The Bengal Famine: How the British engineered the worst genocide in human history for profit

“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.”
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    -Winston Churchill



The British had a ruthless economic agenda when it came to operating in India and that did not include empathy for native citizens. Under the British Raj, India suffered countless famines. But the worst hit was Bengal. The first of these was in 1770, followed by severe ones in 1783, 1866, 1873, 1892, 1897 and lastly 1943-44. Previously, when famines had hit the country, indigenous rulers were quick with useful responses to avert major disasters. After the advent of the British, most of the famines were a consequence of monsoonal delays along with the exploitation of the country’s natural resources by the British for their own financial gain. Yet they did little to acknowledge the havoc these actions wrought. If anything, they were irritated at the inconveniences in taxing the famines brought about.
Image source
The first of these famines was in 1770 and was ghastly brutal. The first signs indicating the coming of such a huge famine manifested in 1769 and the famine itself went on till 1773. It killed approximately 10 million people, millions more than the Jews incarcerated during the Second World War. It wiped out one third the population of Bengal. John Fiske, in his book “The Unseen World”, wrote that the famine of 1770 in Bengal was far deadlier than the Black Plague that terrorized Europe in the fourteenth century. Under the Mughal rule, peasants were required to pay a tribute of 10-15 per cent of their cash harvest. This ensured a comfortable treasury for the rulers and a wide net of safety for the peasants in case the weather did not hold for future harvests. In 1765 the Treaty of Allahabad was signed and East India Company took over the task of collecting the tributes from the then Mughal emperor Shah Alam II. Overnight the tributes, the British insisted on calling them tributes and not taxes for reasons of suppressing rebellion, increased to 50 percent. The peasants were not even aware that the money had changed hands. They paid, still believing that it went to the Emperor.

Image source
Partial failure of crop was quite a regular occurrence in the Indian peasant’s life. That is why the surplus stock, which remained after paying the tributes, was so important to their livelihood. But with the increased taxation, this surplus deteriorated rapidly. When partial failure of crops came in 1768, this safety net was no longer in place. The rains of 1769 were dismal and herein the first signs of the terrible draught began to appear. The famine occurred mainly in the modern states of West Bengal and Bihar but also hit Orissa, Jharkhand and Bangladesh. Bengal was, of course, the worst hit. Among the worst affected areas were Birbum and Murshidabad in Bengal. Thousands depopulated the area in hopes of finding sustenance elsewhere, only to die of starvation later on. Those who stayed on perished nonetheless. Huge acres of farmland were abandoned. Wilderness started to thrive here, resulting in deep and inhabitable jungle areas. Tirhut, Champaran and Bettiah in Bihar were similarly affected in Bihar.

Prior to this, whenever the possibility of a famine had emerged, the Indian rulers would waive their taxes and see compensatory measures, such as irrigation, instituted to provide as much relief as possible to the stricken farmers. The colonial rulers continued to ignore any warnings that came their way regarding the famine, although starvation had set in from early 1770. Then the deaths started in 1771. That year, the company raised the land tax to 60 per cent in order to recompense themselves for the lost lives of so many peasants. Fewer peasants resulted in less crops that in turn meant less revenue. Hence the ones who did not yet succumb to the famine had to pay double the tax so as to ensure that the British treasury did not suffer any losses during this travesty.

After taking over from the Mughal rulers, the British had issued widespread orders for cash crops to be cultivated. These were intended to be exported. Thus farmers who were used to growing paddy and vegetables were now being forced to cultivate indigo, poppy and other such items that yielded a high market value for them but could be of no relief to a population starved of food. There was no backup of edible crops in case of a famine. The natural causes that had contributed to the draught were commonplace. It was the single minded motive for profit that wrought about the devastating consequences. No relief measure was provided for those affected. Rather, as mentioned above, taxation was increased to make up for any shortfall in revenue. What is more ironic is that the East India Company generated a profited higher in 1771 than they did in 1768.
 
Image source
Although the starved populace of Bengal did not know it yet, this was just the first of the umpteen famines, caused solely by the motive for profit, that was to slash across the country side. Although all these massacres were deadly in their own right, the deadliest one to occur after 1771 was in 1943 when three million people died and others resorted to eating grass and human flesh in order to survive.
Image source
Winston Churchill, the hallowed British War prime minister who saved Europe from a monster like Hitler was disturbingly callous about the roaring famine that was swallowing Bengal’s population. He casually diverted the supplies of medical aid and food that was being dispatched to the starving victims to the already well supplied soldiers of Europe. When entreated upon he said, “Famine or no famine, Indians will breed like rabbits.” The Delhi Government sent a telegram painting to him a picture of the horrible devastation and the number of people who had died. His only response was, “Then why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?”
Winston Churchill: Image Source
 
 
 
 
 
Image source
 
 
On Independence Day it is worthwhile to remember that the riches of the west were built on the graves of the East. While we honour the brave freedom fighters (as we should), it is victims like these, the ones sacrificed without a moment’s thought, who paid the ultimate price. Shed a tear in their memory and strive to make the most of this hard won independence that we take for granted today. Pledge to stand up those whose voice the world refuses to hear because they are too lowly to matter. To be free is a great privilege. But as a great superhero once said, “With great freedom comes great responsibility.”

http://yourstory.com/2014/08/bengal-famine-genocide/



So many don't even know it happened or that we were capable of doing such things.

and yet...........


the indians dont come here with the intent of destroying us...

unlike some......

They got their independence, and aren't being bombed daily.

After all, the Irish are still at it.

yep but the irish dont want to turn england into little ireland

whereas them others want to turn it into little englandistan

The list of atrocities committed by various countries on each other is not confined to the British, so I'm not sure what the above has to do with anything.

HoratioTarr wrote:The list of atrocities committed by various countries on each other is not confined to the British, so I'm not sure what the above has to do with anything.

Ugh ... "every country has done bad things" doesn't absolve any one country of the bad things it's done!

Ben_Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:The list of atrocities committed by various countries on each other is not confined to the British, so I'm not sure what the above has to do with anything.

Ugh ... "every country has done bad things" doesn't absolve any one country of the bad things it's done!

Of course it doesn't. Did I say it did?   But I don't see the point dredging up the past and trying to beat a country over the head with it.   We could all hate the Germans for obvious reasons but life has to go on.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:The list of atrocities committed by various countries on each other is not confined to the British, so I'm not sure what the above has to do with anything.

Ugh ... "every country has done bad things" doesn't absolve any one country of the bad things it's done!

Of course it doesn't. Did I say it did?   But I don't see the point dredging up the past and trying to beat a country over the head with it.   We could all hate the Germans for obvious reasons but life has to go on.

It's not about hating anybody, it's about remembering that many of the world's most advanced countries got to where they are today not by being great or being better than anybody else -- as has so often been claimed by so-called patriots, along with lazy/biased historians and nationalistic politicians -- but by doing things that today we consider abhorrent.

It's also about the need for every new generation to know its true history, including the bad parts, and trying to someday come up with a society that no longer repeats the mistakes of the past. And we are getting there -- it used to be far more common for people to be ruled by absolute monarchs, and for governments to pass from one group to the next only through massive bloodshed than it is today.

The U.S. went from owning black people 150 years ago to having a black president today not by forgetting what has been done to black people in our history, but by learning from what was done.

Yes ben, and remarkably, you managed to miss out the "sack cloth and ashes, beat yourself up and drink of the cup of self hate" stage, which OUR lefties are so fond of...

Lord Foul wrote:yep but the irish dont want to turn england into little ireland

whereas them others want to turn it into little englandistan

Irony is they they didn't until you went and tried to make england in their nation

besides If Chruchill is Amoug the best england can offer it woud be an improvement

Ben_Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Of course it doesn't. Did I say it did?   But I don't see the point dredging up the past and trying to beat a country over the head with it.   We could all hate the Germans for obvious reasons but life has to go on.

It's not about hating anybody, it's about remembering that many of the world's most advanced countries got to where they are today not by being great or being better than anybody else -- as has so often been claimed by so-called patriots, along with lazy/biased historians and nationalistic politicians -- but by doing things that today we consider abhorrent.

It's also about the need for every new generation to know its true history, including the bad parts, and trying to someday come up with a society that no longer repeats the mistakes of the past. And we are getting there -- it used to be far more common for people to be ruled by absolute monarchs, and for governments to pass from one group to the next only through massive bloodshed than it is today.

The U.S. went from owning black people 150 years ago to having a black president today not by forgetting what has been done to black people in our history, but by learning from what was done.

Have a greenie from me, absolutely spot on.   Things like this are never taught in school history lessons.  Children need to know it all, the good and the bad, it's where they come from, it's what we did and why we are in the position we are today.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:The list of atrocities committed by various countries on each other is not confined to the British, so I'm not sure what the above has to do with anything.

Ugh ... "every country has done bad things" doesn't absolve any one country of the bad things it's done!

Of course it doesn't. Did I say it did?   But I don't see the point dredging up the past and trying to beat a country over the head with it.   We could all hate the Germans for obvious reasons but life has to go on.

the major difference is most Germans are ashamed of their nations crimes while most Brits are Proud, they literally think the people they oppressed should celebrate the fact they were oppressed by Britain




let alone all the whinging about fate, like they have had any real hardship by comparison to their victims.

veya_victaous wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Of course it doesn't. Did I say it did?   But I don't see the point dredging up the past and trying to beat a country over the head with it.   We could all hate the Germans for obvious reasons but life has to go on.

the major difference is most Germans are ashamed of their nations crimes while most Brits are Proud, they literally think the people they oppressed should celebrate the fact they were oppressed by Britain




let alone all the whinging about fate, like they have had any real hardship by comparison to their victims.

Invented nonsense again

Okay it was a horrendous act by Churchill, but and here is the big but, there was a war going on at the time and there is a multitude of crimes that happened in WW2, the British even bombed the French fleet with the attack on Mers-el-Kébir. i can list countless acts that happened during the war and this is one actually told many times with me only bringing this up the other day. The fact is though it was Churchill that held this nation together when it was on the brink and if he had not, then the war could have and would have gone on for at least another decade. America would not have had a base of operations with the Uk and they would have had to have invaded the Uk first if we had capitulated to the Germans. So Churchill's action with India was very much based on a racial prejudice he certainly had and it is a crime we should never forget, but to claim its not taught is sheer bollocks. The fact is at the time the war was the priority and even with this diabolical non-action allowing 3 million  to starve to death it never stopped hundreds of thousands of Indians fighting the cause for the UK. Britain treatment of the Indians was appalling during, before and after the war, which was witnessed by American troops in Bomber units.

The one thing though is throughout history the vast majority of great leaders have stains on their lives, all the way from Alexander the Great until today, where none of them are forgotten, but great leaders will always be remembered for what they did great.


So please read



With the release of Steven Spielberg's epic movie biopic, Lincoln, the debate about another early American president appears to have resurfaced with a new intensity.

Thomas Jefferson, our third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, has always had something of an albatross around his neck because of his relationship with slavery. A newly released book by Henry Wiencek, “Master of the Mountain,” attempts to further expose this dark side of Jefferson’s life.

Last week, a New York Times op-ed by Paul Finkelman, was equally damning in its verdict about our esteemed Founding Father.  If the current flow against him gathers momentum, and his detractors are allowed to arbitrarily paint over all of his astonishing achievements, a complete reshaping of Jefferson's legacy may be on the horizon.

But how can we bring ourselves to forgive such a negative side to someone's life in the face of so much good? A lifetime of public service that produced one of the most important documents in human history, the pivotal Louisiana Purchase, and extraordinary advances in education and freedom of religion.

Forgiving can, and must, be done -- and not just for Jefferson, but also for all historical characters whose contributions of good outweigh the bad.

Fast-forward a century later to Winston Churchill, another national leader during a time of crisis.  I have certain personal feelings toward Churchill. Growing up in the suburbs of London, with parents who emigrated from India, I heard nothing but glowing tributes to this great national icon.  The fearless leader who stood up to Adolf Hitler and led the country in its brave solitary fight against the Nazis.

As I got older and began to learn more about Churchill, I was horrified to hear of his racist, derogatory views toward Indians.  Of one of the world's greatest freedom fighters, he said: "It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer of the type well-known in the East, now posing as a fakir, striding half naked up the steps of the Viceregal palace to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor."

It's well known that Churchill favored allowing Gandhi to die in prison.  He was also quoted saying: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."

Those Indians he was talking about were my grandparents; thoroughly decent, law abiding and hard-working people who just wanted the simple right of self-rule.  But it wasn't just Churchill’s words that were so offensive and hurtful.  His deliberate policies are estimated to have starved millions of Indians during the famine of Bengal -- a loss of life on a terrible scale.  The more I learned about this side to Churchill, the more dismayed I became.  There's little doubt that had it been left to his bullish nature, India may never have even gained Independence.

I went through a period of disappointment and betrayal, because these aspects of Churchill's life seemed so conveniently forgotten.  Yet over the years, I have become much less angry, and more reasoned in my approach to his legacy.  Not only as I read more books about his fearless nature, but also through my job as a medical doctor I had the privilege of talking to dozens, if not hundreds, of people who lived through the war and constantly reaffirmed what a great leader he was.

As hard as it was, I found that I could not ignore Churchill's heroic qualities.  I may have to constantly balance these against his views and acts against my ancestors, but he undoubtedly deserves to be held in high esteem for his service to his people and country.

So let's get back to Jefferson and the reasons to forgive, but not forget, certain parts of his legacy.

First, Jefferson had been born into the wicked culture of slavery -- his family was economically dependent on it.  He lost his father at a young age, and had a big family to help bring up.  He ended up tragically losing almost everyone he loved, but still soldiered on with his public duties.

From many of his statements, he knew that slavery was wrong.  Jefferson once said: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and his justice cannot sleep forever." And: "I hope preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation. He even went so far as to call slavery an "abominable crime."

When a vote to end slavery failed by one vote, he said, "thus we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man… and heaven was silent in that awful moment! But it is to be hoped it will not always be silent and that the friends to the rights of human nature will, in the end, prevail… no person hereafter coming into this country shall be held within the same in slavery under any pretext whatever…This abomination must have an end. And there is a superior bench reserved in heaven for those who hasten it.”  



Was he a hypocrite?  Probably.  But a tyrant he was not, and he shouldn’t be condemned as such. He did have a conscience, and clearly knew somewhere inside that complex personality that slavery was morally wrong.  It's a great shame for Jefferson's otherwise impeccable legacy to have this blot on him, but, as with Churchill, we have to ask: Was his influence for his country overwhelmingly positive despite being what we would call today a racist?  The answer is yes.

Jefferson's views, however abhorrent, were not in isolation, and shared by many of his era.  Had he been born today, a man of his intelligence and capabilities would have been just as forward-looking as the next person. The founding generation that fought for independence was engaged in a battle for their very survival, and, however painful to accept, the fight against slavery took a back seat at that time.

During the Revolutionary War, Jefferson was forced to abandon Monticello as the British armies advanced, and later as president there was the constant threat that the United States could disintegrate at any moment. These were the precarious times he lived in.

Talking to a friend who was from a Third World country, I asked him why the system in his nation was so unfair and unequal.  He replied to me that all the "niceties" we take for granted in the West today -- whether they be equality, political transparency and justice for all -- can only possibly come about when a country is stable, unthreatened by war, and most of the population has enough food on their plates.

This is a very sad, but true, fact of history.

It is a very dangerous game to judge historical characters by today's acceptability standards.  If we do this, even Abraham Lincoln would have held very questionable views (incidentally, Lincoln was a huge fan of Jefferson). Contrary to popular belief, Lincoln didn't believe that whites and blacks were equal and even pondered making free blacks leave the country.  Will we eventually turn against him too?

The brutal truth is that many of our own grandparents would be harshly judged if we applied today's full equality measures.  Where will our condemnation end?  Will we rename all the monuments and institutions named after Jefferson?  We simply cannot play this game with history.

Just as Winston Churchill's finest hour came during World War II, so too was Thomas Jefferson's in the founding of a new nation. And had it not been for the likes of Jefferson, who stood up bravely against a mighty king and empire, there may not have been an America for us be so free in today.

Paradoxical as this is, his critics would do well to remember it.  Or perhaps, as Thomas Jefferson said himself, ““None of us, no, not one, is perfect. And were we to love none who had imperfections, this world would be a desert for our love.””

Dr. Suneel Dhand is a practicing physician, and author of the book “Thomas Jefferson: Lessons from a Secret Buddha.” You can learn more about him at www.suneeldhand.com.

http://www.ibtimes.com/redeeming-racism-forgiving-winston-churchill-thomas-jefferson-933098

Churchill was a cowardly ---- that sacrificed others for Pathetic English lives. 

It doesn't matter how much propgoanda you put out didge he was a ---- to everyone by the English

and Alexander is known as Iskander in the middle east... translation is 'demon king' so Remembered as good by some and as the great evil by others. Like every other great leader including Chruchill.

i have no Idea how ASPCA mistook you for a historian

That is your opinion Veya, not shared by many people

I am well aware had the Arabs look towards Alexander

What was his name

Alexander the Great

That is how he is remembered

Looks like I am the one who knows who and why people are remembered, even if he did commit some horrendous crimes, as he will be remembered for being so young conquering the known world and bringing Greek culture to the known world.
Though his biggest achievement was being the pioneer to multiculturalism

I suggest you go back to school son

I suggest you stop being a tit veya...

WWII

britains leader is a lesser man than churchill...and battered by the reversals early in the war, Britain either capitulates or pulls out and goes neutral


britain falls...

is run by a puppet govt and a sympathiser king....

the Americans dont get involved

this give germany the 2 years or so she needed to finish THEIR atom bomb project

a year later america falls to the now nuclear armed germany and the swastika flies over the white house

and in cahoots with japan...they nuke Australia...and the rising sun flies over canberra....

Veya would have liked the Nazis to have taken over England ...