" Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme..."

[Attrition]

Those are pretty lame excuses Terry. How difficult was it to get news from Ireland? Much of the famine ridden history of the raj comes from the distortions of the local economy it caused, just as in Ireland.

[Terry Duncan]

Those are pretty lame excuses Terry

Not really, famines still happen in those areas with far beter logistics and communications.

How difficult was it to get news from Ireland?

It wasnt difficult, but Ireland is a lot closer than Bengal and very different circumstances applied.

Much of the famine ridden history of the raj comes from the distortions of the local economy it caused, just as in Ireland.

So why did famines happen both before and after British rule? Trying to blame Britain ignores that this same problem has plagued the area over a far longer period than the Raj existed.

Even then it is very different from what the Nazi's caused, there was no deliberate 'starve the locals' policy whilst shipping food to Britain. Even the Irish potato famine was far more a product of a capitalist free market policy than wanting to reduce the numbers of the Irish.

[Attrition]

~~~~~It wasnt difficult, but Ireland is a lot closer than Bengal and very different circumstances applied.~~~~~

So the remoteness excuse falls since Ireland's British rulers behaved the same there as in India.

Famines aren't the point, it's what the 'government' does or neglects to do about food production and distribution. Since the means to alleviate them existed during the Raj. On some occasions the means were used so why not always? Note also that India may have gained independence but only within the world economic structure created by Britain and inherited by the USA.

The nazis were as ruthless but used some novel methods as well as the tried and tested ones. Note that the decision to import food from the Generalgouvernment in 1942 triggered the biggest massacre of Jewish Poles of the war.

Out of curiosity, what do you hold the British Empire responsible for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o ... to_1947%29

"1873–74 Bihar .... A large and generous relief effort was organized by the Bengal government. There were no mortalities during the famine."
So mass death wasn't inevitable.

[The_Enigma]

Looking at the timetable and using it as a piece of evidence on this subject, given that the figures are sourced, we already spot one key trend; the deaths following 1800 drop significantly. Since initially we are blaming the British rulers for these famines, or at least their supposed inactivity leading to these huge numbers of deaths. Then I think the important question is why were the numbers so low in the 19th and 20th Century when compared to the 18th; what changed? A further important factor is it was only after 1800, if I am not mistaken, that large treks of India came under direct rule prior to that there was various kingdoms etc in charge; so it would seem the implication is with British takeover the losses also decreased.

Going off the timeline as a source on the famines of the earlier century and the articles it links to, it still doesn’t paint a completely damning picture of the British:

The article states that the Bengal famine was caused by drought, crop failure and further reinforced with smallpox outbreaks. Additionally it notes that the good rains the following year solved the situation. To return to the original point this suggests most definitely that this was a natural famine and not man made. Further more the article notes that the British Indian Company, not the British government as they didn’t rule the area, was not responsible for the famine yet it concedes that their actions may have exacerbated the problem. Additionally it suggests that during this period the company’s profits were going through the roof so one could question why didn’t they provide famine relief? Or if they did, why not more? However the article does not elaborate on this and my knowledge of the company is not that extensive so this leads to a further and more fundamental question; was the British Indian Company able, with the infrastructure, funds, ships etc to provide extensive famine relief? I.e Bengal being on the far side of India and probably as far as you could get at that time from the UK, so commuication of the problem and reielf would most likely not be coming from home; was their sources near to India that could be used in such an ermergency?

The next major famine on the timeline is the Chalisa famine, where it would seem it was widespread throughout India effecting areas that the Company did not have access or control over; if it started, continued, and coursed so many deaths under so many rulers one is inclined, with the limited information available in the article, to speculate that it was not anyone’s particular fault. Further speculation based off the article seems a tad pointless but one does question if the deaths were so high and it was India wide, was everyone slow to act or was the famine somewhat unstoppable until it ran its natural course?

The final famine of the century, the so called Skull famine, is blamed squarely on successive crop failures and epidemics. The article notes that the deaths in the Companies controlled areas were less severe – although nearly half the population in those areas were bumped off.

The reoccurring point of these three, the worse famines during the British involvement in India, is that none of them were created by man, that disease inflated the deaths and that in most cases they were widespread. It does not seem damning evidence of the British behaviour but more like coincidence.

[Terry Duncan]

So the remoteness excuse falls since Ireland's British rulers behaved the same there as in India.

Not when refering to famine in India it doesnt. There is also the matter of infrastructure, a lack of any evidence of deliberate intent let alone a policy or extermination.

On some occasions the means were used so why not always?

When famine gripped large areas there were no surplus supplies to be moved to effected areas. Bad harvests could effect large areas for several years.

Note also that India may have gained independence but only within the world economic structure created by Britain and inherited by the USA.

Famines are recorded in India as far back as the times of Alexander the Great, so this is not a problem caused or increased, or indeed contributed to by the British Empire, it is simply an unfortunate natural occurrance in this area of the world.

"1873–74 Bihar .... A large and generous relief effort was organized by the Bengal government. There were no mortalities during the famine."
So mass death wasn't inevitable.

Without having any details about what food reserves were in other areas, the ability to transport them to effected areas, or how many were even effected by the famine, it is impossible to make an accurate judgement, certainly a fairly limited table in Wikipedia is far from useful.

Out of curiosity, what do you hold the British Empire responsible for?

Deliberate state policy and not natural phenomenon.

[Attrition]

Is neglect a deliberate state policy? Famines are recorded everywhere that humans have lived. The novelty in the C19th was using the new infrastructure of the industrial revolution to add resource extraction to 'natural' famines and imperial plundering to localpolitics.

You can make all the excuses you want but surely you can't seriously see the British empire as a welfare state 'except where force of circumstances prevent it'? Surely you can see that there is no qualitiative difference between one pile of corpses and another?

[glenn239]

Indian peoples themselves, in the end, voted on the merits of the British Empire; with their feet.

[Attrition]

Guns as well.

[The_Enigma]

Indian peoples themselves, in the end, voted on the merits of the British Empire; with their feet.

Funny how they stuck around to the end though isnt it ...

[The_Enigma]

Is neglect a deliberate state policy? Famines are recorded everywhere that humans have lived. The novelty in the C19th was using the new infrastructure of the industrial revolution to add resource extraction to 'natural' famines and imperial plundering to localpolitics.

You can make all the excuses you want but surely you can't seriously see the British empire as a welfare state 'except where force of circumstances prevent it'? Surely you can see that there is no qualitiative difference between one pile of corpses and another?

So instead of the causes of the deaths in these famines, look at the courses of why there were so few people killed compared to the earlier recorded famines. Granted i have not yet looked over the articles dealing with the latter ones it would be intresting explore why in the 18th Century there was around 30 million deaths due to famine, in the 19th there was around half that, and then in the 20th century a fraction of even that.

[Attrition]

Consider the same point in regard of Ukraine and Poland in the C20th. 'Few' is a rather tendentious quantity though don't you think? The point is that the British empire was as cruel as any other because that's what empires are for. It doesn't do to use Hitler's empire as Europe-USA's loss leader when Europe-USA's crimes make his look like a birthday present.

[The_Enigma]

No lets not consider anything else because the USA, Ukraine, Poland, Hitler etc have no relevance to the discussion on India; answer my question, the one you are avoiding. If at the start of the timeline the British Indian Company did not have full control of India, in fact most of was in the control of various Indian kingdoms etc and there was 30 million odd deaths in one century but prior to independence there was only a fraction of these numbers and most of the sub-continent was under direct British control; what happened?

The implication is certainly there and looking at some of the articles, the other day, there was mention of the British government in India stockpiling resources, improving the infrastructure and buying up food and shipping it in; in the final famine under our control we even offered free meals.

Looking at this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines Famine is not a new event to happen to India; millions died before the British ever showed up so how does famine continue to happen provide evidence that the British Empire was cruel? If the British Indian Company or the Raj had never existed would you suggest that the Indians in control of their own people would have been cruel if the same famines took place?

In the 60s famine continued to hit India with at least 1.5 million people dying (i say at least because the article also states it other places throughout India but lists no figures) and the Famine in India article notes numerous "near misses"; near misses because the USA shipped in hell loads of grain. So is the modern India state also "cruel"?

[Terry Duncan]

As others are pointing out here already, the situation under British rule was better than the one before it with regards to deaths from famines, so presumably British rule had improved things in many ways. Was it perfect? No, but simply saying there were X million deaths over Y number of years does not mean British rule caused the problem, or that they had the ability to prevent them. What do you expect, no deaths at all from famine in an area where it had always been a problem and still is many years after Britain left the area?

We know the Germans deliberately stripped food and livestock from other nations to feed themselves, and deliberately caused many deaths because of this. By comparison, we have no such policy from Britain and nothing yet to suggest any policy of neglect yet alone deliberately causing the famines.

Indian peoples themselves, in the end, voted on the merits of the British Empire; with their feet.

As pointed out, they stayed in the Empire a long time, and many were better off before independance. A simple look at the six million deaths as soon as partition happened show one of the reason many had welcomed British rule in the first place, and how many suffered as soon as it ended. Utterly pointless slaughter over religion and caste against all the 20thC famine losses caused by nature, British rule had many benefits even if it was not perfect.

[Terry Duncan]

The point is that the British empire was as cruel as any other because that's what empires are for.

The British Empire was significantly better for the people under its rule than any other contemporary I can think of, and it is not accurate to suggest it was cruel as an institution. Some aspects were, many were not. Many nations had far worse policies after Britain ceased to control them, so there would be plenty of candidates for 'cruel empires' before the British should be considered.

[Attrition]

Come off it! How can imperialism not be inherently cruel? Excusing it on the grounds of the lesser evil or that 'they're just as bad' only demonstrates the reality of the quantitative differences between empires which are qualitatively the same.