the Company try to help? Lucas: A few. There's a story about a young Company servant named John Shore — later Lord Teignmouth — who privately organised relief in his district. But he was the exception. Most officials saw the famine as an opportunity to buy land cheap, or to lend money at usurious rates to desperate farmers. The result was a massive transfer of land from Indian hands to the Company's allies. Lucas: And that land grab set the stage for the Permanent Settlement of 1793, which locked in the landlord system. So the famine didn't just kill millions — it transformed the entire social structure of Bengal. Luna: So the famine was a turning point, even if no one called it that at the time. Lucas: Exactly. And it's a reminder that colonialism wasn't just about battles and treaties — it was about daily decisions that caused immense suffering. The Battle of Plassey might be more famous, but the famine of '70 killed far more people than any battle in Bengal. Lucas: One last thing — there's a memorial in Calcutta, the 'Famine Monument', but it's not well known. Most tourists go to the Victoria Memorial or Fort William. The famine has been largely erased from popular memory, both in India and Britain. And that's part of why we talk about it here. Luna: To make sure it's not forgotten. Lucas: Exactly. Thanks for listening, and we'll be back next time with another story from the grand, messy, and often tragic history of how Europe divided the world.