Talk:Famine in India/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Neutrality

If this article continues to get worse on the neutrality front i may have to add a second POV template just for the sake of it because this is now becoming a joke. We have these new tables at the top of the article reproducing data in a table already on the article, with the deaths on one table almost completely empty (if we dont know the estimates of how many died in the 13th century how do we know there was only one famine?). Now i see someone (i wonder who) has chosen to "hide" the pre British Rule and post British rule, but kept the British Era displayed. Presentationally the show/hide feature for tables there (if they are needed right at the top of the article) makes sense, but you do not get more blatant POV crap than applying it to two of the tables and leaving the other one. Also we have the scenario that sees "Theories on famine" basically focusing on one guys POV today about what causes famine above the details of the actual famine. If "Theories" belong anywhere on this article they belong at the bottom.

This article is a disgrace thanks to changes that have taken place over the past few weeks. I continue to oppose the removal of POV tag. Nothing has been solved, infact things have got worse. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.
  • All of the tables are now expanded - this should address POV concern about the show/hide feature.
  • The problem with the lack of data or older famines has been discussed in Famine tables section of this talk page. If you have alternative solutions on how we can present this data, please put them forward.
  • I moved the theories section to the top because it actually addresses the POV problem by providing a definition (forthcoming) of famines and presenting two relevant theories applied to this geography. Given that Sen's theory came in 1981, an understanding of the theories helps the reader understand and judge for himself or herself why famine relief was provided in the manner it was for historical famines before that date. Having the definition and theories at the top is also good for the flow of the article.
  • I've provided Graham's hierarchy of disagreements on the right. Sticking to the top will help all.
  • I will move these concerns to the POV section and mark the table compressibility concern as solved.

Zuggernaut (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ill let you know when i consider the neutrality issues dealt with. That is certainly not the case yet. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you need to be a bit more specific BW. A lot of changes have been made Would you provide a list of concerns please - or confirmation that the statement above is the limit of your concerns. --Snowded TALK 01:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
BritishWatcher, I'm tracking the POV issue in the appropriate section (General POV RfC), please take a look there and provide clarification on the two pending items. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Challenged content

I've challenged the following content:

  1. Lord Curzon tried to alleviate the famine, he spent ₹ 68,000,000 (about £10,000,000) to try and reduce the effects of the famine[35][dubious – discuss] and, at its peak, 4.5 million people were on famine relief.}}
  2. At about the same time the British engaged themselves in a series of canal building and irrigation improvements.[citation needed]
  3. In 1907 and in 1874[citation needed] the response from the British was better: in both cases rice was imported abroad and famine was averted.
  4. During the 1022–1033, great famines made all the provinces in India depopulated.[citation needed]

I could not verify these claim in the cited sources or there was no citation (fact tag has been added). Perhaps I did not look thoroughly, can anyone else help verify? Zuggernaut (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Causes/Theories

Let's try this shorter version:

The conventional food availability decline theory attributes the cause of famine to a single factor, i.e., the decline in food availability.[1][2] However this does not explain why only a certain section of the population such as the agricultural laborer was affected by famines while others were insulated from famines.[3] Other limitations of this theory include attributing the cause of famine to "an act of God", disregarding the failures of access to food and taking in to account only one component of famine, that of food production shocks.[4][5] Sen's entitlement theory proposes that the causal mechanism for precipitating starvation from famines includes many variables other than just decline of food availability such as the inability of an agricultural laborer to exchange his primary entitlement, i.e., labor for rice when his employment became erratic or was completely eliminated.[6][3] The entitlement theory has been seen as an intellectual progression leading to a major paradigm shift in the way famines have been seen. While the entitlement theory explained that famines could occur without food shortages, the theory failed to explain the cases of famines where triggers were gross violations of entitlements stemming from conflict and catastrophic government policies or failures of humanitarian relief.[7][6]

It gets rid of the "two theories" statement you have problems with. The sources are all external - Encyclopaedia Britannica, Devereux, Caplan, Banik and Chaudhari.

BTW, the re-insertion you claim in your edit summary isn't accurate. The content (starting with "According to Michael Massing writing in the New York Times in 2003...") has been there for a while and I thought we were in agreement about adding 1 line about the definitions of famine. Also you are right about this content being in a different section. I will move it there. Sources for the above content are the same:

  1. ^ Encyclopaedia Britannica 2010.
  2. ^ Devereux 2007, pp. 1–27.
  3. ^ a b Chaudhari 1984, p. 135.
  4. ^ Caplan 1994.
  5. ^ Devereux 2007, p. 9.
  6. ^ a b Banik 2004.
  7. ^ Devereux 2007, p. 10.

Zuggernaut (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this discussion has dried up. I will wait for a 1-2 days, then add the content to the article if there aren't any further objections. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Dried up because the position hasn't changed. Getting into details on two theories per multiple other discussions is not appropriate here, and not valid elsewhere without a source that makes it clear those two theories are the only ones (and one that is not an advocate of either) --Snowded TALK 17:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
There is currently no mention of the theories in the article at all. Please take a look at the NPOV/N's comments on the topic from September [1] Zuggernaut (talk) 05:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
And there will be no mention if you don't find a reliable third party source which says those are the theories. --Snowded TALK 13:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's put this on hold until the mood changes a bit. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

New infobox template for famines

I've created a new infobox template that can potentially be used in every famine article on Wikipedia. For a list of articles where it can be used, see the categories famines in India, famines and other relevant categories. The usage documentation still needs some improvement and the template might undergo minor teaks further - all feedback/suggestions for improvement are welcome! Feel free to link to or re-post this message in relevant places. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What's the source you've used for nil deaths from famine in India post-1947? Doesn't seem very likely that it's nil. What about for example deaths due to starvation following partition? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
No such claim has been made in any of the templates or in the article. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
In your new template, under the section entitled "Independent India (1947–)", it currently lists zero deaths. This can't be true. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
That's got nothing to do with the new infobox template. The number zero does appear against the Maharashtra famine (and not for the entire post-independence period) in the "Famines in the Republic of India" template which is now sourced. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
There are different views about this. Some population scientists believe official sources in India have distorted the true figures. See for example this survey (a PDF) of the literature by two geographers at LSE which gives figures for the Maharahstra famine of 70,000 excess deaths and the Bihar famine of 200,000 excess deaths. It simply cannot be accurate that either figure is zero and is frankly unbelievable, given that general background malnutrition deaths in India are more or less a constant feature anyway. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, that malnutrition is a constant feature of Indian life. However, during the 1972-73, there were no deaths directly attributed to the famine. As a teenager, I lived in the drought stricken area during that period and did not see any evidence of the emaciated bodies ones often sees during African famines. Occasionally, the local press used to report sporadic "Hunger deaths" (bhukbali in the local Marathi language), however, subsequent reports used to refute the deaths being due to the famine. The government of the day had Keynesian employment schemes for the rural population to mitigate the worst effects of the famine. these included road building as well as building reservoirs to catch rain water. The boarding school I went to had a lot of kids from farming families. They were given exemption from tuition, lodging and boarding charges during the famine period. The government also had a subsidized "ration" food and fuel program even before and after the famine. I had seen the report you mention on the 70,000 excess deaths, however, I find it difficult to pin them down to the famine.74.9.96.122 (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC). I spent best part of the monsoon season of 1973 in a government hospital in the largest city in the drought stricken area. Again, no signs of anyone patients there due to malnutrition or drought related causes. Editors will say what I write above is OR, however, these are first hand experiences of someone who lived in that area during the drought. I am sure, given time, I should be able to come up with references which challenge the 70,000 "excess deaths". JamesinDerbyshire, For your information, I have had several disagreements with Zuggernaut on a different article, however, he is right about the Maharashtra drought. Incidentally, I am an East Midlander like you. 74.9.96.122 (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion to a more appropriate location at the talk page of the template Zuggernaut (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is getting nonsensical

OK, every morning it seems we see a mass of edits from you. Many of these are very good, but there are always a significant number that take a clear POV. Please reverse these out and discuss on the talk page. Going through all your edits every morning to remove the POV position is becoming an unreasonable burden and I am simply going to mass revert if it carries on. --Snowded TALK 05:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Please point out which ones you object to and we can work on those. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Zug, I can't believe you don't know. You are constantly inserting material that says British Empire Bad, Government of Indian Good. If really necessary (ie you can't work it out) I will go through all the amendments again as I have done several times now removing or modifying controversial material. However it feels at the moment that you are attempting to get your own POV established by volume of edits, exhausting anyone who disagrees with you. PS, I have your talk page under watch so I will see any response here--Snowded TALK 12:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The volume of edits is high because I generally stay focused on an article until it's rating improves to GA status (someone has already assessed this one from start class to B class). I am copying this discussion to the article's talk page, please continue the discussion there. Here's what we can do to address your concern:
  1. I'll stop making additions to the article and limit my edits to the much needed copyediting, images, etc.
  2. While doing the copyedit, I will attribute opinions that may have been expressed as facts to the respective authors. I will re-read parts of NPOV policy to figure out where fixes are required and make them, if required.
  3. While the additions are stopped, you are welcome to go through all of my edits again as that will only help improve the article.
Zuggernaut (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting

Author requested copyedit assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests. Completed through section on Famine Codes. I will continue tomorrow. jsfouche ☽☾ talk 07:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your help with the copy-edit. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Famine in India/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SBC-YPR (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Preliminary comments

While I go through the article and assess it against the good article criteria, here are some preliminary issues that need to be addressed:

  • The references section should be split into references (sources which are used in the article) and further reading (those which are not used in the article, but are recommended for a more detailed understanding of the topic). The two serve different purposes. Also, some of the references are repeated (e.g. Bose 1918, Davis 2001, Koomar 2009 etc.) and the duplication needs to be removed.
  • Please clarify the scope of use of the term India since this is a historical article. The first sentence seems to suggest that it would generally cover South Asia, but this is not clearly brought out.

I will continue assessing the article in the meantime. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Updates

  • I've started splitting references in to "References" and "Further reading" sections and am about half way through. Should be able to complete the task in a 2-3 days. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)  The two sections are now separate Zuggernaut (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Will fix the scope ambiguity in the next 2-3 days. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)  Scope is now defined in the lead Zuggernaut (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Final review

There is an ongoing content dispute in the article over the alleged use of certain sources to represent facts in a particular manner. Consequently, it fails criteria 5 (and possibly 4) of the good article criteria and I have to, regretfully, declare this nomination a failure. I have deferred this review in the hope of some consensus being arrived at through the talk page discussions, but that clearly doesn't seem to be happening. The article is otherwise well-written and should not have much difficulty in meeting the other criteria. I suggest that the existing dispute be resolved first, involving community processes if need be, before re-nominating the article at GAN. If you disagree or have any objections regarding this assessment, feel free to request a reassessment. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your time reviewing this. I feel failing the article for not meeting criteria 5 (Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute) is unfair because the article history clearly shows there aren't any edit wars whatsoever. Content disputes have been discussed per policies on the talk page in a mature fashion and have not impacted the stability of the article. The article is as stable as numerous other articles that have passed FA and GA criterion.
You can however fail it under criteria 4 since Snowded (talk · contribs) and Jamesinderbyshire (talk · contribs) have expressed concerns about this in the past. If you can point the specific diffs under which you feel the article fails criterion 4, that will help us fix those areas and re-nominate. Also, what community processes are you referring to? Zuggernaut (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The article remains problematic with questions of balance being raised frequently over the last few months. Its not stable, and I suspect the reason we have not seen a repeat of edit warring or mass disputed edits is the desire to achieve GA status. Best to leave it a few months before looking at it again. --Snowded TALK 14:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for this delayed response. While edit-warring per se might not be technically present, there have been several series of back-and-forth reverts (diffs such as this and this) which in my opinion, result in the article failing the criteria of stability. Concerns regarding POV-related issues have already been raised in some detail on the talk page (but not satisfactorily addressed) and it is unnecessary to repeat them here. The community processes I was referring to are those mentioned here — editors could resort to them in case the present deadlock at obtaining consensus on the talkpage continues unresolved. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

December 2010 copy edits

What were the "Temple tests"? This is mentioned in the section "British response." --Diannaa (Talk) 01:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think these relate to the British Lieutenant-Governor, Sir Richard Temple's criterion for eligibility of Indians to receive the benefits of famine relief (mainly meals). I will research further and add in brief. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Maharashtra famine (1973) success story

I've reverted back User:Jamesinderbyshire's deletion of the Maharasthra famine success story because it is a landmark in the elimination of famines in India. This is a universally known fact but I've added back the content with sources. Feel free to discuss here. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Bihar famine of 1966-7

I am replacing User:Jamesinderbyshire's claim of 200,000 deaths in the Bihar famine of 1966-7 with a subjective "very small number". The Government of India claims a number as less as 0.00117 million and the Indian media at that time contested this number. It is very possible that the Government of India wasn't accurate in reporting the numbers, to put it mildly. But the Indian media isn't accurate either given their habit of sensationalizing issues. It is very likely that the reality was somewhere in-between. This fact is reflected in the majority of sources which refrain from taking an objective view. They simply use words like "very small", "relatively few", "small", "no significant increase in infant mortality", etc. This is because there isn't consensus in academia about the number of deaths in that famine. We at Wikipedia should stick to following the majority view of describing the deaths in a subjective manner. A detailed discussion with a listing of sources is at the talk page of the relevant template. -Zuggernaut (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I put forward an academic source (two population geographers) who state that the research indicates an excess mortality of 200,000. All you've put forward by way of counter-argument are vague statements about "very few deaths". Quality academic research is always going to win the day in the end. I will change it back if you can't come up with something more concrete as at the moment there is no view put forward to prove that source wrong. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The source you've brought to the table is not the mainstream view. Sorry, I have to copy-paste from the talk page of the relevant template but here's a detailed list of sources:
Paraphrased quote/Data Source/Publication/Book
Government statistics for the number of estimated deaths for Bihar famine: 1177 Drèze, Jean (1991), "Famine Prevention in India", in Drèze, Jean; Sen, Amartya, The Political Economy of Hunger: Famine prevention, Oxford: Oxford University Press US, p 59, ISBN 9780198286363
Dyson and Maharatna (1991) did not find any significant increase in infant mortality during the Bihar famine. Population And Poverty in Naunihal Singh, Mittal Publications, 2002, ISBN 9788170998488 p. 112
"There were very small number of starvation deaths in even Bihar." Population Challenge And Family Welfare, S.M. Mehta, Anmol Publications PVT. LTD., 2001, ISBN 9788126109692 p. 143
"There were relatively few deaths in the Bihar famine." Lancaster, H.O (1990), Expectations of life: a study in the demography, statistics, and history of world mortality, Springer-Verlag, ISBN 9780387971056
"The Bihar famine was averted by employing various famine prevention measures such as improving communication abilities, issuing famine bulletins over the radio, offering employment to those affected by famine in government public works projects and by importing food from other states and from the United States." London School of Economics and Political Science; Gupta, S.P.; Stern, N.H.; Hussain, A.; Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (1995), Development patterns and institutional structures: China and India, Allied Publishers, ISBN 9788170234197
"The number of deaths in the Bihar famine were small compared to the previous famines of the British era." Maharatna, A (1996), The demography of famines: an Indian historical perspective, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780195637113
"The number of deaths in the Bihar famine was very small and it demonstrated the ability of the Indian government to deal with the worst of circumstances." Mehta, S.M (2001), Population Challenge And Family Welfare, Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd, ISBN 9788126109692
Zuggernaut (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Says you. Others say otherwise. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Our opinions don't really count. Mainstream, non-alternative sources win the day. Zuggernaut (talk)
If I may comment; some of the sources offered by Zuggernaut do not offer an indepth demographical analysis of the total mortality during the famine. They consist of one line statements. However there are other sources that do give a larger death rate. e.g. [i]Bhat, PN Mari, Samuel H. Preston and Tim Dyson. 1984. Vital Rates in India, 1961 - 1 988. Report No. 24, National Academy Press, Washington.[/i]-600,000 deaths; [i]Dyson, Tim and Arup Maharatna. 1992. “Bihar Famine, 1966-67 and Mahararashtra Drought,

1970-73.” Economic and Political Weekly 27 (26): 1325-1332[/i]-130,000; not likely more than one million -Population and food: global trends and future prospects By Tim Dyson (Routledge 1996). I think it is only fair that they be mentioned. REGARDS-Led125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.19.250 (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Jamesinderbyshire

Recent edits by Jamesinderbyshire are begining to look disruptive.

  1. Jamesinderbyshire's edit summary of a recent deletion reads "This is already covered elsewhere in the article and contains poor grammar unworthy of the main Wikipedia" is not an appropriate way of editing on Wikipedia. If the grammar is poor then it could have been fixed instead of deleting it entirely. Continuing an already ongoing and acitve disucssion on the talk page would have been even better. I do not think that the exact same content is covered elsewhere as he claims in the edit summary.
  2. In another deletion, Jamesinderbyshire removed an entire section in response to some recent addtions deleting along with it valuable content, most of which had been stable for months. When performing such deletion of sourced content (both new and long standing), Jamesinderbyshire needs to initiate a discussion on the talk page per WP:BRD.
  3. In an earlier edit Jamesinderbyshire violated WP:BRD and instead pre-emptively accused me of edit warring when he was the one who edited content that was stable for several months.

The article is undergoing a good article review and these disruptive edits along with the "edit warring" can potentially be seen as an attempt to preclude meeting of criterion #5 of the good article criteria. Such behavior could be an attempt to game the system to prevent this article from achieving good article status.

In the past I had to utilize ANI against Jamesinderbyshire for the use of ficticious references which I thought was also an attempt to game the system.

I am bringing back the Bihar famine section and will assume good faith one last time but if this pattern of editing continues without initiating a talk page discussion for deletion of sourced content and without attempting to revolve issues on talk pages or without displaying competence, we will have to reluctantly re-visit ANI. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Zuggernaut has an ownership problem with this article and is difficult to deal with. S/he seems to want to position it to support a Hindu Nationalist perspective and has made a series of unbalanced edits to try and support a position that famine ceased with the advent of democracy. S/he is also highly dependent on a small number of sources that take a particular perspective and fails to attempt to balance them or to work with other editors who attempt to do so. Personally I think the article is a long way from satisfying conditions for a good article. Its worthy of note that this editor also canvassed improperly to support this perspective on the British Empire article and failed to get support for the topic ban referenced above. A tendency to forum shop rather than work with other views should not be encouraged. --Snowded TALK 21:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the problem here is the "battering-ram" approach - instead of going slowly and discussing changes point by point, we are getting lots of changes every day and when reverted, treated to an avalanche of repetitive references from one side of the argument as "proof". There is no willingness to see the other side or balance the article. Against this background, I am starting to think we need to lock the article and pre-agree all changes before publishing them. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Its a behavioral issue with an over enthusiastic editor I think! I've put a notice on his talk page, and if it carries on I will document the disruption and ask for some sanction (a civility parole or topic ban) . --Snowded TALK 10:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Churchill quote

The paragraph below was deleted in October 2010 but it's a substantial piece of new information on the Bengal famine of 1943 that can enhance the article.


Does anyone have any objections in bring it back with or without modifications? Zuggernaut (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The proposed text places too much importance on Churchill, and would lead many readers to the mistaken conclusion that a primary cause for famines in India was racism. It is well known that many people from Churchill's era had odious outlooks, but Churchill made lots of gruesome decisions during World War II based solely on his commitment to defeating Nazism. While several books claim Churchill should have done this, or should have done that, we will never know whether the appalling decisions made during that world war were essential or negligent, so the proposed text is WP:UNDUE. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The Bengal famine of 1943 is one of the most analyzed famines in history and it's cause is known to be policy failure and war. The article makes that part clear. The source does not suggest that the racism was the cause of the famine. Neither does it suggest that racism was the cause of all famines in India. It does clearly say that Churchill's racist views were the the reason that the food was diverted away from India and that this decision may have affected famine relief. We need not get in to the peripheral topics such as racism or the war but the source is an important one which adds another dimension and important facts such as:
  1. That food aid was asked for, offered by foreign countries but rejected.
  2. That Churchill hated Indians because of their race that this had a role to play in his decisions relating to the Bengal famine of 1943.
Churchill was the Prime Minister, hence we cannot say we are placing too much importance on him. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


It would be good if a reference to this is included, but I think it should be worded in a way such that it doesn't take away the focus from Famines. I don't know if I'm making much sense here, but I feel it should not make Churchill's comments the central point. MikeLynch (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we need the actual quote is required to demonstrate attitude toward indians - this particular quote was made in September 1940 - well before the famine began. We should use this reference to say Churchill had racist beliefs toward Indians/Hindus and some scholars contend it affected his Bengal famine policy. But this quote (and others like this one, where he has expressed disdain towards india and indians) will be a distraction here.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
PS: A search through gbooks reveals conflicting dates for this quote. I am getting 1940, 42, 43 and even 44 as possible dates in different books. --Sodabottle (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I too think that, given the section as it stands, the entire quote would be highly undue. If there were already a section on the policy decisions that contributed to the famine (and perhaps there ought to be), then a mention within that section, in its appropriate context, may work. As it stands, at most, the article says "According to the Irish economist and professor Cormac Ó Gráda, priority was given to military considerations, and the poor of Bengal were left unprovided for" and maybe one could add "The author Madhusree Mukherjee attributes this to racism on Churchill's part" (with details in a footnote) — but even that may be too much. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Undue is correct. The para talks about Churchhill, not about the famine. A one line is acceptable. That aside, I see some not-so-subtle attempt at diverting the issue by Zuggernaut. Churchhills quote does'nt say "Hindus are..." so he could have well been talking about all Indians, Hindu or not. But Zuggergnaut uses the quote "Hindus are a beastly people with a beastly religion". That is very pathetic canvassing. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Sodabottle, MikeLynch and Shreevatsa - we can keep the focus on famines and add the one line about how Mukherjee thinks that Churchill's racist views may have played a role in the decision making. Madhushree Mukherjee has done the work for us and established the links so we need not try to get in to the details of what year he uttered the quote. A re-read of my post, the presented source and an attempt to grasp the issue might help Deepak change his mind. Reading Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification closely may also help. Zuggernaut (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Deepak, this is undue, a single source and out of context. There have been consistent problems with this article in selective and unbalanced use of authorities, lets not add to them. The heading by the way is a form of canvassing, not very professional --Snowded TALK 08:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Bengal famine of 1943 includes more UNDUE factoids mentioning Churchill but with no hint that World War II might have been influencing Churchill's decisions. Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, in a discussion of government policy, mention Churchill isn't necessarily undue. BTW, here are two more sources, written as reviews of Mukherjee's book: [2] [3]. I haven't checked if they're usable; just mentioning them. Shreevatsa (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
World War II is more or less European history and I think its a distraction in this discussion. We need to focus on the famine of 1943 and Churchill's connection. Bringing in the connections to World War II and Nazism is Eurocentric. That may damage an article on Indian famines due to an unintentional but inherent bias by trying to justify Churchill's views. While we are at it, according to Anupam Srivastav living in Albany, NY, Winston Churchill was akin to Adolf Hitler to Indians who "hold the British in general, and Mr. Churchill in particular, responsible for the tragic deaths of millions in the great Bengal famine of 1943". Zuggernaut (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I have no objection to debunking the various Churchill myths but it has to be balanced and appropriate. We also need to remember that Mukherjee is a journalist writing a book from a particular perspective. Its also fairly recent and academics have not yet commented on it in much depth (and they may not). Interesting that the Bengal article has similar problems with this one, in that a PoV position that democracies do not have famines is given undue prominence. --Snowded TALK 09:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Neither have academics rejected any of her claims. In fact she has received world-wide reviews for the book, nearly all of which single out and discuss the proposed content. The table below lists some of the numerous sources that have reviewed her book as well as some other independent non-Mukherjee sources.
Media organization Source type Highlight/Summary
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Non-Mukherjee The famine in British-ruled Bengal in 1943-44 ultimately took the lives of about 4 million people. The speaker talks of how this man-made famine is absent from the history books and virtually unknown to most people.
Time Magazine Book review Churchill's only response to a telegram from the government in Delhi about people perishing in the famine was to ask why Gandhi hadn't died yet.
Rediff News Book review Could a man applauded for his courage in standing up to Adolf Hitler have had such contempt for another race that he did not change policies that led to starvation and death of at least three million?
Zee News Book Review The book notes that Churchill had a profound contempt of native Indians especially Mahatma Gandhi who for him came to represent a "malignant subversive fanatic" and a "thoroughly evil force." He had remarked in a conversation, "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."
The Telegraph (Calcutta) Book Review While it is known that the British prime minister during World War II nursed a hatred towards Indians “who bred like rabbits”, it still comes as a shock that shiploads of wheat from Australia bypassed the Indian subcontinent to head for the Balkan states to add to the stockpile of foodgrain there.
BBC - The Open University Non-Mukherjee Audio
The Independent Book Review Mukerjee has researched this forgotten holocaust with great care and forensic rigour. Mining an extensive range of sources, she not only sheds light on the imperial shenanigans around the famine, but on a host of related issues, such as the flowering of nationalism in famine-hit districts, Churchill's fury about the sterling credit that India was piling up in London, or the dreadful situation in the villages even after the famine was technically over.
NPR Book Review The British government had drawn up the Indian Famine Codes during the 1880s to help avoid famine and food scarcity following natural disasters. In October 1942, when there were signs of food scarcity following a cyclone, these codes were not invoked. As economists Jean Drèze and Amartya Sen have said earlier in their book, the famine was "simply not declared" by the British government.
The Sydney Morning Herald Book Review The "man-made" famine has long been one of the darkest chapters of the British Raj, but now Madhusree Mukerjee says she has uncovered evidence that Churchill was directly responsible for the appalling suffering.
The Hindu Book Review He was bitterly determined to hold on to India; he hated Indians, and intended that they remain subjects for all time. With sources ranging from official documents to first-hand accounts of the Bengal famine, Madhusree Mukerjee brings out the consequences for India, and thereby for hundreds of millions of people.
Outlook Book Review Mukerjee holds Churchill responsible for “deliberately deciding to let Indians starve”.
The Hindu Non-Mukherjee On August 4, 1944, after four years of suffering these outbursts, Amery wrote that "I am by no means sure whether on this subject of India he (Churchill) is really quite sane ... ".
BBC Book Review "Apparently it is more important to save the Greeks and liberated countries than the Indians and there is reluctance either to provide shipping or to reduce stocks in this country," writes Sir Wavell in his account of the meetings. Mr Amery is more direct. "Winston may be right in saying that the starvation of anyhow under-fed Bengalis is less serious than sturdy Greeks, but he makes no sufficient allowance for the sense of Empire responsibility in this country," he writes.
Hindustan Times Book Review He saw himself as the lion hunting rabbits — in this case Indians who bred like rabbits. With his advisors and the distorted wisdom of a Victorian-era racism that should have been long past, Churchill blamed the famine on fecund Indians, invoked both Malthus and social Darwinism, and disparaged India as a society that sat out the war while Britain sacrificed blood and treasure.
The Independent Non-Mukherjee Many of his colleagues thought Churchill was driven by a deep loathing of democracy for anyone other than the British and a tiny clique of supposedly superior races.
The New York Times Non-Mukherjee He later added: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” This hatred killed. In 1943, to give just one example, a famine broke out in Bengal, caused, as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proven, by British mismanagement.
The New York Times Non-Mukherjee At the same time, his rhetorical exertions (he claimed that Indians were “a beastly people with a beastly religion”) were backed up by policies nothing short of criminal. Gandhi and Nehru were both imprisoned in 1942. The following year a calamitous famine in Bengal left three million people dead.
Wall Street Journal Letter "...They hold the British in general, and Mr. Churchill in particular, responsible for the tragic deaths of millions in the great Bengal famine of 1943..."
The Pioneer Book Review The high point of Mukherjee’s indictment — and the lowest point of imperial rule — is the Bengal Famine when an estimated three million people died. Haunting memory of that man-made tragedy, there hangs before me as I write one of M Braun’s tinted sepia photographs of eight skeletal forms in attitudes of abject despair.
The Times of India Book Review

Her book, "Churchill's Secret War", quotes previously unused papers that disprove his claim that no ships could be spared from the war and that show him brushing aside increasingly desperate requests from British officials in India.

HNN Book Review It decided instead that around 75,000 tons of Australian wheat would be transported to Ceylon and the Middle East each month for the rest of 1943, to supply the war effort; and a further 170,000 tons would pass by famine-stricken India en-route to a supply center in the Mediterranean region, there to be stored for future consumption in southeastern Europe.
Zuggernaut (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Controversial books get lots of reviews, which says something about motives. You can't go from a series of reviews to a statement that academics support the theory. I left it in as a statement by a journalist. That is more than enough. --Snowded TALK 21:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
While I continue to agree that extensively quoting Churchill here would be undue, I hope you do notice that at least four of those sources have nothing to do with Mukherjee's book (which, whatever its position, wouldn't make up facts, anyway): [4], [5], [6], [7]. Plus, for instance, the statement that "I am by no means sure whether on this subject of India he is really quite sane" occurs in at least four books other than Madhushree's. Shreevatsa (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Better sourcing improves the position but we need to be careful about what implications are drawn and balance. --Snowded TALK 07:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
@Zuggernaut: Above you say "World War II is more or less European history and I think its a distraction in this discussion. We need to focus on the famine of 1943 and Churchill's connection." So you would be happy to say that Churchill failed to supply the resources necessary to avoid the famine, yet omit the detail that Churchill had very good reason to believe that the free world was about to be overrun, and that all effort must be focused on defeating Nazism. That would be an astonishingly POV approach, and one that is unacceptable at Wikipedia. Many people blame Churchill for the deaths of thousands of allied troops who were forced to undertake impossible tasks, however the history of World War II cannot be replayed with alternative scenarios, so we will never know if Churchill was right or wrong; all people can do now is to speculate, while pointing out that owing to the difficulties of the time, resources were not provided to avoid the famine. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that WW2 is more or less European History. Close to 2.5 million Indian soldiers fought in the war with about a 100,000 casualties. The war was fought on the border of India, with parts of present day India briefly occupied by Japanese troops. India's independence was hastened by the war. No. Stating that the war was more or less European history is only possible if you view the events from a very narrow perspective. About racism, Churchill etc., I think the quote is overkill. If there is a significant scholarly opinion that Churchill deliberately worsened (or even may have worsened) the Bengal famine because he considered Indians, or the Hindu, an inferior race, then, of course that opinion should be included. However, one book with press coverage does not necessarily meet the 'significant' threshold. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understand you right but you seem to be suggesting that Churchill is vindicated from the deaths of 5 million Bengalis because he defeated the Germans. That would be original research. Can you provide sources that link all of the following:
  • The Bengal famine of 1943
  • Churchill's well known racist hate towards Indians
  • The delibrate decisons to prevent food aid from reaching the 5 million dying Indians
  • German defeat
Zuggernaut (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all for providing feedback on the original proposition. Based on the feedback, here's a revised proposition:
Winston Churchill, whose racist hatred towards Indians is well known, ignored pleas for emergency food aid aimed at helping the 5 million dying Bengalis.[1][2][3][4][5][note 1]
Note 1: Churchill is known to have made statements like "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.[6]
This is based on multiple, independent, secondary and reliable sources. We can also add the Mukherjee source when we are able to cite it accurately with page number and all.
Zuggernaut (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Entirely inappropriate Z, it implies that the role reason was racism which during a major world war is dubious and original research/synthesis. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, its a place to report what we can verify, apply WP:Weight and maintain a NPOV. If you ever want to get this to good article status you are going to have to work in taking a more balanced point of view. Your summary above completely ignores the bulk of editors who have commented here --Snowded TALK 17:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The original research/synthesis is in the sources.All of the 5 sources above state Churchill's decision to prevent food aid from reaching Bengal in the same breath as his racist hatered towards India (it's always either in the same paragraph, in juxtaposed sentences or in the same sentence). Righting great wrongs talks about using secondary sources and avoiding original research so I do not think that applies here I am not sure about weight either since it is definitely not a view held by an "extremely small" minority. If you are unhappy with the wording, may I ask that you put forward a reworded version which captures the following:
  • That Churchill hated Indians becasue of their race
  • That several influential publications imply that this racist hatred was the cause of his preventing aid from reaching India (and Mukherjee makes an explicit connection).
  • Perhaps we can also add that the British man-made famine was later blamed by Churchill on India "for breeding like rabbits". Here's the New York Times source:

“...I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” This hatred killed. In 1943, to give just one example, a famine broke out in Bengal, caused, as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proven, by British mismanagement. To the horror of many of his colleagues, Churchill raged that it was their own fault for “breeding like rabbits” and refused to offer any aid for months while hundreds of thousands died.

There seems to be support for including this content as long as we keep the focus on the famine.
Zuggernaut (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the current wording is fine for this article and as far as I can see other editors are also concerned about your use of reviews and general issues of balance. If you want to edit the article on Churchill then that might be a more appropriate place for some of this. I'll put it on watch --Snowded TALK 05:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've addressed your concern about balance below. According to my understanding of tertiary sources, book reviews are tertiary source and can be used for broad summaries such as this one. Here's the revised version:

Scholars imply that rejection of pleas of emergeny food aid was due to Churchill's racist hatered towards Indians. However, according to Christopher Baily of Cambride University, it is difficult to blame Churchill alone since these were Cabinet decisions.

Same sources and footnotes apply. The source for the 2nd sentence is BBC/OU
Zuggernaut (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
To be half way accurate it would need to say "Some scholars have asserted that ..." but overall I don't see the point. This is an article about Famine in India not about Churchill. There is already reference there to Churchill, its enough. I don't see the need for this addition unless you want to propose it as an alternative to something which is already there. --Snowded TALK 07:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Snowded; it's unnecessary to mention Churchill here. Although the consensus of academics is that the 1943-44 famine was a policy disaster, the failure to send aid is only one part of the famine, and the connection between Churchill's prejudices and the decision is not always made. There were a lot of factors in the famine: the army took away the fishing boats and thus the livelihood of many, even those with work found their wages suddenly insufficient to buy food, rice continued to be exported, there was resistance to famine relief based on a belief in the "invisible hand of the market" (the article already contains a bit of this, in the context of the 1877 famine), and the British government refused American/UNRRA aid because they didn't want American influence in the region. Out of all these reasons, to prominently mention one speculated reason for just the absence of aid seems excessive. To put it differently, if you're discussing Churchill's views on the "beastliest people next to the Germans", the telegram incident is a telling one; but if you're discussing the famine, then unless you discuss it in detail (which is what Bengal famine of 1943 is for), mentioning the incident is undue. Shreevatsa (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
While I disagree and strongly feel that the one line with a footnote is apt here, it is clear that we may not acheive the level of consensus needed to get that content included. I've provided several sources but I won't be pursuing the addition to Famine in India since it appears it will be futile and a waste of everybody's time. Just want to point out though that Snowded is mistaken - there is no mention of Churchill in this article at all as of now. As for the Bengal famine of 1943, Snowded has already been there and supressed the content. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletions by Snowded

Snowded undid some recent changes and asked to discuss this on the talk page, hence this post. I cannot make sense of or grasp Snowded's terse explanation of the undoing in his edit summary - "slanting the article to a political perspective without context". I'm seeking feedback from other editors as to whether these well sourced edits should or should not be there in the article. I made the edits to:

  1. Move the recent content to appropriate paragraphs within the article, copyedit and fix some references
  2. Balance recent additions by IP addresses which insinuate that the British, not Indians in independent India eliminated famine.


Here's a brief explanation of why I added the content.


1. The following addition was made with the intention to balance a recent addition which made the suggestion that famine was most severe in ancient India and not in British India.

In the 2000 years prior to British occupation, there were only 17 recorded famines in India's history whereas India suffered 31 serious famines in the 120 years of British rule.[7][fn 1]

2. This second addition shown below was made to balance a recent addition which suggested that the British eliminated famine in India which conflicts with pretty much all of the mainstream sources.

However, K. V Narayana argues that a new class of an "agricultural labor" emerged in rural India due the destruction of centuries old village economy by the British.[8] British economic policy had a devastating effect on the agricultural population causing famine after famine in the 19th century, particularly towards the end of that century.[fn 2][9] Jawaharlal Nehru in his Discovery of India cited import of cheap industrial goods from England as the cause of unemployment of the agricultural laborer and artisans, the population most affected by famines.[10]

3. I made this third addition to balance recent claims that railways of the British era helped reduce famine which is still debated in academia.

However the economist Dr. Daniel Keniston at MIT cites two models that have advanced arguments suggesting that the railways of British India actually increased famine mortality.[11] He goes on to state that such arguments do not have strong supporting evidence, instead concluding that railways of that era did not have a major impact on decreasing famine mortality.[12]

I'm asking other editors to take a look and provide feedback on whether this looks like "slanting the article to a political perspective without context". Zuggernaut (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What you are consistently doing Z is to argue a particular theory of famines, and also a crude position of "British Empire BAD, Indian Democracy/pre British GOOD". Lets take an example in the your first case namely 17 before 31 during. Firstly how accurate are records before? Secondly what is the population change during that period? The hand loom is another example. You might want to read up on what happened in the UK as a result of the woolen mills and their impact on home weaving. Cheap industrial goods changing local industry is a universal phenomena. We had the same thing over Churchill a few weeks ago. Selecting quotes out of full context, slanting the text around those quotes to imply a certain position. The real issue is that you have yet to realise that some of these changes need discussion first, you make a whole series of changes at a time, all direct to the article leaving editors little choice but to revert. Make the non-controversial ones, post anything that you know will be controversial here first, and do one at a time. --Snowded TALK 05:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Snowded is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not my position that the "British Empire BAD, Indian Democracy/pre British GOOD". Multiple reliable sources take this position unambiguously. Why do we need to indulge in original research and question the quality of data when, again, multiple reliable sources support the 17 famines versus 31 famines argument?
  • Reliable sources clearly state that the artisan, the agricultural laborer were affected by the handlooms and industrialization imposed by the British. The British government had the poor laws to take care of the poor of that era where as they would not have anything like that for the Indians because they were Indians. By ignoring the the context of poor laws, democracy for the British citizen and drawing a comparison with the subjugated, enslaved Indian you are clearly twisting the context. From what I can see, you are doing all of this and resorting to original research because you want the article to be slanted to a British POV. I will continue editing per WP policies like WP:BRD. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Selective use of sources to support a particular POV is not on Z and I really find it very amusing (as will other editors) that I am being accused of a British POV. Otherwise on your second point I think you really need to do some more reading. --Snowded TALK 06:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
You need to provide sources which show the opposite rather than just making a generic accusation of using sources selectively. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
No, you are the one inserting material with a particular slant. I am more than entitled to challenge that --Snowded TALK 21:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Famine in India/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Famine in India was nominated for good article status. It failed to achieve GA status for failing criterion 5 of good article criteria (article stability). A discussion regarding the issue can be found on the good article review page of the article. I am renominating because the article history shows it is stable. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A very basic starting point for GA and then FA articles is that editors work collaboratively and attempt to build consensus for changes. As at least one editor here persistently does not do that but constantly re-introduces contested material and operates with an un-consensual spirit, I suggest that any GA approach at this stage would be fraught with difficulty. Simply put, the ball is in your court Zuggernaut - pre-discuss changes you intend to make - obtain consensus and them make them. Otherwise, we will just go round and round in circles. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with James in that a GA/FA would materialise only when editors work consensually, however quality shouldn't be sacrificed at the altar of GA/FA, Z has done fantastic work on the need to incorporate the sources which he seeks to. The ball is in the community's court that they accept them. Just as Hitler gassed the Jews, Churchill starved the Bengalis, that is what Z's source says, that too at a similar time, the source is as sound as any as Z has painstakingly demonstrated.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Some questions on the Scholars Opinions Sections

I was reading the various comments here about POV in the article and this section struck me as one needing some improvement. I have some points I would like to make:

1) Would Florence Nightingale really count as a 'scholar'? I think most people when seeing the section heading had in mind modern day scholars, rather than contemporary observors. Perhaps the section could make clear that we are also discussing contemporary opinions, that way we could include Indian Nationalist opinions of the famines (such as R.C. Dutt) and the critique of their writings by British writers (such as C.W. McMinn's 'Famine Truths, Untruths and Half Truths').
2) The way the quote by Amartya Sen is presented is slightly POV. The quote simply says (more or less) that famines are easy to relieve. This has the same implications for pre-British authorities as it does the British Raj.
3)The source for the lack of a postive legacy in India left by the British. In fact it impliedly hints at some in its final sentence. What it says is that some Indians harbour resentment over these issues.


Regards, Andrew

Andrew, welcome to Wikipedia. Please consider signing up/becoming a regular editor here. Nightingale has numerous publications directly relevant to this area hence she would qualify as a scholar but we can move her observations to a different section if it can be established that her work was not scholarly. Getting in to the claims and counter claims of the likes of Indian nationalists like Romesh Chunder Dutt and McMinn would be WP:UNDUE here unless it was part of mainstream discourse. The earlier famines in ancient India have not caused as much loss of life as did the famines in British India and Amartya Sen's quote makes sense in that regard. I'm not sure what you mean in your third point. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, thank you for your response and kind words. I will accept that Nightingale would count as a scholar is she published scholarly works on the famines at the time. I was not aware that she did so I am will to accept this one. I am not sure that mentioning R.C. Dutt, William Digby or C.W. McMinn would be undue weight as, in the 19th century, they were mainstream discourse. Certainly if Nightingale counts as mainstream discourse then they would as well, no? I also do not agree with you on the pre-British famines. This article shows that several famines were quite bad, as bad as some under the British (the one in the 1630's killed four million people). And what period is Sen talking about? Is he talking about the 1940's, when famines were easier to relieve, or the 1870's, or 1830's, or 1770's? Given that he does not make clear, I think the best thing to do would be to assume that Amartya Sen's comment is applicable to all famines regardless of the regime. Incidentally, Michelle Burge McAlpin, in her book 'Subject to Famine: Food Crises and Economic Change in Western India, 1860-1920' (Princeton: 1983) devotes several pages analysing whether or not famines were actually worse in the pre-British period before concluding that it is likely they were just as bad. Finally, what I mean by my third point is that the source doesn't support what it is attributed to it. At no point does it state that the Bengal famine of 1770 is one of the reasons why Britain doesn't have a positive legacy. In fact, the final sentence, by stating that by remaining silent on colonialism, Cameron might be able to reap some of its benefits, implies that there is a positive legacy.

Regards, Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.164.170 (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Pre-British famines Certainly the famines in pre-British period were just as bad. However appropriate measures were taken (such as importing food and banning of exports. Sometimes the punishment towards traders found to be exporting food in times of famine was very severe) to ensure that the citizenry did not die of starvation. As an example, take a look the the Peshwa Sawai Madhavrao's response to the Deccan famine.
Opposed to this, there was practically no relief under the EIC and even under the Crown, food continued to be exported to Britain in times of famines. In order to understand why this happened we need to grasp that the Indian economy was setup to be a "colonial economy", i.e, it's main purpose was to provide capital, raw material and other resources to Britain. Australian and Canadian economies were setup in a similar fashion but the revenue generated from India was more than the combined revenue from the white colonies.
Sources (Dutt, McMinn) We need to exercise caution regarding sources from that era because the British would suppress and imprison any Indian who criticized the British government under specially enacted sedition laws. Pretty much all prominent Indian leaders and politicians have done time for speaking out against the government. Romesh Chunder Dutt may be a reliable source but I'm not sure about McMinn - he has one minor 140 page book on famines and seems like an alternative author than a mainstream one.
Will Heaven - legacy I agree that you may have a point about the relation between the Bengal famine of 1770 and legacy so feel free to edit the article to remove that content. However I do not agree with your reading of the article in that Heaven suggests that there is a positive legacy. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you have agreed with me about Will Heaven's article so I shall remove that content and not worry about our dispute over that article itself. Moving onto sources, as far as I am aware (and all I am going on is the wikipedia article) is that R.C. Dutt was never imprisoned in his life. Consequently I fail to see your point about the need for caution over the use of contemporary sources: R.C. Dutt speak out against government policies, quite publicly, and as far as I know he was never imprisoned. But even if, so what? He still made the arguments he did. I agree that now, McMinn is not as well known as R.C. Dutt is, although given that his book was written as a direct response to R.C. Dutt I think its fair to mention him (he is not completely forgotten either, there are several modern works that cite him). Finally, I think the debates about pre-British famines are getting us away from the issue of the A.K. Sen quote; you are reading into it that he damns the British administration whilst letting the Mughal's off. This is based not on what A.K. Sen actually says in the quote, but what has been argued by other authors (and disputed by others; this article already cites several authors a little less optimistic about famine relief in the pre-British era and a little less pessimistic about the Indian economy in the 19th century). I think that is wrong, and the way it is Sen's statements apply equally to Mughal and British famines.

Perhaps other people on here can weigh in?

Regards,

Andrew

As far as I am aware, McMinn has only one publication which reads like an alternative, non-mainstream book, not to dissimilar from the ones in the arena of the Aryan Invasion Theory which try to re-write Indian history. Muslim and Mughal rulers like Akbar, Allaudin Khilji and others imported food in times of famine which was not the case under the British. The role of railways in famine is unclear. Numerous academicians claim that the railways actually worsened famines, others claim the opposite and some say it didn't have any impact. Due to this, I'm rectifying your recent edit to reflect this. Let us discuss the role of railways further before making an addition. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
What makes you think that McMinn is not mainstream just because it is an 'alternative' view? I think that te edits I made about Tirthankar Roy were perfectly legitimate. Some academics claim they worsened them, some state they had no impact, others say they improved the situation. My edits did not present this as fact, but presented it as one scholar's opinion. Also, as other wikipedia articles show, food was imported into areas during the famines under British rule. But that is not the point. Amartya Sen says famines are easy to relieve, and the fact that there were terrible famines under Mughal rule suggests that Sen's critique applies to Mughal rulers as well. Regards, Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.71.25 (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Railway edit - Given that there is no consensus in academia about this, the proper way to include this in the article is to have consensus on which view is the majority view and which is the minority view and then include both of those in the article per Jimbo's e-mail from 2003 as shown in the NPOV policy.
Amartya Sen and relief - From whatever documentation is available, famines in pre-British India have had a much better relief response than in the British era (this includes Muslim and Mughal rulers).
Roy edit - I have undone the remaining part of your Roy edit because this is factually incorrect. The Bengal famine of 1943 was the one which was the last one. So if you have objections to my removal of that addition, we can discuss that here per WP:BRD and add the content back later once we reach a consensus.
It looks like we are handling too many different issues at the same time. Let us take them up one at a time, reach consensus, make edits to the article then tackle the next one. I am creating a separate section below to discuss the McMinn source. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
'Railway edit'-Agreed. The issue is whether or not there is a minority view or a majority view, or whether or not the issue is split roughly evenly.
'Amartya Sen and Relief'-Your comment is irrelevant for two reasons. a) it ignores the evidence presented in this article about the problems with Mughal relief and more importantly b) the quote suggests any famine deaths are unneccessary as they are easy to prevent. Ipso facto, the fact that famines under Mughal rule could and did kill millions, suggests that he is
'Roy Edit'-The 1900 famine was the last all India famine. The Bengal famine of 1943 was regional famine brought about by the circumstances of World War Two. In my opinion there isn't much to discuss. A scholar has given his opinion, and you have simply removed it because you disagree with him.

Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.71.25 (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If you examine the context more carefully, you will see that Roy is talking about "weather induced" famines. In fact in the very same paragraph he mentions the Bengal famine of 1943 which is considered man-made in literature. As long as we include the context and the fact that Bengal famine of 1943 was an artificial one, we can certainly include your addition. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
That is indeed correct. Roy argues that changes under colonial rule alleviated weather induced famines in the long run. And he does right that state's interventions in the grain market could still have a devastating impact. Although the Bengal famine was still a local famine and not of the same scope or scale as the earlier famines in the 1890;s or 1870's. I shall make these changes to reflect these points of view. You did not mention the Amartya Sen quote in your latest comment? We seem to be going round in circles somewhat with it so I was considering asking other members who have commented or been involved on this page for their take on it.Led225 (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

McMinn as a reliable source?

A few reasons why McMinn may not be a reliable source:
1. Other than Wikipedia articles, I could not find any other academician citing McMinn's work.
2. Can you cite accomplished authors, scholars supporting and speaking favorably of his work?
3. His works seem to be emotive with outbursts supporting the British rule in India.

4. He states the following in the preface and then bases his work on that

In other words the three hundred millions of India (sic) are are informed that they have only to revert to the rule and customs of their ancestors, getting rid somehow of the British incubus, then they will find peace, plenty, and bliss of every kind.

5. Then on pages 106-107 he discredits the work of successive Famine Commissions which where the cornerstone of the Indian Famine Codes.

Yet in the twenty-three folios of reports and appendices there is comparatively little of any value to the student; what there is is overloaded with detail, and is buried in masses of figured statement and comment which could only be of use once, as a check in the account department.

6. On page 129 he states that

The Rajas, the Independent Chiefs of India know that the British rescued them long ago from the most cruel bondage to Maratha or Moghul Empire, they agreed to pay half their revenues to the British...

7. On page 130, he concludes

To conclude, I see nothing but prosperity before India, the lookout is far better than when I came here in 1862; all will be well if the people will only labor and learn, listening to no false prophets, if also Government continues to introduce reform, steadily progressing towards the satisfaction of just national aspirations.

All of these are non-mainstream views, some of which if true would mean that the Indian Independence Movement was a freak accident and would/should not have happened. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Other Academics''-Do a search on google books. He is cited as an example of contemporary opinion on the famine in several studies. In fact he was prominent enough to be used as a source in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, but that isn't the point. The point was that it was a notable point of view at the time, in the same way R.C. Dutt's view was.
'Emotive and Polemic'-So was R.C. Dutt and William Digby's work. All three wrote for political purposes but their works were undeniably mainstream circa 1900 and scholarly.

Regards Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.71.25 (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Google books works in different way at different times and in different places and I could not find much. Can you provide a list of sources you have access to? Also, how can we call an author mainstream when he makes a claim as shown in item 4 above. We know very well that Indian freedom fighters did not want to go back to the days of their ancestors. WE have sufficient evidence to the contrary in legislation like abolishment of Sati, child marriage which the Indian social reformers worked hard for. The same goes for item 5 (I've fixed a typo there) when we know that the Famine Commissions were the critical component in the development of the Indian Famine Codes. The statement he makes in item 6 is laughable and the conclusion he draws in item 7 is juvenile given that it was written about a decade and a half before the events of the Jalianwala Bagh Massacre. There are other strange statements he makes about Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Gandhi's guru but let us deal with these first. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The point is not that he 'is' mainstream per se, but that he 'was' mainstream. He was involved in a scholarly debate around the turn of the century with prominent Indian nationalist writers. Your statements about what followed afterwards have no bearing on C.W. McMinn's book. He could not have predicted any of them. A list of books he is cited as an example of contemporary scholarly opinions of the famine include The Famine of 1896-1897: Availability or Entitlement Crisis by Malabika Chakrabarti; Communalism in Bengal : from Famine to Noakhali, 1943-47 by Rakesh Batabyal; Imperial Sceptics: British Critics of Empire by Gregory Claeys. But the point about McMinn wasn't to base whole chunks of the article around him. It was only that, if Florence Nightingale is allowed as a scholar, then surely other contemporaries should be mentioned as well. McMinn was only one exampleLed225 (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Given the gaffes he's made above (see items 4, 5 and 6) he wasn't mainstream back then and he's archaic and obsolete now. He's published one small work on famines entirely dedicated to an agenda. Of the list of books in which he is cited, Chakrabarti actually gives reasons for why he isn't mainstream. The other two cite him in a minor footnote or two. As for Nightingale, she is of an entirely different stature and reputation; moreover she has hundreds of very well received editions, many of which deal with famines. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Madras Famine 1952

The article does not appear to mention the famine in Madras in 1952. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I will look for sources and add content on causes, number of deaths, duration of the famine, etc. In the mean time, if you have any good sources, please feel free to share with us. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I dont think what happened in 52 was a famine - it was the run of the mill rice shortage. There was a sharp rise in rice prices (due to rainfall shortage and reduced yield the previous year). The communist led opposition seized the issue and demanded an increase in the ration allocations. The newly sworn in Congress govt of Rajaji was then leaning toward abolishing rationing and had to backtrack. There is no mention of famine in the legislative records for that year [8]. I have the biography of Rajaji and the autobiography of C. Subramaniam (the chief minister and the food minister respectively of that period) and they dont mention anything about famine. (rice shortage and the rationing issue yes, but nothing about famine).--Sodabottle (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
OK understood it was certainly refered to as a famine at the time The Hindu [9] has a quote from India's Food Minister, Mr. K.M. Munshi, returning to Madras after a tour of famine-affected districts in Madras State told a press conference that conditions in these districts called for immediate action and steps to prevent further deterioration.. The London Times 29 March 1952 has an article "Famine in Madras Province - 10 Million Sufferers", it talks about the governor of madras making an appeal for funds at a sheriff's meeting. It mentions the cause was the failure of the rains in four consecutive years. 30,000 homeless in the Markapur-Taluq-Kurnool district. On the 12 May 1952 the Times mentions six new districts threatened. No mention of any deaths just widespread disruption "The Government has taken measures to provide work for unemployed and to feed aged people and children. London Times 9 October 1952 mentions that Mr Nehru said that the famine code would not solve the problem of food scarcity in the Rayalaseem area. It may well be a widespread disruption but it looks like the measures taken may have worked as I cant find any mention of deaths, although they must have been some. Some issues that the central government could not deploy wheat in to what is a rice eating area and that an international rice shortage wasnt helped by the failure of the crop in Rayalaseema. The state government dont appear to have been that helpful as has been mentioned removing some controls on food and it was the central government that was deploying free food. Perhaps it should be mentioned as a one of the threatend famines that was resolved by government actions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Nehru refers to it in his own writings. (I hope others can see this Google Books ref - it's from Volume 21, covering the first quarter of 1953) [10] Nehru says lack of rain has caused what he terms "near-famine conditions". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes this should be added to the "near misses", if the Hindu of that time is mentioning it as a "famine", then this certainly was considered serious. The Rajaji Story by Rajmohan Gandhi also claims rainfall resumed in May 1952 and rice prices were deregulated. "within days grain started to flow and the queues disappeared". But thats in contradiction with London Times report from October. I will try to find some non-biographical references to this incident.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
In order to call it a famine, we need to find out how many deaths the famine caused. Other parameters listed in the template:infobox famine will also help understand the scale and cause of the famine. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, it looks like some sources are calling it famine and some drought. The Andhra Pradesh district gazetteers: Volume 8 Andhra Pradesh (India), Bh Sivasankaranarayana - 1977 says this:
"The drought which hit the district from 1951 to 1953 was, however, the most severe. A sum of Rs. 8.97 lakhs was altogether spent on relief. The army was called to help the civilian operations in the deepening of wells."
I will keep looking for more sources over the week. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like this was a drought, probably not worthy of mention in the article but I am open to mention it in the post-independence section if the majority feel so. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it Zuggernaut, I think it is worth a mention as a near miss as it may the sort of thing that a reader looks up and says why is this not mentioned and it can be explained that measures were taken to prevent a famine, although happy to go with a majority decision on inclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Polya & Williams 1998, p. 1.
  2. ^ Guha 2005, p. 1.
  3. ^ Reading & Sen 2008, p. 1.
  4. ^ a b Hari 2010, p. 1. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFHari2010 (help)
  5. ^ Hari 2010. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFHari2010 (help)
  6. ^ a b Nelson 2010, p. 1.
  7. ^ a b Reilly 2009, p. 126.
  8. ^ Narayana 1989, pp. 73–74.
  9. ^ a b Narayana 1989, p. 75.
  10. ^ Narayana 1989, p. 76.
  11. ^ Keniston 2007, p. 7.
  12. ^ Keniston 2007, p. 20.


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=fn> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=fn}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Famine_in_India/Archive_3&oldid=1136340995"