Talk:Bengal famine of 1943

Why is the translation in Bengali only?

It is clearly mentioned that the famine was widespread and includes other states including Bihar and Orissa. So why is the translation only in Bengali? Is it desperation? Try to score points even dealing with deaths. This is just one example, I have seen such things at many articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.127.60 (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, you got us. You found us out. Even though we are fluent in Bihari and Orissan, we have flat refused to translate the article into these languages at the behest of the British MI5. We are desperate, desperate to score points. Right now we are behind: Us 97 points, The Truth 103 points, and only four minutes to play! BTW we also faked the moon landings. Herostratus (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads up

An editor, User:Lingzhi, has avowed that he is "working drip by drip on rewriting Bengal Famine of 1943 in a sandbox" for the purpose of saving us from "every dickhead who thinks he's saving the world by bashing [Churchill] on Wikipedia".

Obviously there are a couple of potential problems here, one being the language indicating the possible presence of a dedicated and patient culture warrior, another being that presenting us "dickheads" with the fait accompli of new and pro-Churchill version of the article is IMO not the best way to proceed (and will presumably just get rolled back). So editors might want to be on the watch for this.

If the editor has specific improvements to offer for the article we could hopefully have a conversation about these matters as befits reasonable adults. Herostratus (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'll reply once and only once: "dickheads" refers to people who -- instead of carefully analyzing and discussing a large number of issues -- would use cquotes to circumvent WP:UNDUE. the Bengal famine of 1943 was an extremely complex perfect storm of variables (including, among many others, a lack of prioritizing the issue in the highest levels UK govt, though the lower-level people, the people actually in India, repeatedly requested it). Focusing mainly on the higher levels of UK gov't is WP:UNDUE. I will try to show in an objective, non-dramatic fashion that yes, the UK govt... may not have caused the famine, but very certainly did not respond appropriately and thus certainly made it far worse. If you would like to do that thing... what's it called... oh yeah research on this topic, you would be very likely come to a similar conclusion. That's was also the explicitly stated conclusion of Amartya Sen, whom I will quote to that effect in the article text as soon as I find the damn quote I lost. Thank you for your time and attention.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, much of what you say sounds eminently reasonable (which is not the same as being right of course). Wrapping it in a crankypants package doesn't help your cause.

Since it's a complicated subject and political it is probably true that there's no answer to the question "what is the one correct narrative of these events". So we want to include various theories providing they're respectable. Taking a "Here, I'll fix this for you" approach is probably not best.

I am not versed on this topic, but I can read. Looking at the first section "Onset", which is bad enough to be tagged, by paragraph I get

1. The food situation in India was tight from the beginning of the Second World War...
2. The proximate cause of the famine was a reduction in supply with some increase in demand. The winter 1942 aman rice crop... was hit by a cyclone and three tidal waves in October... tidal waves... torrential rain. Reserve stocks... were destroyed.... fungus...
3. As a result [of stuff], the good December 1941 crop did not mean the normal surplus stocks were carried over into 1943. (In other years... stocks had been built up.)
4. Bengal had been a food importer for the last decade. Calcutta was normally supplied by Burma. The British Empire had suffered a disastrous defeat.. By 1940 15% of India's rice overall came from Burma... After the Japanese occupation of Burma in March 1942, Bengal and the other parts of India and Ceylon, normally supplied by Burma, had to find food elsewhere. However, there were poor crops and famine situations [elsewhere, so] it fell on the few surplus Provinces, mainly the Punjab, to supply the rest of India and Ceylon.
5. Bengal's food needs rose at the same time from the influx of refugees from Burma. The enormous expansion of the Indian Army... did mean significantly more local demand in Bengal... (However, the effects of army consumption in causing the famine was clearly limited)

This section has been marked since 2013 as pushing a ideologically skewed and false narrative of the background of the famine, so is the the sort of problem you're talking about?

I'd be interested in what the ideological point of view being pushed here is. It certainly doesn't jump out at me. Maybe it's pushing the POV "Weather is tricky. Fungus is bad. Having Imperial troops in your grain supply is bad" or something, but is that even an ideology? You're going to have to engage with other editors on these questions if you want the article to be better.

Reply

To the best of my knowledge all commentators, including people writing at the time agree with these statements. If you do not agree, put up references. But make them good. There are far too many people putting up statements from blogs, third hand references etc. And note that Sen for example relied almost entirely on the Famine Inquiry Commission and mentions these points. AidWorker (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Unless the structure of the sections is a problem, it'd probably be best to go section-by-section like this. Herostratus (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• The Onset section was tagged POV (not by me!) because it presents an exclusively FAD ("food availability decline") perspective and elides any discussion of FEE ("failure of exchange entitlements"). See Theories of famines. Looking at the article's history over the years, it seems there has been a rolling FAD versus FEE hobbyhorse chase, with two editors who didn't seem to fight or interact with each other, but just did a coredump of the details that support their favored arguments. I would suggest that arguing over/choosing sides in FAD versus FEE is of secondary importance to describing the many, many, many other factors involved.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Schools of thought

There are at least half a dozen schools of thought on the famine, and the entry mentions them though some have now been cut by editors to the extent that they are difficult to understand or even garbled. The FAD is just one, and is mentioned with a lot of contemporary evidence. In the past these half dozen schools have been cut to rely on just one, the FAD. Which is dishonest.

Bartle Frere set out the demand side in the 1870s in relation to a Bengal famine, and did not suggest that there was anything new in it. The Indian government had been committed to dealing with supply and demand since the 1870s and were perfectly well aware of demand factors as well as supply factors. These were then set out in the Indian Famine Code. Anyone who believes that either supply or demand is a total explanation of famines is a prat. AidWorker (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Provincial government inaction

This section also is tagged as being baised, since 2013. What can we do to get this tag removed?

First two paragraphs

1. Whatever the cause of the famine, deaths could only be prevented by supplies of food from elsewhere in India. This was not forthcoming.
2. In normal regional famines the Indian Government had provided the starving with money, and let the trade bring in grain which worked for regional famines, though this had been disastrous in Orissa in 1888 when, as in 1943, the shortage was not regional but national.
3. In 1942, with the permission of the central government, trade barriers were introduced by the democratically elected provincial governments.
4. The politicians and civil servants of surplus provinces like the Punjab introduced regulations to prevent grain leaving their provinces for the famine areas of Bengal, Madras and Cochin.
5. There was the desire to see that, first, local populations and, second, the populations of neighbouring provinces were well fed, partly to prevent civil unrest.
6. Politicians and officials got power and patronage, and the ability to extract bribes for shipping permits. Marketing and transaction costs rose sharply.
7. The market could not get grain to Bengal, however profitable it might be. The main trading route, established for hundreds of years was up the river system and this ceased to operate, leaving the railway as the only way of getting food into Bengal. Grain arrivals stopped and
8. in March 1943, Calcutta, the second biggest city in the world, had only two weeks' food supply in stock.

This is ref'd to "Braund 1944; Pinnell 1944; Famine Inquiry Commission 1945a."

Are these refs any good? Are they misrepresented? Are there other refs which introduce a different narrative? Which sentences here are false or misleading? #6? Which sentences could be improved by adding "according to some sources... but other sources say...". What are the other sources? Are facts being cherry-picked here? Or what?

Reply

If you do not know the answers to this, you have no right whatsoever to make comments, nor to put a POV label on the page. Indeed, there is massive support for these narratives, from people of different schools of thought. Indeed most researchers rely on the Famine Inquiry Commission if they bother to check contemporary views. And Braund and Pinnell together with Greenough are of major importance.

Anyone could put in a string of references to support these sentences, but they would be removed by the people who claim it is then original research. If you really want to challenge these sources cite your sources. It is entirely unacceptable that you should label this POV when you have not bothered to read the literature.

Indeed, I could put in another fifty or sixty references to support the statements you think are insufficiently tagged. But that is not Wikipedia is about. It is to give the reader a view on different schools of thought and, where these schools of thought disagree on the facts, and particularly when some are accused of misstating the facts in their sources, to refer to these sources. Putting in a vast number of unnecessary citations is bad scholarship. AidWorker (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Third paragraph

1. The Government of India realized a mistake had been made and decreed a return to free trade.
2. The Provinces refused.
3. "In this, again, the Government of India misjudged both its own influence and the temper of its constituents, which had by this time gone too far to pay much heed to the Centre."[Braund]
4. The Government of India Act 1935 had removed most of the Government of India's authority over the Provinces, so they had to rely on negotiation.

There's only one ref, for the quote in the middle of the paragraph, to "Braund 1944, p. 12." What problems are there with this paragragh (besides being poorly ref'd). The second sentence is quite bald. Is it true? Did they just do nothing rather than overtly refuse? Should it be "According to some sources, the provinces refused; other sources cite simple logistical problems" or something like that?

Reply

Well yes there are plenty of other people who make the same comment from different points, the Government of the Punjab, Knight, the Government of Bengal, Muslim political historians and reporters etc etc. The Government of the Punjab said bluntly that they were going to protect the financial and security interests of their constituents first and those of neighbouring provinces second,leaving Bengal until last, and that before the Government of India did anything they should reflect on the fact that most of the fighting troops in the Indian Army, the biggest volunteer army in history, were from the Punjab. Certainly more citations would be good, but nobody is going to put them into the page as long as the POV etc label remains and as long as those citations that are put up are removed by people who think that multiple citations means that this is research in progress. If you really object to the statements show that all of them are wrong. AidWorker (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Fourth paragraph

1. Thus, even when the Government of India decreed that there should be free trade in grain, politicians, civil servants, local government officers and police obstructed the movement of grain to famine areas.[39]
2. In some cases provinces seized grain in transit from other provinces to Bengal.[K]
3. As Mahesh Chandra stated in 1943, "But men like Bhai Permanand say that though many traders want to export food [to Bengal] the Punjab Government would not give them permits. He testified to large quantities of undisposed-of rice being in the Punjab."[40]

ref 39 is "Famine Inquiry Commission 1945a, pp. 57, 93.", ref 40 is "Stephens 1966, p. 181.", ref K is "Braund 1944, p. 12 (citing Government of India letter to all provinces dated 13 February 1943.)"

Reply

Again, there is no shortage of references available. Many use far more inflamatory language. I have never come across anyone who disagrees. Again, who is challenging this narrative? AidWorker (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Fifth paragraph

1. Eventually there was a clear threat by the Government of India to force the elected governments to provide grain, when the new Viceroy, Archibald Wavell, who was a successful general, was about to take office.
2. For the first time substantial quantities of grain started to move to Bengal.[41]

Ref for the paragraph (ref 41) is "Braund 1944, p. 12 (citing Government of India letter to all provinces dated 13 February 1943.)"

Is this true, or not? Was Wavell's looming ascension really a factor (it's implied to be) or was this coincidence? What kind of "force" threat is meant? Removal of officials (did the center really have that power?) or what?

Reply

It is certainly implied in contemporary sources, and he did order and get a lot of action in the next six months overruling the Bengal Government, but equally the Government of India did not believe that it had these powers during the famine (Wavell had to ask permission to give grain and troops to distribute it). It may be that Wavell had the personal authority; it may be that the mood of India had changed and the other provinces were no longer prepared to tolerate inaction by the Bengal Government and would have backed him in demanding action. But that is a research question for a political scientist, a long and rather pointless piece of work. It has no bearing on the subject. If you know of any sources, let us have themAidWorker (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Sixth paragraph

1. The Government of Bengal was slow in starting relief measures and at one stage in 1943 it limited relief to save money,
2. though the money could have been obtained.[42]
3. The supporters of the two Bengal Governments involved, that of A. K. Fazlul Huq (December 1941 to March 1943) and of Khawaja Nazimuddin's Muslim League (April 1943 to March 1945) each held the other government responsible for the catastrophe, because of its inaction and corruption.[43]
4. Bengal's chief minister, A. K. Fazlul Huq, had warned of the risk of famine but he was ignored and replaced.[44]
5. The government had done almost nothing to prepare for famine, and
6. critics noted "the feebleness of its moral and administrative standards".[45]

There are a lot of refs here for individual statements.. [42] is "Famine Inquiry Commission 1945a, pp. 61, 99, 104, 105.", [43] is "Sen 1976b, pp. 174, 175.", [44] is "Mukerjee 2014.", [45] is "Slim 1956, pp. 146–147."

This paragraph does seem a dog's breakfast. It's possible it should be broken up and the individual sentences used in other paragraphs. But beyond that, many questions. The Famine Inquiry Commission is alleged to have said that "The Government of Bengal was slow in starting relief measures and at one stage in 1943 it limited relief to save money, though the money could have been obtained." Does the Inquiry Commission really say that? Is it true? Was the Inquiry Commission itself incompetent or biased?

Reply

If you are commenting, you should know at least the basics. You have not bothered to check the reference, let alone read the report. How can you dare ask, "Does the Inquiry Commission really say that?" This is gross misconduct. The Inquiry Commission was half a dozen angry men, furious at the administrative failures and corruption that let the famine happen. Their report is extraordinarily critical of the Government of India. And all commentators use it as their first port of call.16:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Should the last sentence read something like "...some critics noted 'the feebleness of its moral and administrative standards' while others consider it reasonably competent but just overwhelmed by great circumstances [ref]"? Is there a ref for that last clause?

Reply

If you refuse to read any of the literature, and then make such comments, and put a POV label on the page, you are imposing your Point of View, a view held with total lack of evidence or research. This is totally unacceptable.AidWorker (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

There are other questions about this paragraph.

Seventh paragaph

1. Contemporary commentators believed that there was substantial hoarding by those consumers who could afford it, by firms and by those farmers who produced surpluses.
2. This started in July 1941 when war with Japan was inevitable, increased when Burma was attacked in December 1941 and when Ceylon, then Calcutta were bombed in 1942.
3. India would have entered the famine year with substantial surplus private stocks.
4. These stocks do not appear to have been released and there was no political drive to get people to give or sell the surpluses.
5. An official "Food Drive" in Bengal did not result in release of hoarded stocks.[46]
6. It was believed that fear of the famine actually increased hoarding.

There's only one ref here, [46] which is "Famine Inquiry Commission 1945a, pp. 56, 74."

Here we see "Contemporary commentators believed that there was substantial hoarding" rather than "There was substantial hoarding" which is possibly the approach we should be taking generally since this paragraph is contentious and contended. "do not appear to have been released" rather than "were not release". IMO this is good. But then there are direct statements: "did not result in release of hoarded stocks".

The Famine Inquiry Commission is used a lot. What's their deal really? Was it a coverup body? Or conversely a witchhunt? Or what? Don't we kind of have to use them a lot, what alternative do we have? But yet why are using a primary source so much? Herostratus (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Reply

Everyone uses the Famine Inquiry Commission report as the first basic narrative of what happened. It is not a primary source, but a report by people who studied a vast amount of evidence from primary sources and took evidence from the main players. The great majority of it is accepted by everyone. Of course any researcher will disagree with bits of it, a lot because the evidence it presents disagrees with their preferred story, some because they have found new evidence, some because they have analysed the evidence differently with an agricultural marketing economics or sociological perspective for instance. I cannot imagine any reputable researcher abandoning this source in favour of more recent commentators without serious new evidence.

There is an enormous amount of contemporary evidence on hoarding, supporting these comments, which I would not dream of citing, because it is rumour, an urban myth. The Famine Inquiry Commission does go into the validity of the rumours. AidWorker (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Ethics and POV

It is totally unacceptable that anyone should put a POV label on any page if they have not researched the subject thoroughly, and do not know the range of schools of thought that exist. It is totally unacceptable that they should put a POV label on the page because all the schools of thought are mentioned, not just their own preferred one. That is faking the evidence.

POV

It is now five years since someone put a POV warning on this web site claiming that it was biased. No reasons were given. In these five years nobody has put up an alternative view on the Wikipedia page, so the presumption must be that anyone who knows anything about the subject believes that the website gives a balanced presentation of half a dozen main schools of thought on the subject. It is entirely unacceptable that anybody at all should put a claim that a web site is biased, giving no reason, and leaving it for five years. This is faking the evidence. And faking the evidence on famine means that people using this faked evidence when dealing with famines kill people, perhaps millions of people.

Onset

Someone put a

on the ‘==Onset= section again without giving reasons. The facts here have been documented again after again, by all contemporary sources, and are agreed by the commentators supporting the major points of view. In many years of research, I have not come across anyone who would claim that the famine could have occurred without the war, the loss of the 15% of rice provided by Burma, and the poor crop, following the poor crop two years earlier. Anyone who made such a claim would be considered eccentric in the extreme by the more charitable researchers. Nobody has put in this claim on the Wikipedia page in the three years since the POV was put up. Telling the reader that this is biased is faking. And faking the evidence on famine means that people using this faked evidence when dealing with famines kill people, perhaps millions of people.

Provincial Government Inaction

Three years ago someone put a POV on the ==Provincial Government inaction== section, again without stating how it is biased. Over the last three years nobody has changed this, evidently because anyone who has done any research in the area find it balanced. The commentators supporting the main points of view agree with all points in this section. I cannot think of any researcher that I have read over the last thirty years who would disagree with any of this. Most would be very much more critical of those they think particularly guilty, or those they have covered in depth, some of corrupt traders, some of the actions of the governments of surplus provinces, some of the Bengal government etc. Telling the reader that this is biased is faking. And faking the evidence on famine means that people using this faked evidence when dealing with famines kill people, perhaps millions of people.

Revisionists

Three years ago someone put a POV on the ==Revisionists== section. This section discusses two revisionists. It is unacceptable that anyone should rubbish Greenough’s deep, meticulous and carefully argued sociological research without providing evidence. I appreciate that some people may be unhappy with his conclusion that the famine was caused by Bengali men, ‘In short, the "man-made" famine was culturally patterned in its onset, crisis and denouement.’ . The fact that the conclusions are unpalatable do not justify calling it biased. I and other readers would be extremely interested to get references to research that disagrees with Greenough but a POV entry is entirely unacceptable as a substitute. Telling the reader that this is biased is faking. And faking the evidence on famine means that people using this faked evidence when dealing with famines kill people, perhaps millions of people.

Amartya Sen revived the claims made in the famine year that there was plenty of rice available and that the famine was caused by inflation. His claims have been subjected to very serious criticisms. The main differences noted by commentators between his view and the orthodox view are set out in this section, as is right and proper. The criticisms cited have not been challenged by Sen or anyone else. If someone thinks that they are unfounded, the correct procedure is to write a reply, attacking them, and send them to a reputable journal where they will be published with replies from the authors – who will certainly not pull their punches. The papers may then be cited in Wikipedia. Nobody has attempted to do this since 1986, let alone in the three years since the POV warning was put up. Telling the reader that this is biased is faking. And faking the evidence on famine means that people using this faked evidence when dealing with famines kill people, perhaps millions of people.

Wikipedia is all about verifiable facts, and most particularly about giving the full range of verifiable facts, especially those that are omitted from partisan blogs and Facebook – this information is not available elsewhere.

Removal of evidence

There are constant additions to this page by people who have picked up fantasies from Facebook or blog sites, and which are unreferenced. These are easy to deal with. It gets very serious indeed when these people (including, it seems, the Wikipedia volunteer editor) remove things that disagree with their Facebook fantasy. When a contributor has spent a great deal of time condensing one point of view into perhaps four very carefully constructed and evidenced sentences, it only takes two or three cuts to garble the message and make it seem illogical or irrelevant. This has happened time and again with this page. As a result at least two major research programmes, schools of thought, have effectively vanished from the page.

Omission of schools of thought

Two areas which have had high profile on the social media have not been put on the page, evidently because the POV message has discouraged people who would otherwise put up a description of a school of thought that is not the dominant one, and which would certainly be described as biased by people who believe passionately in one explanation. A major famine is necessarily very complex, usually in its causes, always in how it is dealt with, what effects it has, and always in its effect on the agricultural economy, the national economy and the economy of neighbouring areas and countries. There can never be a simplistic answer: different researchers will emphasize those areas that they have studied, but there will be a range of schools of thought on the relative importance of these. Which must be covered. Similarly there are areas where the quantity and quality of available evidence limits the statements that may be considered verifiable and this must be made clear. It is Wikipedia, not a partisan blog.

Repairing the damage

I would like to restore the damaged sections and ask experts in special areas to fill the gaps and check the content. Like everyone else though, I am not willing to undertake the substantial amount of serious work involved until the bias claims are removed.

Wikipedia guidelines say that the tag should be removed, 'If the maintenance template is not fully supported. Some neutrality tags, such as Conflict of Interest (COI) and Neutral point of view (POV), require the tagging editor to initiate a dialogue (generally on the article's talk page), to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed.' Clearly the editor has not supported the placement of the tag: all he has done is say that he has not read anything on the subject. Clearly the discussion is dormant. Accordingly, I shall remove the tag.AidWorker (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Genocide

There should be mention that this famine could be legally regarded as a genocide. (Mc,dss (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

What we would need is a ref showing noteworthy people have claimed this. Herostratus (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

This article in "The Independent" says it has been likened to a genocide: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/think-india-should-be-grateful-for-colonialism-here-are-five-reasons-why-youre-unbelievably-ignorant-a6729106.html (Mc,dss (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

Well OK, but a couple things about that.

1. It is the Independent which, meh. The Independent is not highly thought of as a neutral source with a good fact-checking operation. Let alone a respected scholarly journal.
2. It's by Amit Singh. If it's cricketer Amit Singh, I don't see him as having more standing than my Uncle Dwight to be cited on these matters. If its the Amit Singh who is a vice-president of Google, ditto. If it's another Amit Singh, well, who is he? Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist we want to be able to answer questions such as "Who is the author? What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?" and many other questions. If he had a Wikipedia article we could begin to answer some of these questions. But so far I'm in the dark.
3. And he doesn't even regard the famine as genocide himself. He just says "The famine of Bengal on 1943 was so bad that it's been likened to a genocide" but he doesn't say by whom. What are his sources? His Uncle Dwight for all we know. ("So bad" does not necessarily equal genocide, the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami was not a genocide for instance, so let's see some respectable sources.)

So on this basis I'm not seeing this as material we ought to have in the article, even though it might well be true. "Might well be true" is insufficient when we are dealing with a contentious subject. Herostratus (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)