Winston Churchill 'caused death of 1m in Indian famine'

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Telegraph

Winston Churchill 'caused death of 1m in Indian famine'
Sir Winston Churchill may be one of Britain's greatest wartime leaders, but in India he has been blamed for allowing more than a million people to die of starvation.

Dean Nelson in New Delhi
Published: 7:19PM BST 09 Sep 2010

According to a new book on the famine, Sir Winston ignored pleas for emergency food aid for millions in Bengal left to starve as their rice paddies were turned over to jute for sandbag production and supplies of rice from Burma stopped after Japanese occupation.

Between one and three million died of hunger in 1943.

The wartime leader said Britain could not spare the ships to transport emergency supplies as the streets of Calcutta filled with emaciated villagers from the surrounding countryside, but author Madhusree Mukerjee has unearthed new documents which challenge his claim.

In her book, Churchill's Secret War, she cites ministry records and personal papers which reveal ships carrying cereals from Australia were bypassed India on their way to the Mediterranean where supplies were already abundant.

"It wasn't a question of Churchill being inept: sending relief to Bengal was raised repeatedly and he and his close associates thwarted every effort," the author said.




Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/7991820/Winston-Churchill-caused-death-of-1m-in-Indian-famine.html

[Vehl]

1. He was also an unrepentant racist...im sure those racist views played a huge part in this

Even as late as 1947, Churchill opposed Indian independence. When Lord Irwin urged him to bring his views on India up-to-date by talking to some Indians Churchill replied "I am quite satisfied with my views on India, and I don't want them disturbed by any bloody Indians."

he complained to Leo Amery, Secretary of State for India, 'I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.'

The Hindus, Churchill observed, are a 'foul people', and the Royal Air Force's surplus bombers could, in his opinion, be suitably deployed 'to destroy them'. Amery privately noted, 'I didn't see much difference between his outlook and Hitler's.'

He also called Gandhi a Half Naked Fakir




below is a transcript of a conversation between Churchill and Gandhi, its well worth the read :)

GANDHI & CHURCHILL: A Dialogue on Power
http://www.ppu.org.uk/people/gandhi1.html

[roguevalley]

13. don't get me started on his shit storm over Ireland.

[Ken Burch]

28. More of Churchill on race (and religion)

"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."

"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."


"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men."

(Churchill also had a quote about Jews that was too disgusting to quote here).

Yeah...that Winston...peach of a guy....

:puke:

[Vehl]

35. Yeah

His views were not too different from that of Hitler, when it came to a lot of people...Indian, Irish, Jews and others included

[MellowDem]

40. Interestingly, Ghandi himself was rather racist...

in his time in South Africa.

Churchill was an avid imperialist and not a humanitarian, to say the least. To me, though, it made it more possible for Britain to successfully defend against Germany. One ruthless leader taking on another. Same could be said with Stalin as well. Incredibly ruthless, egotistic megalomaniacs taking each other on. Not that Churchill was quite on the same level of sheer ruthlessness in disregarding human life, but he wasn't that much better either. Of course, such wars of survival could make even a peaceful man become such. But Churchill was like that before the war.

[johnroshan]

2. India has long endured such neglect...

This is not new. The whole idea of a colony is to increase the wealth of the empire through the slavery and poverty of the colonies.

Why would Winston Churchill do anything to feed Indians when he had his handful with Nazis closer to homeland?

Its good to have historical references to such activities. I don't think this has any relevance to world affairs now though.

[nyy1998]

3. Agreed for the most part, Amartya Sen wrote a great piece a few years ago

on how the British hurt India by colonizing it instead of going the Japan route(open up trade, allow their students to get educated in Britain/USA, etc).

I can't find it now, but it's a good peace. I think India would be a much different place if the British weren't on a empire thirst.

[Vehl]

5. Yep, India and China made up more than 50% of the world GDP before colonization

its amazing to see how the changes in the graph correlates with the colonial era

[nyy1998]

9. That's an excellent chart

It's also interesting considering how both countries continued to dominate despite two differing economic policies(before the colonial period). India(although never unified) traded quite a bit with much of Asia and Eastern Africa while China closed themselves off.

[golfguru]

26. Best chart I have seen on World Economy

However the chart begins in 1500 AD. Going back even further, China and India had
75% of world's GDP before 1000 AD.

Ironically, both China & India are on track again to regain that status by getting
away from communism & socialism.

[Shanti Mama]

41. Are Indians and Chinese complaining that the US took their jobs?

I know I'm going to get flamed, flamed, flamed. I live in Asia and I don't see the American border as clearly from outside as in. I get really tired of tirades against outsourcing.
Yes, the capitalist system is terribly flawed and causes human suffering, but put in the context of this chart the US ends up looking like the job/wealth stealer. What goes around comes around.

[ObamaIn2012]

44. And now they're taking our jobs!

:mad:

[slampoet]

4. This was always known by followers of Ghandi. Why do white people have to admit it for it to be true

[Judi Lynn]

6. This is the first time a lot of "white people" have ever heard about it.

They've been directed through cultural patterning to revere Churchill, with recurring reinforcements.

_{George W. Bush} felt it appropriate to obliquely compare himself with Churchill, keeping a bronze bust of him in his office, to remind him if he failed to remember their similarity.

[Vehl]

7. yeah

Initially I used to be surprised when people were totally clueless about Churchill's racist and imperialistic attitude towards the colonies...till i realized that most people out in the west never heard of that side of Churchill.

The actions of Churchill were one of the main reasons a considerable number of Indian soldiers in the British army sided with the Japanese and formed the INA(Indian national army) to fight the British. They loathed the fact that they were spilling their blood to defend the colonies of an Imperial power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army

[Kolesar]

11. Churchill is revered in America because he helped to promote the Cold War

There could have been a quiet rivalry between the US and the Soviets, but it was not to be when he coined the term "Iron Curtain" to describe the division on the Continent. General Patton and General Curtis Lemay were also Cold War promoters.

The weapons industry needed some reason to keep selling jet powered bombers and rocket missiles with nuclear warheads.

[hedgehog]

8. Not all "white people", just ask the Irish about Winston and his father Randolph.

My grandfather described Winston as being like a mad dog, to be released when needed but kept tied up the rest of the time. He may have led England through the war, but he left a trail of disasters that are still playing out.

[dixiegrrrrl]

20. remember their similarity.=boozehounds.

also.

[Octafish]

37. + 7 Billion

Which is the reason Churchill and his ilk loathe Democracy.

[MellowDem]

39. Nice way to racialize something for no apparant reason....

The truth is, a lot of people, white or black or otherwise, have no understanding at all of that part of history except for Indians perhaps. Do you think Africans know about this in general? Hell, most people in the US couldn't probably even tell you who Winston Churchill was. Not only is that part of history not known, history in general is pretty much unknown for most people in the US and in many other countries, especially the history of other countries outside their local world.

I think the famine was always known about, but as for who "caused" the devastation from it, it seems to have been a contention of historical fact. The reason it is being brought up now is because of new documents that shed more light, not because white people decided to finally release the truth.

[Billy Burnett]

10. Nonsense. Another success of capitalism.

:sarcasm:

Rule Britannia, every bit as bad as (if not worse than) Stalin.

[Gator_Matt]

15. As bad as, if not worse than, Stalin? Give me a break.

Stalin was a complete sociopath who not only murdered every conceivable political rival, but also was responsible for killing tens of millions of his own people.

Was Churchill a racist who could have done more to help the people mentioned by the OP? Probably, but let's not get carried away. You could argue FDR was culpable as well, assuming the US knew of the situation. Let's blame Australia while we're at it.

[Billy Burnett]

19. I said Rule Britannia. But, while you're at it ...

http://www.iraqwar.org/chemical.htm
Winston Churchill, as colonial secretary, was sensitive to the cost of policing the Empire; and was in consequence keen to exploit the potential of modern technology. This strategy had particular relevance to operations in Iraq. On 19 February, 1920, before the start of the Arab uprising, Churchill (then Secretary for War and Air) wrote to Sir Hugh Trenchard, the pioneer of air warfare. Would it be possible for Trenchard to take control of Iraq? This would entail *the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause disablement of some kind but not death...for use in preliminary operations against turbulent tribes.*

Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): *I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.* Henry Wilson shared Churchills enthusiasm for gas as an instrument of colonial control but the British cabinet was reluctant to sanction the use of a weapon that had caused such misery and revulsion in the First World War. Churchill himself was keen to argue that gas, fired from ground-based guns or dropped from aircraft, would cause *only discomfort or illness, but not death* to dissident tribespeople; but his optimistic view of the effects of gas were mistaken. It was likely that the suggested gas would permanently damage eyesight and *kill children and sickly persons, more especially as the people against whom we intend to use it have no medical knowledge with which to supply antidotes.*

Churchill remained unimpressed by such considerations, arguing that the use of gas, a *scientific expedient,* should not be prevented *by the prejudices of those who do not think clearly*.

http://www.rense.com/general47/thil.htm
In 1919, Churchill called for airborne chemical assaults on "uncooperative Arabs" (actually Kurds and Afghans, but your great men need not make such petty distinctions). "I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas," he declared. "I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes.."

[Vehl]

33. Churchill was the head of state for crying out loud!

and somehow FDR is as culpable as Churchill for this????

the last time I checked, India was under British Rule, and the famine was directly caused by the British policies in that region, the same way the famine of the late 1700s was also caused by similar policies.

He might not have been a Stalin, but tell that to the Millions who died under his watch!

[Kolesar]

12. K&R. I had no idea.

[Drale]

14. unfortunately

even our great leaders have their major falts FDR signed the order to lock japanese-american citizens in camps during world war II, and abraham lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus.

[OnlinePoker]

17. And don't forget about Eisenhower allowing about 1 million German prisoners to die post WW2. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

18. Never heard about it, so I took a quick look, and found something immediately:

Gotha, Germany - "Eisenhower's Death Camp"

~snip~
In his book entitled "Other Losses," James Bacque wrote the following:

There were no tents in the Gotha DEF camp, only the usual barbed wire fences round a field soon churned to mud. On the first day, they received a small ration of food, which was then cut in half. In order to get it, they were forced to run a gauntlet. Hunched over, they ran between lines of guards who hit them with sticks as they scurried towards their food. On April 27, they were transferred to the U.S. camp at Heidesheim further west where there was no food at all for days, then very little.

On May 7, 1945, the German army surrendered to General Eisenhower, who refused to shake hands with the German General, as is customary. The neutral country of Switzerland was removed as the Protecting Power for German prisoners, which was another violation of the Geneva Convention. General George S. Patton quickly released the prisoners who had surrendered to his Third Army, but General Eisenhower held his POWs until the end of 1946, forcing them to live on starvation rations. Red Cross packages sent to the German POW camps were returned. The POW camps had no barracks or tents.

The German prisoners were forced to dig holes in the ground for shelter, as the picture below shows. Even though the American army had plenty of tents, the prisoners lived for months in their holes. When it rained, the holes collapsed and the prisoners died.

http://www.scrapbookpages.com.nyud.net:8090/easterngermany/gotha/POWcamp.jpg

German POWs had to dig holes for shelterMore:
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/easterngermany/gotha/index.html

~~
Thanks for the info., which is new to some of us, apparently. Will be interested in learning more about this. I'm sure there are those who would say it doesn't matter HOW "we" treat the enemy, since they were really mean! The rest of us would like to know what happened.

[dixiegrrrrl]

21. Very little was publicized about the British concentration camps used in the Boer War.

"The Second Boer War was a watershed for the British Army in particular and for the British Empire as a whole.
It was here that the British first used concentration camps in a war setting (the first general use being by the Spanish during the Cuban insurrections of the 1890s).

By May 1902,to prevent further bloodshed the last of the Boer troops surrendered mourning the deaths of 26,000,
( Boers)**
mainly women and children who died in British internment camps."

** descendants of Dutch and other settlers, collectively known as Boers (farmers).

from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Republic


Churchill fought in the Boar War, was captured, later escaped, btw.

[Judi Lynn]

22. Didn't know about this, dixiegrrrrl. Glad to find out now from you.

Sure gives a person far more to consider.

26,000 dead there. Obscene.

Thank you.

[dixiegrrrrl]

24. You are welcome.

:hi: the dead in the camps were a small number compared to the dead African natives killed by Boers and later by countless others.
Boer War is quite interesting history, I am just starting to learn about it.

[Vehl]

31. thank you for this information!

I learned something about new today about the boer war. thank you.

[LostinVA]

42. I was just coming here to mention the Boer War and the Crimea

[Vehl]

16. Another...much bigger famine during the British East India company rule killed about 10-15 million!

The Bengal famine of 1770 was a catastrophic famine between 1769 and 1773 that affected the lower Gangetic plain of India. The famine is estimated to have caused the deaths of 10-15 million people (one out of three, reducing the population to thirty million in Bengal, which included Bihar and parts of Orissa).

.
.

In the 17th century the British East India Company had been given a grant on the town of Calcutta by the Mughal emperor Akbar. At this time the Company was effectively another tributary power of the Mughal. During the following century the company obtained sole trading rights for the province, and went on to become the dominant power in Bengal. In 1757, at the battle of Plassey, the British defeated the-then Nawab Siraj Ud Daulah and plundered the Bengali treasury. In 1764 their military control was reaffirmed at Buxar. The subsequent treaty gained them the Diwani, that is, taxation rights: the Company thereby became the de facto ruler of Bengal.

East India Company responsibilities

Fault for the famine is now often ascribed to the British East India Company's policies in Bengal.

As a trading body, the first remit of the company was to maximise its profits and with taxation rights the profits to be obtained from Bengal came from land tax as well as trade tariffs. As lands came under company control, the land tax was typically raised fivefold what it had been – from 10% to up to 50% of the value of the agricultural produce. In the first years of the rule of the British East India Company, the total land tax income was doubled and most of this revenue flowed out of the country. As the famine approached its height in April of 1770, the Company announced that the land tax for the following year was to be increased by a further 10%.

It is claimed that the destruction of food crops in Bengal to make way for opium poppy cultivation for export reduced food availability and contributed to the famine.However, this claim has been disputed on the grounds that the total area under opium poppy cultivation in the Bengal region constituted less than two percent of all the land.

The company is also criticised for forbidding the "hoarding" of rice. This prevented traders and dealers from laying in reserves that in other times would have tided the population over lean periods, as well as ordering the farmers to plant indigo instead of rice.

By the time of the famine, monopolies in grain trading had been established by the company and its agents. The company had no plan for dealing with the grain shortage, and actions were only taken insofar as they affected the mercantile and trading classes. Land revenue decreased by 14% during the affected year, but recovered rapidly. According to McLane, the first governor-general of British India, Warren Hastings, acknowledged "violent" tax collecting after 1771: revenues earned by the Company were higher in 1771 than in 1768. Globally, the profit of the company increased from fifteen million rupees in 1765 to thirty million in 1777.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770

Capitalistic greed at its best. 10-15 million during the 1700s equals maybe a hundred million people today!!

[Judi Lynn]

23. Good grief. Screwing with their food supply, "violent" tax collecting, and it's followed

by starvation of vast numbers of human beings.

That certainly has been well concealed here, as well.

Thanks for the information we really need to hear.

Had no idea.

[Billy Burnett]

25. Bookmarking for use when I read DU posts about big bad Castro.

Thanks to all for the info here.

:hi:

[golfguru]

27. Why was Churchill or any other non-Indian obligated to help Indians?

If true, all it says is that Churchill was not a compassionate humanitarian.
Another salient fact is that not all of India experienced famine at that time.
It was mainly in eastern provinces of Bengal & neighboring states. During the
period in question, there were many powerful Maharajah rulers present in India,
including kingdoms in Mysore & Baroda being the two largest. They had more
obligation to help starving Indians than did Churchill. My parents lived in
one of those kingdoms and had ample food supplies available.

[Vehl]

29. Churchil was obliged to look after his "colonies"...

at the very least.

or do you mean that the colonial government had no need to ensure that its subjects don't starve?
Keep in mind that the famine during the 1700s(under the watch of the East India company) and the later famine under the watch of the British Raj, both happened not cos of mere food shortages, but due to an institutionalized policy of wringing the most out of the people.

If you referred to my previous post, you could see that some of the policies enacted by these governments brought about this famine.

for example
# ordering that no rice be kept in hold(the "no hoarding law")

# Changing rice fields into Opium fields so the East India company can sell it to China and make $$ out of it (they actually forced people to grow opium instead of rice..cos opium brought in more revenue for the company)

# There was enough rice for the people in those areas, but England was shipping it out to Africa and Europe to feed its troops

# The raising of the taxes by orders of magnitude.

# Confiscation of boats, ships and other equipment from farmers/fishermen when resulted in their starvation because they could not even fish to sustain themselves.

# As for your question regarding other parts of India....There are only 3 major rice growing areas in India. The Gangetic plains of Bengal, The Sind river plains of Punjab and the Kaveri river plains of southern India. The Draconian laws in those areas ensured that the entire country barely had enough to feed itself. Furthermore, all transportation facilities were controlled by the British.


If the Brits could not even see to the basic needs of a continent they invaded , occupied and were lording over as robber barrons they should have simply left.

to shift the blame for this famine onto the people of India, who were hapless subjects under a very powerful capitalistic empire,does a great disservice to all those who perished.

[golfguru]

32. My parents lived through that period in India

So they know FIRST HAND if other Indians could have helped the
starving Indians. CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME. If the rich Maharajah's
had ample resources to help starving fellow country men then
certainly do not shift blame to Churchill for not looking after
Indians.

The Maharajah's did not need British ships to move rice, wheat,
and other staples which were abundant in states such as Gujarat
and the southern India provinces surrounding Mysore where the two
richest and most powerful Maharajah's were rulers.

It is best not to depend on foreigners. Self help is best.
Especially why would you expect a foreign occupying power such
as Britain to have best interest of the Indians in their heart and minds?
They conquered lot of Indian territory and established the "Raj" so they
could exploit it.

So, I first blame other Indians for not coming to the aid of their fellow
brethren before I will blame Churchill or any other foreigner. It is not
as if all of India was starving. There were ample food supplies to share in
India during that period. WHy beg for mercy of foreign occupiers when you
could help your own first?

[Vehl]

34. ok so I guess other kingdoms should have simply supported the

People under British rule just so the British could make the most profit.


It's the responsibility of the head of state who governs a land to ensure that such things don't happen...and there is no need to "shift" the blame to Churchill cos he was the head of state...and the blame rests sorely on him.


Furthermore, do you know that private shipping companies were banned/actively discouraged in British India? So even if the maharajahs were to send aid, they would have been forced to ask the Brits to do the transporting for them.What would have the British reaction been?

Even though i agree that other states could have helped these people, I highly doubt the British would have allowed any such aid...especially given the fact that they hardly acknowledged the famine in the first place



PS:

Check the fate of the First indian Swadeshi shipping Company and how the British ensured that it was bankrupted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V._O._Chidambaram_Pillai

The British had assumed the Indian venture would collapse like a house of cards, but soon found the Indian company to be a formidable challenge. To thwart the new Indian company they resorted to the monopolistic trade practice of reducing the fare per trip to Re.1 (16 annas) per head. Swadeshi company responded by offering a fare of Re.0.5 (8 Annas). The British company went further by offering a free trip to the passengers plus a free umbrella, which had ‘S.S.Gaelia’ and ‘S.S.Lawoe’ running nearly empty. By 1909 the company was heading towards bankruptcy.

PPS:

of course charity begins at home...but to expect some other states to feed nearly 45 million people out of their own pocket and in a timely manner when they had no shipping facilities would have been a tall order.

[golfguru]

36. I think we are in agreement that the British in general and Churchill

in particular did not have compassion for starving Indians in Bengal.

My contention is that the British were more interested in profits from
jute & opium production than feeding starving Indians. That makes complete
sense since they did not establish East India company for charitable purpose!
It was simply to make money!

I can not fathom why the British rulers would go out of their way to stop
land shipment of food items from other states to Bengal. There was no profit
in doing that. You must realize the primary motive of Brits was "PROFIT".

I also can empathize with the formidable task of land shipments to 45 million
people. I did not say it was easy, I said it was possible to alleviate a lot
of distress if the fat and happy Maharajah's had shown more compassion and
sacrifice. My father was a high official with the Maharajah of Baroda, and I
can still recall the wealth in that kingdom. My father would have been more than
willing to help the process. But the Maharajah did not care to help. After 1947
when the Maharajah's were gone, my father actually signed up for a India Gov't
job to help out the millions of refugees coming from Sindh to Western India.

[Vehl]

43. yes

I understand the points you made, and i agree that Indians from other parts of India could have done more to help, but as for the British transporting the aid from other parts of India for profit...im not too sure.


The "empire" would also want to save its image...the last thing it would want the rest of the world to know would be how it caused one of the biggest famines in history.


I agree that the maharajahs could have made a difference. It's great that your father signed up for the GOI to help its people! :)
My granddad was visiting India at that time (in the early 40s).He was a fan of Gandhi....was inspired by a talk Gandhi gave at his school , and later met him during his Indian visit. However he was thoroughly disappointed by the path the congress took after independence...as it degenerated into a quasi-dynastic party.

[Vehl]

30. "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it" ~ Churchill

no wonder Churchill said that "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it"....after all he seemed to have succeeded to a large extent....trying to keep his name unsullied....if not for investigative writers such as these, the truth would not have surfaced even after all these years.

[totodeinhere]

38. It's stretch to say that because he refused aid that means that he "caused" it.

And what about the culpability of the Japanese? The article says that "supplies of rice from Burma stopped after Japanese occupation." So if Japan had not occupied Burma then those unfortunate people probably would not have starved either.

[fedsron2us]

47. Be reasonable someone has a book to sell here

so getting the Churchill brand on it will boost sales. He is a political and cultural shibboleth that can be built up and demolished repeatedly to keep academics gainfully employed

The cycles of famines under British rule in India and the failure of successive colonial governments to prevent them are not actually new historical discoveries. In fact Churchill was being tagged with responsibilty for the Bengal Famine of 1943 as long ago as the 1970s in left wing circles in the UK. The arguments about callous,incompetent and corrupt British rule in India have an even longer history dating back at least to Edmund Burke in the late 18th Century.

Churchill's indifferent attitude to the victims of the famine was probably typical of his class but his day to day influence on the disaster in 1943 would have been pretty limited particularly as much of the government of India was conducted at arms length from London by the Viceroy and Governor General. He could have done more to prevent deaths from starvation and disease but then so could many people closer to the event.

[CrawlingChaos]

45. K&R - glad to see this being discussed (nt)

[entanglement]

46. Despite the many layers of revisionist whitewash applied to the history of the British Empire

its bloody past cannot be concealed altogether; some of the red stains show up now and then.

[mitchum]

48. Churchill was an eloquent pig