Talk:Famine in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
More information about this article...
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on November 23, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Update needed...

Am writing a undergraduate essay on this topic. Should provide significant material for updating this article in the near future. In particular I think more is needed on the demographic impact of famine, its relation to disease, and the role of colonial famine relief measures in alleviating or exacerbating famine at different points.

--Benwilson528 09:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Mike Davis' book "Late Victorian Holocausts" discusses Indian famines in great deal and would be a good source. -- TheMightyQuill 10:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

But one which doesn't sound like it makes the slightest attempt to be neutral. Hawkestone 21:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Hawkestone, I hope the extensive references I have supplied will alleviate the justifiable concern that you raised. I have included primary sources from the turn of the century here that are considered classics (Dutt), a somewhat dry but even-handed and well-documented scholarly economic reference (Srivastava), and of course Amartya Sen's Nobel Prize-winning work on this very topic. This is now one of the better-documented articles in Wikipedia. Any question of this article's neutrality should be removed.

Nobody here is making any highly opinionated claims about genocide or an intentional Holocaust on the part of the British-- the job of Wikipedia is just to present the facts of the topic at hand in a neutral fashion and with referencing, and on this topic, the basic facts really are indisputable and extremely well-documented by a number of independent analysts. There were incredibly severe famines in India in the late 19th and early 20th centuries through the Second World War, and they were undoubtedly in part a result of the policies of the ruling government at the time, in this case the British. This is a perfectly neutral and accurate statement and entirely in line with similar, well-understood observations with other famines, e.g. the deadly famines in Maoist China that killed tens of millions of Chinese (in part a result of the Great Leap Forward and other Maoist policies), the famine during WWII in the Netherlands that occurred under German occupation, and of course the Irish Potato Famine itself. In all of these cases, there were devastating famines that resulted from factors that had an obvious causal link to specific policies instituted by the ruling government, with these factors documented as such.

Ramachan 19:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV notice

I have removed this from a pov category, but looking at the article, it seems to be based solely on anti-British rule sources. It needs an expert rewrite. Hawkestone 21:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comment above. Extensive references including primary sources have been provided to confront any questions about the neutrality and factual quality of the article. I have researched this topic in thorough detail including a broad and profound study of the academic and professional literature as well as consultation of primary references, and therefore the article in its current form with the extensive documentation should meet criteria for an expert rewrite. I have addressed any lingering specific concerns in my prior comment. The questionable neutrality tag should now be removed. Ramachan 19:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


Can't see any argued and unanswered reason now for the PoV notice. So I'm removing it. Imc 17:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whaddamess

This actualy needs an expert on the matter, the whole article is written very... originally, and needs desperatley to be salvaged or removed. Some claim the famines were a product both of uneven rainfall and British economic and administrative policies. This is weasel words and POV against British rule. •Elomis• 00:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the whole article is written from a blatantly anti-British POV. I'm open to the possibility that British policies contributed to these famines, but to directly tie the two as if the British were as bad as Stalin is an amazingly strong claim that needs to be backed by amazingly strong sources. - Merzbow 06:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree on your standards, let me know when they're met.--Carwil 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Good quote. There's a big difference between the British causing famine and not doing as much as they could have to stop one. - Merzbow 01:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The famines and the basic principle of the responsible governing body

I have laboured to re-craft the sentences in this article in as neutral a POV style as possible, but this is likely as far as any dispassionate student of the India famines can go in attaining standards of neutrality and professionalism on a topic that inherently deals with such a dreadful event in history. It is not possible to refer to the famines without simultaneously noting their utter devastation and the hand of the governing authority in said famines. There is much ado here about a prosaic principle taken for granted by historians: In the midst of a famine and particularly in the midst of a series of such famines, the governing body in any country bears ultimate responsibility for the welfare of the individuals under its authority. This is especially so when the government clearly undertakes specific economic policies that bear upon the course of the famine.

This is why, as has been observed by commenters above and elsewhere, the Stalinist government in the Ukraine and the Maoist government in China are held responsible for the deadly famines that occurred under their purview. It is not claimed that these governments deliberately starved their peoples as a whole, but as they were the governing bodies at the time, as their policies directly affected the production and distribution of food, and as they represented the ultimate ruling authority over the affected peoples, they are held responsible for the famines that occurred under their watch. This applies equally so to colonial governments ruling over imperial domains and a comment above cites good examples: the Nazi government during the Dutch famine of the 1940s, and the British government in Ireland in the 1840s were the ruling authorities over the people in those domains, and so they are held responsible for the famines that took place there. Nobody is "equating the British Raj to Stalin," all of the above-mentioned governments were sui generis and the famines occurring under their watch took place under distinct circumstances, but all of these governments are held responsible due to the same consistently applied principle on the duty of a governing body to the people under its watch.

Some comments have complained about the way this reflects on the British government at the time, but all governments in which such serious famines occur under their watch, particularly under occupation, "look bad." This is unavoidable and it applies equally to other governments: any neutral POV used to discuss such famines will inevitably have to make reference to the responsible government in charge and its policies. Some of the comments even verge on ad hominems to the effect that Indian authors (and that includes cited professional historians) have an inherently anti-British POV. Most of us from India or among the Indian expat community do not harbour an inherent animus toward the British, quite a few of us quite like the country in fact, but it is preposterous to assert that a thorough discussion of the late 19th-century famines and the role of the Raj's policies in them, amounts to an inherent anti-British POV. It is impossible to discuss the British Raj period sans a thorough treatment of the 19th-century famines that had such an impact on India-- this sort of omission would be similar to discussing mid 19th-century Ireland and eliding any discussion about the Potato Famine and its impact on Irish history! It is likewise not possible to address the famines without considering the specific British policies, mercantilist and otherwise, that governed economic activity in the Subcontinent so much. No one here is declaring that the Indian people were deliberately targeted by the British mercantilist policies, but they had a major and well-documented impact on the economic events of the late 19th century in India, including the famines. A dispassionate approach to this topic requires a close look at the policies of the Raj.

As to the role of particular Raj policies in worsening the famines, this has not been under dispute, and has been recognised well before Amartya Sen's work which focused on democratic systems in particular. The British Raj and its predecessors in India were mercantilist in nature and they imposed their systems on the colonies to gain a positive balance of trade, this is not in question. Furthermore, these policies quite clearly had a major impact on food distribution and also on the internal wealth, derived from both exports and internal commerce, used to purchase and distribute food to begin with, and obviously bear upon the course of the India famines. Romesh Dutt documented this at length in his own contemporary accounts, and Amartya Sen did the same in his more thorough treatments later in the century which were awarded with a Nobel Prize in Economics. One comment above expressed the desire for especially strong sources here, and we have in fact, primary sources from a first-hand witness to the famines, and the carefully documented work of no less than a Nobel Laureate and globally respected authority on the topic, supplemented with other detailed academic sources. If references even of this magnitude are deemed insufficient, then no article in any encyclopedia could ever be deemed to have sufficient sourcing.

I have therefore for the time being, removed the NPOV tag here. Naturally it is anyone's prerogative to introduce it again, but I would hope that we could come to some sort of a consensus here based on commonly and consistently applied principles- based on the fundamental responsibility of a governing body to the people under its rule, sans any accusation of deliberate killing of the people under its watch- and also on the quality, depth and even primary nature of the professional sources referenced here.Neeramurthy 05:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famines before British rule

The article is about famines in India. So why does it not talk about famines in India before British rule? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Led125 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] more sources on this topic in literature;

I came accross a persian manuscript by one Mata dayal who was living in the days of natural calamity. His village was anbari, near allahabad. He wrote a work on femine and named it ghaht nama (femine letter). the text is in chaste persian of indian style. in this work he has given the full picturesaque description of the casualties occured due to femine and the bad state of the affairs. but he do add that later on the order from England and due to unpopularily the england got for its mismanagement, evey relief was rushed to the vicitms. but at some places it was too late and could be consumed by the animals who had remained survieved by luck. the text of the manuscripts run into 600 couplets and the ms is lying in delhi university library.

Why not compare the British Raj to Stalin? What, substantially, is the difference? Gerrynobody 15:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not compare the Irish to Al-Qaeda? What, substantially, is the difference?Sennen goroshi 15:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judging 18th. century technology/organisation/resources by 21st. century standards

It does seem unfair that the writers of this article seem to expect 18th. century governments to be run as efficiently and as technologically able as they would be in the 21st. century, or to be as resource- or infrastructure- rich. If you are going to evaluate the government, please try to be aware of the many limitations and difficulties of that time. 62.253.52.156 18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

But we aren't the ones doing the judging. The judging has been done by reliable sources, this article just records what those sources have had to say. Gatoclass 19:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)