Sorry but you took it off topic. I enquired why (if they hadn't) the Indian Government had not sought reparations specifically for The Bengal Famine given the weight of evidence of a crime against humanity that you suggest is available. I was not talking about colonial rule generally and it was you that provided the article above. India is now a country in its own right and, as such, it can spend what the hell it likes on what it likes and good luck to them. You can make whatever excuses and justifications you like for their space program - but no, you REALLY don't NEED to put a man in space to research how to get clean water to your population - while so many live in abject poverty and without access to clean water, medical care etc. But we'll leave this because it enters modern day politics and that is not what this is about.
I could also say that the UK Government doesn't NEED aircraft carriers (with no aircraft, no less[8|]) when austerity policies are gutting the country is absurd, but such is life.
At least a space program has the merit of trying to advance the progress of humanity.
But we're way off topic now.
No you are confusing the issues - whether intentionally or not I don't know. My comment was specifically about, and in response to, your comment on the Denial Policy. Nothing to do with shipments or lack thereof once the crisis had developed.
In regards to the denial policy, there's not been much evidence I can find as to who ordered it specifically. Pinnell was in charge of it but it seems like a move that the military would clamor for.
Interesting. Where did that come from? Other sources state that the Denial Policy (allied to fear of Japanese invasion) saw a large displacement of people - and so affecting food production. The war situation also meant farming land being taken by the military for camps, airfields etc. So I am more than a little bemused by all the contradictions. Denial Policy as per Law-Smith meant the harvests for 1942 and 1943 were adversely affected, and according to some - including you - Denial Policy was the start of the problem. But you are saying more land was dedicated to rice farming which allowed for a bumper crop in 1943 despite the fact that during 1943 people - a great many people - were dying of starvation and disease.... Also, if its true, who directed that more land be made available for rice farming? How did that happen? Are you suggesting the Government did something right?
https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.2307/2055450
Keep in mind I refer specifically to only the rice crop.
I find your logic hard to follow - if there is a serious food shortage, there is an effort on all levels to ensure an end to the shortage, hence the increased cultivation of rice.
Well, except from some in London, they weren't too bothered by the problem.
Apologies...required foodstuff
Let me spell it out for you. It is Jan 1943. The price of rice is all over the place due to the various factors at work. The harvest is short and the traditional carry over rice from the previous harvest has been taken away by the British. Oh, and they've taken the livestock and the small boats as well, just for good measure.
Then, in Jan of '43, just before the death rate spikes, you've Linlithgow giving the order to move rice to Celyon...???
By May, you've the districts reporting death by starvation.
From the articles you've provided, we know he had the necessary powers, so why did he not react? Especially when London - apparently - wasn't sending the required foodstuffs.
Linlithgow (I feel) bears a great deal of responsibility for the mishandling of the famine. The desire to move food out of Bengal in Jan of '43 and the failure to declare a state of famine don't make up a solid track record.
I liked the last line of the article which I thought was fair.
As far as the two million and more who perished in Bengal are concerned, the conclusion seems inescapable. They were in the main unwitting, unwilling colonial casualties of a struggle not of their making, but a key struggle nonetheless, that against fascism.
Nice to know that some people recognise there was a life and death struggle - also known as World War II - going on.
You'd have been better reading the whole paragraph.
"official denial was evident in both cases, each in the service of what was deemed a higher ordeal".
Did so many need to starve to beat fascism? I don't think so.
The thing is warspite, I get where you're coming from, I really do. There was a war on and it had to be won. The overwhelming sense I get from reading the actual documents is that nobody in any position of authority in India could see the trees for the forest. When discussing famine relief, it's all tied back to the war effort; the fact that it's millions of people dying is never really ackowledged until Wavell gets on the scene. I wonder that had the famine not impacted the war effort, that there would have been no relief for it at all...
The things that really irk me about this little bit of imperial history are:
- The stark difference with the resolution of the Dutch famine.
- The fact that in 1943 Britain has record food stockpiles while Bengal starved (need to double check that figure with a better source).
- The downsizing, misuse and outright denial of food shipments to relieve the famine on behalf of WSC at no cost to the war effort.
If there's insufficent evidence for legal failings, there's an abundance of evidence for a moral failure to do more.
Most empires were more of a burden than economically advantage, their propose was more of denial in competition with other European colonial powers.
In case of India i very much doubt that would be today a Democracy without Western European Colonialism. Without it probably it would have Communism (which is btw is another sort of European colonialism) and a Mao figure with millions of deaths...
[8|]
; Julia Child