Talk:Bengal famine of 1943/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Pfitzner reference dicey?

The article "The Unknown Famine Holocaust" by Wolfgang Pfitzner, listed under References, is from The Revisionist, a Holocaust revisionism journal. This raises the possibility that the article may be propaganda biased to make Britain look worse than it really was, so that Germany looks less bad in comparison. I'm not qualified to judge the article's scholastic merits but it looks all right to me. Can someone else check to confirm that the article (as opposed to the journal) seems more or less reasonable? If so then I suggest the link be left as is. Jacob Eliosoff 04:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Izehar- The link MUST have a disclaimer added to it. It seems to my reading that much of the article is based upon it, and as a reference it is very poor. Readers who do not actively follow the link would not be aware of the nature of the 'journal' in which it is featured, which is a platform for Holocaust revisionism. The Pfitzner article clearly espouses a certain (to my mind, and I believe to almost any reader's mind, distasteful)point of view (it is a rather unsubtle attempt to justify the Nazi program of extermination in occupied (particularly eastern) Europe, and far worse than that is obviously non-neutral and not a work of disinterested academic intent, It is obviously politically biased, and therefore in my opinion not a reliable source.

I include an (unfortuantely long) verbatim quote to give a flavour as to the nature of the 'scholarship' (sorry for reproducing such a large portion, I do not believe this breaches copyright, and I do not want to be accused of quoting out of context):

During recent years, the young German historian Christian Gerlach has become known for his examination of the food policy of the Third Reich during the Second World War. In two monographs he claimed that the Third Reich, based on experiences gained during the First World War, did everything to ensure that the German population would not suffer from hunger during the war. To this purpose, the food resources of occupied territories were used to cover German needs, by conscious neglect of the nutritional needs of the local population. According to Gerlach, this was especially true for eastern territories which were under temporary German occupation during the Russian campaign. Consequently, Gerlach's two books addressing this topic, which were published by the communist publisher Jan Philipp Reemtsma, have telling titles: Krieg, Ernährung, Völkermord (War, nutrition and genocide) and Kalkulierte Morde: Die Deutsche Wirtschafts- und Vernichtungspolitik in Weißrußland 1941 bis 1944 (Calculated Murders: The German Economical and Extermination Policy in White Russia 1941 to 1944).[15] Gerlach is certainly correct in so far as the government of the Reich placed a higher priority on the nutrition of the fighting troops and its own people than on the nourishment of essentially non-participating population groups in occupied areas. In this respect the policy of Great Britain resembles that of Germany at this time, both forced by purely war related issues. There is, however, a fine difference: whilst the nutritional situation in the German occupied zones of the Soviet Union was disastrous in some areas not due to German measures, but because of Stalin's policy of 'scorched earth' during the Soviet retreat--a fact to which Gerlach hardly gives his attention--the corresponding scarcity and inflation in India was essentially the consequence of British policy. Unfortunately it also has to be stated here that, as always, actual or alleged German atrocities receive one-sided and often distorted attention in the public mind, whereas balanced descriptions and comparative studies of similar events which occurred elsewhere in the world are generally avoided. That could put in doubt the alleged uniqueness of the German 'evilness', and this is, as is generally known, politically incorrect and thus undesirable.

I hope that what the author is driving at in the above passage is obvious, as it certainly is not very subtly hidden. Feel free to browse the 'journal' for other examples of similar sentiments. It is not clear to me that this article has been subjected to ANY kind of peer review, and I would be extremely circumspect about its use as a secondary source for a wikipedia article. As I described in my original comment (below) it makes sense to leave the link so as to allow readers to assess the quality of the sources for the wikiarticle, but not without a disclaimer for those (the majority?) who DO NOT choose to follow the link. It should CERTAINLY be made clear to the reader what this source is, and in fact I personally wonder whether this kind of link should be included in a general-interest wiki entry at all (general interest= one not specifically pertaining to neo-Nazism, anti-semitism, or Holocaust revisionism). However, my opinion as an individual is irrelevent- I have reverted one last time, as I do not believe a 'Reader Beware' caveat is at all inappropriate, and is indeed only an alternative to deleting the link completely. If the page is reverted again, I suggest we seek an external opinion as to the issues at hand? In any case, the wikiarticle is of a very poor quality and should itself be labelled with a clean up/neutrality disputed disclaimer, in my opinion. I should stress that I have no overt political views on this subject, and it is not an area in which I have particular expertise. I believe the points I have made would be echoed by any interested reader. Please feel free to comment here.

Cheers.

um

V. badly written. Some parts obviously factually incorrect and internally inconsistent (see '1943 A Bumper Crop' comment above.) The use of the article from the neo-Nazi journal is particularly disagreable. I would suggest as a start: a) attempting to remove non-neutral point-of-view statements ('The diseased rice crop story needs careful re-examination and certainly does not deserve the importance that has been bestowed on it.'); b) DIRECTLY referencing facts and statements in the text using academic style (e.g. 'blah blah blah (Sen, 1984)') so as to differentiate between sources. If, as it seems to my reading, much of this is influenced by the Pfitzner article (which in essence attempts to excuse and mitigate the Nazi extermination policy) then there is a very serious problem here. I leave the link as it is only so as to allow readers to assess the reliability of the source for themselves. This is an interesting subject that deserves a fuller and more rigorous treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.232.16 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 5 December 2005‎ (UTC)

Removal of Pfitzner Reference

As there is no need to bring in the Holocaust Denial controversy to this article, I will remove the Pfitzner reference if there is no dissent. I believe there are enough sources besides Pfitzner. Jayanta Sen 20:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree this is pretty useless detour from the actual point of this article.--nixie 22:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Jayanta Sen 00:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite and Addition of Sections

I have re-written some sections and added a couple more. I have tried to source everything, if I missed something please let me know. Jayanta Sen 20:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is really getting somewhere! A big improvement over previous versions. There is now the skeleton of a great article here. The removal of the Pfitzner reference is now perfectly acceptable since to my reading the wiki article has also been purged of material derived from it, which was my only caveat. Still needs expanding in many sections and some arguable POV replaced in parts, but in general- Good work!86.142.232.45 04:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for your kind comments. If you log in with a username I will be able to keep you informed. Best Regards Jayanta Sen 09:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

About the focus of the current article. It is mostly about the famine in the context of WW2 politics, British rule, economics, and other somewhat abstract matters. What about some more detail of the effect on Bengal at the time, for instance, what areas were worse affected, how did people react then, et.c.? Imc 18:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal of reference to Burma imports

I have removed the reference to rice imports from Burma due to Japanese occupation. To restore this reference there should be a source cited showing how important these imports were compared to total consumption. 68.104.78.238 19:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Burma was the world's largest exporter of rice in the inter-war period, the British having encouraged production by Burmese smallholders, which resulted a virtual monoculture in the Irrawady delta and Arakan, with most of the trade in the hands of Chinese and Madrassis - Nicholas Tarling (Ed.) The Cambridge History of SouthEast Asia Vol.II Part 1 pp139-40. Bayly & Harper, in Forgotten Armies. The Fall of British Asia 1941-45(London: Allen Lane) 2004 p284 state that by 1940 15% of India's rice overall came from Burma, whilst in Bengal the proportion is likely to have been higher given the province's proximity to Burma (They cite documents from the India Office Library in support of this, and to be honest it ought to be fairly easy to establish more precisely). It seems unlikely, however, that it can have amounted to more than 20-30% of Bengal's consumption, and neither they, nor anyone else as far as I know, claims it was the sole cause of the famine (they cite, amongst other things, the 'scorched earth' policy in the Chittagong region, excessive exports to the Middle East and Ceylon, the cyclone of the 16th October 1942, the lack of a 'famine code' in Bengal, unlike most other provinces of British India, the corruption of the Bengal Provincial Government of the time, the laziness and incompetence of many of the ICS in the province, and the hostility of the War Cabinet and Leo Amery, the Secretary of State for India, in the face of the Quit India movement and wartime demands). However, I do think it deserves a mention, together with the other reasons outlined above. The other thing which could be mentioned is the prevalence of famine in India before British rule, and the measures taken by rulers to relieve it. This would not invalidate Amartya Sen's democracy thesis, but to my mind probably suggest that the idea that a Government has a responsibility to prevent its subjects from starving is of relatively recent origin, whilst the transport networks and systems of price control and procurement needed to relieve a famine on this scale did not even exist before the 19th century. Sikandarji 00:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of original research and argument from main page

The following sections were removed from the main page by me for further discussion and rewriting. I left a brief synopsis there. Imc 10:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Debate about Diseased Rice and Total Rice Yield in 1942 and 1943

In the rice growing season of 1942, weather conditions were exactly right to encourage an epidemic of the rice disease brown spot following a cyclone and flooding. Brown spot in rice is caused by the fungus Helminthosporium oryzae; the outbreak of the disease caused a variation in the 1942 crop ranging from a 236.6% gain to a 90% crop loss in Bankura and Chinsurah according to mycologist S.Y. Padmanabhan.

Mark Tauger argues that Sen's analysis based economic entitlement overlooks the role of food shortage. Tauger argues that that the yield in 1942 was low (based on Padmanabhan's data) causing a serious food shortage in Bengal and was the most important cause of the famine. Padmanabhan produces data for rice varieties in these two regions, and the yield per acre from 1941 to 1942 varies from a gain of 236.6% (Bhutmuri variety in Chinsurah) to a loss of 91.2% (Dandkhani variety in Bankura). Of 42 varieties 41 show losses, some small some large.

Padmanabhan's data cannot be used to draw inferences and hence Tauger's argument can be criticised for two reasons: 1) Padmanabhan does not give the number of acres sown for the different varieties of rice. Depending upon the acreage it would be consistent with his data that the production in 1942 was actually larger than 1941. 2) Padmanabhan's data is not for total rice production but only yield per acre for two regions in Bengal, namely Bankura and Chinsurah. < The one estimate that we have for the total rice production in Bengal (not yield per acre of particular varieties in particular regions) is Famine Inquiry Commission set up by the British-controlled Indian government after the famine (and used by Sen). Tauger offers a criticism of the methodology used by the Famine Inquiry Commission, arguing that it was based on expected (rather than actual) yield pre acre multiplied by acreage.

From Mark Tauger:

The above discussion of my work is not accurate and is misleading. Interested readers can read my article "Entitlement, Shortage, and the 1943 Bengal Famine: Another Look," Journal of Peasant Studies vol. 31 no. 1, October 2003, which is posted on my website in PDF: http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/ . Here I will briefly respond to two problems in the above statement.

We should begin with the last paragraph, which refers to the following works: Famine Inquiry Commission, Report on Bengal (1944; reprint by USHA, New Delhi, 1984, hereafter FIC1), and Famine Inquiry Commission, Final Report (1945; reprint by USHA, New Delhi, 1984, hereafter FIC2).

FIC1 has a long appendix on production data: Appendix II: Production and consumption of Rice in Bengal (FIC1 202-212). The gist of this appendix is that the Commission had essentially no reliable concrete data on the 1942 harvest and had to resort to all kinds of indirect means to come up with what they themselves acknowledged was an extremely approximate and speculate estimate of food production and consumption. In the process they examined estimates by Mahalonobis and noted that "Many other estimates have been made in the past..." (204) FIC2 has a special chapter devoted to the issue of statistics which emphasizes that the events of the War showed the need for accurate statistics, which of course means that they recognized that they did not have accurate statistics. In my article I present much more evidence that these statistics and the methods used to produce them were such that the data do not qualify as harvest data.

So the above statement that the one estimate we have for price production is that of the FIC is not entirely accurate and does not acknowledge the great uncertainty about that estimate. Then, I did not merely "offer a criticism" of the Famine Enquiry Commission's estimate; I simply restated what the Commission itself and many, virtually all officials and specialists who dealt with these data recognized: the data were not actual harvest data and were not accurate. This is not my criticism, this is the criticism of vitually everyone who dealt with those data at the time and who knew perfectly well what was wrong with it. Here for example is was FIC1 wrote in discussing their estimates of rice supplies, p. 13: "The defects in the relevant statistics are familiar. They have been commented upon by various Commission and Committees from time to time and need not be recapitulated here. We must, however, make the best use we can of available information ..."

The assertion earlier in the above section that "Padmanahbhan's data cannot be used to draw inferences" is not correct. Readers will notice that the author of that section did not provide any evidence or analysis as to why those data cannot be used for inference. I provided in my article considerable evidence and analysis to support that these data can be so used, evidence and analysis that derived from the expert specialist knowledge of plant pathologists in India at that time and afterwards.

The evidence, which can be found in my article and in Padmadabhan's, shows that the rice infestation in the Aman crop in 1942, the main rice crop, affected every variety of rice that the plant pathologists were testing, and that this devastating effect resulted both from the exceptional character of the variety of the plant disease and the extremely propitious weather conditions that affected virtually all of Bengal.

The above section's assertion that because Padmanabhan did not give acreage, his data could support the conclusion that the harvest in 1932 was larger than that of 1941, is not correct: all varieties were significantly reduced by the plant disease in the 1942 Aman harvest. The above section's criticism that Padmanabhan's data are only yields and not total harvests is invalid for two reasons. First, it leaves out the evidence that the infestations developed in both rice research stations because of weather conditions that covered most of Bengal for an extended period at just the right time in the growing season to harm the rice crops. Second, it omits the fact that the tropical cyclone that contributed to those weather conditions also destroyed huge areas of crops, thereby reducing the total cropland substantially below that of the previous year.

Further evidence of the seriousness of the infestation is that it affected the previous crop as well, which means that it lasted over a long period, which could not have been the case unless the weather conditions were conducive.

Since that fungal disease was so destructive and the weather conditions so pervasive, it is extremely difficult to avoid the conclusion that the disease affected the rice crop very widely throughout Bengal in 1942. That is why Padmanabhan argued in his article that the Bengal famine resembled the Irish famine of 1845-1848, which was also caused by an extremely destructive plant disease.

The author of the above section failed to note that Padmanabhan worked as a plant pathologist in Bengal during the famine and was a specialist eyewitness to these events, and that when he published the article I used, in 1973, he was the director of rice research for all of India. He was not just some mycologist, he was a very experience and knowledgeable specialist, and his views cannot be dismissed with an unsupported assertion that his data "cannot be used to draw inferences." They can be used to draw inferences, and the unambiguous inference from them, which Padmanabhan drew on the basis of his own experience of that crisis and his and his colleagues' specialist knowledge of this disease, was that this famine resulted first of all from a complex of natural disasters that devastated Bengal's rice harvest in 1942. (The bulk of the above, starting 'From Mark Tauger' was added by user Mbtauger on 5 March 2006).

End section removed from main page by Imc

I would say that my discussion was neither "not accurate" nor "misleading". Consider for example:

1) Both the criticisms I made about applying Padmanabhan's data to infer total rice production are factually correct, and not contradicted by Mark Tauger. To wit, Padmanabhan's data is only for two districts of Bengal and the condition in the other districts could have been very different. (In fact the conditions in the "rice research stations" could be very different from what was actually present in the field.) Additionally, as different varieties of rice show different yields, we need to know the acreage under each variety to be able to infer total production. Alternatively we need to know the fraction of each variety in total production. For example, if the bulk of rice production was Bhutmuri Aus, then Padmanabhan's data is consistent with larger production in 1942.

2) Mark Tauger criticizes what I wrote saying "Readers will notice that the author of that section did not provide any evidence or analysis as to why those data cannot be used for inference." I am at a loss. I very clearly mentioned (in point form no less) why it cannot be used. Once again, it is yield per acre for different varieties and not total production, and that it is for two districts only.

3) Mark Tauger writes "all varieties were significantly reduced by the plant disease in the 1942 Aman harvest." True, but what he does not mention is that the Bhutmuri Aus yield in Chinsurah went up by 236% (from 372 kg/ha to 1252 kg/ha)!!! We need to know what the relative size of the Aus harvest compared to the Aman harvest was. Padmanabhan's math seemed to fail him when it came to calculating this increase and he merely left the entry blank (page 15 of his article). This huge jump also leads one to suspect the operations of the rice research stations, whether this data really means something or is it just noise. How does yield for a variety jump more than threefold in one year is to say the least very mysterious.

4) As for my failing to note "Padmanabhan worked as a plant pathologist...". I am sure if Tauger regards that as important then he can add that information. That is how Wikipedia works. I am sure any reader would realize that Padmanabhan has some expertise in the matter given that he wrote a paper on it, whether that expertise needs to be explicitly mentioned is a personal taste.

etc. etc.

I argue that the evidence Padmanabhan and Tauger present is not sufficient to reach their conclusion. Yes, there are problems with FIC data as they themselves acknowledge. However the government officials who formed the FIC estimates were doing something that they had experience in, and it is doubtful if they would be satisfied compiling spurious data. I believe it again becomes a matter of personal taste whether to put more faith in the FIC data for total yields or inferences about total yields based on Padmanabhan's data for yields per acre from two districts.

Jayanta Sen 21:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

On the section "Debate about diseased rice..."

I think some rather biased comments have been added at the end. I quote: 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bengal_famine_of_1943/Archives/2006/May&action=edit'As evident from the rice production chart, there were no significant decline in the rice production in the year 1942. Basically, this famine was purely man-made, perpetrated by the greedy hoarders, rice mill owners and businessmen in collusion with the local administration. And the result was disasterous, that saw the dance of death across british bengal. A look at the revision history of the page reveals that the changes may have been made by someone without an ID (troll?). I suggest that this above paragraph be removed from the article, or if true, replaced by something that befits an NPOV.--Srikanth srinivasan 16:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Acting on my good(?) judgment, I removed the aforementioned paragraph.--Srikanth srinivasan 17:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Post-Independence Famine

"No famines since independence, no famines..." the article claims again and again. This is not true. There was a famine in Kerala in the 1960s, more than a decade after independence. Rice was scarce in the Bengal Famine of 1943; it was also scarce in Kerala in the 1960s.

However, Malayalees were not driven to the desperate measures portrayed in Ashani Sanket. The U.S. was, at the time, somewhat concerned about winning the support of the Malayalee people in the battle against communist influence. As part of its effort to gain support, it supplied American flour to Kerala. Apparently, Malayalees often tried to trade this flour for rice that was apparently "inferior" and "stinky."

I am therefore thinking of getting rid of the false statements in this article claiming that there have been no famines since 1947. If anyone disagrees, please discuss your views here. Thank you! --Kuaichik 03:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooops. Sorry. My mistake (it seems). Apparently what happened in Kerala wasn't a famine; the Americans sent food to prevent a famine (and succeeded, I guess). --Kuaichik 03:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"India witnessed multiple famines under the British rule; Independent India has not had a famine ever since the British left Indian soil." - is this neccessary? IMO it adds useless POV to an otherwise good article. Smegpt86 06:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason why these sentences are there is to help the reader understand what may have caused the famine. If the claims that India had multiple famines under the British but none later are true, then these represent facts rather than a POV. As per current evidence I believe these are facts. Jayanta Sen 08:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

How about a mention of how many famines there were before British rule?GordyB 22:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm back to question the "no famines since Independence" claim. I admit that this is nowhere near sufficient evidence to change the claim, but please just consider that it might be questionable. I'm sure it's true, though, that there have been no famines quite as severe as the Bengal famine of 1943.

Let me begin with a few unsourced claims based on hearsay:

1. There may have been a famine in Bihar in the 1960s. (Wikipedia seems to consider this a "near miss" rather than an actual famine, but it's usually called the "Bihar Famine," and I have my doubts. Some online sources claim that a famine did occur; others deny it. I cannot say at this point which is true.)
2. In Kerala, few deaths occurred as a result of the American effort...in the CITIES. However, in rural areas, it seems people did die as a result of famine.
3. In coastal villages in Andhra Pradesh, famines occur every year as a result of flood. Relief efforts have begun to succeed only recently.

And now, for a few links:

1. According to [1], a famine occurred in Gujarat and Maharashtra between 1974-1975. Relief efforts had helped somewhat, but the famine intensified in 1975 nevertheless. In 1987, another famine occurred in Saurashtra (Gujarat) due to flood and drought, described on this website as "this century's worst famine." (Perhaps this is going a bit too far, or it is not taking into account any famines before 1974.)

2. A doctoral thesis under the title Democracy, Drought, and Starvation in India: Testing Sen in Theory in Practice ([2]) might be a useful read that might help us determine in greater detail whether or not there was a famine...and whether it is fair to say that Independent India has "never had a famine." --Kuaichik 17:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a good link, the thesis by Dan Banik. I think he considers the important issues, and the question of famines vs. malnutrition and limited starvation. It would be a stretch to say that there have been no deaths due to malnutrition in India since independence. Defining famine becomes a question of degree. I would say that a famine is an event which has significantly more people dying than usual. That is not to say deaths due to malnutrition are unimportant, or something we should be unconcerned about. But the word "famine" has a specific popularly accepted meaning. I do not wish to take on the role of arbiter of the meanings of words, but I do believe that in popular usage famine refers to something out of the ordinary. For example, a well known famine is the "Irish Potato Famine" which claimed 500,000 to 1 million lives, with 2 more million escaping it by emigrating to the US and other countries. Prior to this famine I would think there were some Irish dying due to malnutrition, yet that situation was not described as a famine. JS 20:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Useful question, but you may have to define famine more carefully first. Since there is considerable malnutrition in India at the best of times, and it always causes some 'routine' deaths, how do you judge what increase in deaths constitutes a famine? Do livestock deaths count? Droughts occur regularly without being judged as famines. The 1974/75 case might be called a famine by the Swaminarayan mission, because it enables them to publicise themselves, and not called such by governments because it makes them looks better. If the discussion is limited to the major uncontested famines, that at least simplifies matters. Imc 17:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

...you may have to define famine more

The fact is that while there have been droughts in India since independence, there has not been a single famine. There have been near-misses before the Green Revolution but not a famine. Jvalant 20:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"Genocide" ?!?

Why has this page been moved to "Bengal Genocide of 1943"? What is NPOV about calling a famine a "genocide"?

You can't just move a page without anyone's consent. Personally, I am a bit more critical of the British imperialists than most, being the grandson of an INA veteran. And even I think that calling this the Bengal "Genocide" of 1943 is a bit much. So, please reconsider this move, and consider moving this page back to "Bengal Famine of 1943." --Kuaichik 15:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, surely you do realize as a grandson of an INA veteran, that the Free India Govt. offered to send rice from Burma to Bengal but was rejected outright by the British administration. The British administration also forced the Bengalis not to go fishing and their fishing boats were seized. Read the book, Forgotten Victorian Holocausts. Also, even though there was a minor drought, the actual production of rice was not exceedingly less. However, it was hoarded for British troops. Here is another link you might wish to see

http://urbansemiotic.com/2007/07/17/pro-british-and-amateurish-hitler-in-denial-of-mass-killing/#comment-124747

Especially look at the picture.

What's wrong in calling a genocide as such? Jvalant 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that looks awful. But could you provide a notable and reliable source to make the "genocide" claim? You're making an accusation of mass murder against an entire empire, so yeah, that's kind of POV without sufficient sourcing. Please not that I am not disputing any of the points made in this article on what the British actually did, but the term "genocide" confers onto those actions the direct intention of wiping out an entire people. I suggest the page be moved back until proper sourcing is found for this claim. Someguy1221 23:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(To Jvalant) I'll admit to having very little knowledge about this subject (the Famine). However, I still have some objections. First of all, you had not discussed the move at all before you actually moved the page.

Second, do you have evidence that there are reliable sources that say that this was a genocide? To me, it seems as if this is not the general view, or that this view is disputed and that the actual cause of the famine is not known. (The film Ashani Sanket, for example, indicates that there actually was a steady supply of rice from Burma until the Japanese took over, and that the famine was caused by rumor-based hoarding).

Even if the British did cut off the food supply of the Bengali people, that does not qualify as "genocide" in itself. It was not a systematic murder committed by the British; it mostly affected the countryside, and that too in only one part of British India. (You don't seriously think that the British were particularly prejudiced against the Bengali people, do you? If not, why didn't they start up similarly huge artificial famines elsewhere?).

In fact, if I'm not much mistaken, the sources that claim that the British blatantly cut off the food supply suggest that their actions were not racially motivated, but rather motivated by the fact that the British were fighting a war, needed food for their soldiers (that includes the huge number of "sepoys"), and were trying to prevent the Japanese from invading by sea.

That picture has absolutely nothing to do with "genocide." When an entire population is dying of hunger, what do you expect to see? Of course, as I said, I don't know that much, so don't think of this as an informed opinion by any means. --Kuaichik 00:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A genocide is not necessarily racially motivated. It could be motivated by other factors. Definition: The 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Bengalis are an ethnic group who were deliberately denied food to feed British soldiers, it was calculated to bring about its physical destruction at least in part if not in whole.

Since you have asked for "reliable sources" - I wonder what qualifies?

http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/2005/07/forgotten-holocaust-194344-bengal.html http://www.religioustolerance.org/god_cana0.htm http://vho.org/tr/2003/1/Pfitzner71-75.html http://www.countercurrents.org/us-polya010207.htm http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/hrussia1.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvalant (talk • contribs) 05:20, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what to make of the second source, but I see no evidence that is more reliable than any other website. The third source states that the malice of the British was directed at the perceived threat of invasion and rebellion, and the famine resulted mostly from stupidity surrounding their fear. It never refers to this as a genocide. The fourth source refers only the Ukrain famine as a genocide, and the Bengali famine is given only one sentence in passing. The first and last sources are blogs published by the same author. Blogs, while remaining a good source on what the author claims, are inherently unreliable secondary sources due to the complete lack of peer review. Quoting from WP:RS, "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." Someguy1221 08:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Late-Victorian-Holocausts-Famines-Making/dp/1859843824

Jvalant 08:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

They synopsis seems to imply it's about periods long before this famine. I don't have the book anyway, so I have to stay silent on weather it refers to this as a genocide. Someguy1221 08:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Pfitzner especially should not be treated as an unbiased source. See the discussion above at Talk:Bengal Genocide of 1943#Pfitzner reference dicey?. I agree that this page should not have been moved unilaterally without previous discussion. HLGallon 15:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If the rice production was 7.6 million tonnes - how is it a famine? I am not changing the title without a proper discussion but am indeed putting in a dispute tag. Jvalant 19:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The production of rice does not automatically feed a population. That rice has to then be processed and distributed, and during wartime (especially during one of the World's deadliest wars), this can be quite a complicated matter. There are many reasons cited in the article that provide possible explanations for this irony, including diseased crops and lack of money to pay the ever-increasing price of rice.

BTW, do you really have any reliable sources that the Famine was also known as the "Bengal Genocide of 1943"? Searching Google for "Bengal Famine of 1943" in quotes yields 12,400 results [3] while searching for "Bengal Genocide of 1943" in quotes yields only two results which are both from Wikipedia [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=pDO&q=%22Bengal+Famine+of+1943%22&btnG= Search]. --Kuaichik 20:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Care to give a theory as to how rice produced within a region is difficult to process and distribute within the same region? Also, give an example of such "processing and distribution" problems in any of the other allied nations. And type in "Bengal Genocide" in google, it yields quite a few results. Jvalant 20:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Any wikipedian's own analysis of the event is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not an arbiter of fact. Genocide has been applied to a variety of situations with a variety of criteria by the UN, human rights organizations, historians, and activists. It's not up to us to decide whether this famine meets anyone's prefered definition, but we can call it such if there are multiple, reliable, independent sources calling it a genocide. Someguy1221 22:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

But won't these "multiple, reliable, independent sources" be based on the interpretation of facts by an average wikipedian? Some criteria has to be applied for definitions. By almost all definitions, this even would qualify as a genocide and not as a famine. Perhaps you can give me some definition of genocide which shows that this was indeed not a genocide? Jvalant 05:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Searching for a definition that meets my own expectations would be original research. Also, remember that even applying someone else's definition of a term to yet another individual's analysis or records is original synthesis, a type of OR also prohibited by WP:OR. Even if said definition comes from a source as reputable and notable as the UN. This is why I have been asking for sources that actually directly call this a genocide. I think this is all I am capable of explaining it. As to the sources, yes, there is always some subjectivity to it. But there are some more or less objective criteria that can be applied: more than one source; sources are not form the same author or publishing group; sources have experienced editorial oversight and/or peer review; source's publisher or author is itself preferably notable (this one is not a requirement, it just makes it easier). I generally assume a source to be reliable if these are met, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Someguy1221 05:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS is also a good read. Someguy1221 06:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I have found an academic who uses the term "holocaust" to describe this event. I propose we change the title to the Bengal Holocaust of 1943. Here is the link:

http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/2005/07/forgotten-holocaust-194344-bengal.html

Edwardosaido 14:12, 2 September 2007 (GMT).

This is not an academic source - it is a personal blog. Please don't move pages w/o consensus, and when consensus is reached, please don;t move just the Talk page of an article to the new name. Isarig 23:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the "Genocide" claim from the intro. We still have not seen a single non-Wikipedia source to refer to this as the "Bengal Genocide of 1943" let alone a reliable source that refers to this as a genocide. Arguments that the actions of the British meet one or another definition of genocide, no matter how valid, are original synthesis, pretty much to the letter (Bob says the British did bad things; John says bad things count as genocide; therefore, the British committed genocide). Someguy1221 19:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well...that's a problem. I shall have to change it right back. DemolitionMan 17:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Title

The article title as well as acceptable alternative titles to list in the introductory paragraph have been in dispute. Specifically, reference to this event as the "Bengal Genocide of 1943" is disputed. I believe the section above this one very clearly displays the opinions on each side of the debate. Someguy1221 19:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Bengal famine of 1943

Bengal famine of 1943 is an established name for the event, both in academic circles and encyclopedias. A search via Google Scholar shows many hits for "Bengal famine of 1943", for example:

• A Sample Survey of After-effects of the Bengal Famine of 1943, PC Mahalanobis, R Mukherjee, A Ghosh - 1946
• The Bengal Famine of 1943: re-examining the data, O Goswami - Indian Economic & Social History Review, 1990
• Ingredients of Famine Analysis: Availability and Entitlements -Amartya Sen - The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1981 (he got a Nobel economics prize for his work on the analysis of the famine)

... and many more.

In comparison, I don't see any entry for Bengal Genocide of 1943, other than some nationalistic blog rants. Case closed. --Ragib 20:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why was my edit removed?

There was no reason to remove my edit. It was relevant and well sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Led125 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, someone keeps on removing what I added. I have reverted this edit. What I added was well sourced and relevant. Would the person who removed please explain why s/he thinks it is somehow worthy of removal. [[Led125] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Led125 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I did so in my edit summary. Please bring the paragraphs here and we can discuss them point by point. Relata refero 16:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You'l have to forgive because I rarely contribute to wikipedia and so, to all intents and purposes am new here. I am unable to find your edit summary so if you'd be so kind as to reiterate your statement here we could discuss this. Led125 16:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologise. My concern was that it might consist of a misinterpretation of sources, which is why I think that looking at the lines one-by-one might be helpful. Please also do read WP:3RR. Relata refero 16:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph repeatedly inserted by Relata refero is incorrect in stating that Mountbatten was involved in famine relief. Mountbatten was appointed to command in South East Asia only in mid-1943. In 1942 he was still Chief of Staff of Combined Operations Command, in London. Wavell, as Commander in Chief in India and later as Viceroy was involved, and indeed prominent. The contributions by Led125 were properly sourced. HLGallon 16:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The famine lasted through till the winter of 1943, and IIRC took its greatest toll in the monsoon of that year.

I do not doubt that the additions are based on reliable sources; as I pointed out, I believe they are misinterpretations. Further, the Krishna Dutta book is a literary travel guide and not reliable for the purposes of political history, though reliable as an account of Ray and Sen's response. There are several other problems and a fairly obvious slant which can be discussed on a point-by-point basis with reference to peer-reviewed scholarship. Relata refero 16:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What cause to you have to suspect that it is a misinterpretation? If you have no cause then ultimately you don't have a case. I have not selectively quoted. Dutta's book was not intended to be used as a political and economic account of the famine, just to show what the opinions were of the Bengalis who were not starving (someone else specifically asked about this). Ray actually made a film about the famine so I think that was relevent. It can be found on google books. I would like you to explain how there is a slant. Led125

AS written the text uses Dutta's book to assign responsibility to the Bengal government, which is hardly the mainstream view - which is the slant I meant. I have no objection to Dutta's book being used to quote Ray's opinion that the Calcutta middle class was initially not particularly affected. That is, however, hardly relevant to the section dealing with 'failed response', but with 'cultural impact'. Relata refero 12:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. "Failed response" connotes the response of people and governments; it doesn't suggest that that response must be by the British. The Dutta source is used twice: once to quote Ray and once to say that the Bengal government had been Indianized. As you have no problem with Ray I can only assume your problem is with the fact that the Bengal government was Indianized. There is no way of getting around this: the Bengal government was mostly run by Indians. The passage, as it stands, does not absolve the British failure: it just mentions something that those nationalist blogs fail to mention. Did you look at the source on google books? Led125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Led125 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Ray quote does not belong in that section, as it serves there to imply that Ray or the Calcutta middle class had something to do with the response that 'failed'; for this Dutta is not a suitable source. As I said, Ray and co, can be used, with caution and with other sources, in a section on cultural impact.

I looked at the source on Google books, which is why I know that it is a travelogue. There are several other glaring failures in the book, incidentally.

About the Bengal government being 'Indianized', that is a fascinating statement of very great interest to the many scholars who have written much about the Government of India Act of 1935 and the degree to which state cabinets had or did not have power, and the number of subjects that were or were not devolved to provincial level, and which were or were not assumed by the Army following the declaration of war. I'm afraid a line from a travel guide doesn't cut it.

Finally, I am perplexed at your mention of nationalist blogs. A bit of a straw man, perhaps. Let us keep the focus firmly on the various ways in which your additions are untenable. Relata refero 18:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please point out these glaring errors. In addition to the travelogue there are Keay's "India: A History" and Tunselmann's "Indian Summer" say the the Bengal government was "Indianized". So they cut it? "Nationalist blog rants" was not directed at you. As for the rest of it, what is wrong with it? What evidence do you have that I am misinterpreting my sources? And yes, the Ray quote does belong here. It was asked for and it has been given. The response of the people of Calcutta is important and that is why it has been added. Led125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.52.22 (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Glaring errors in the rest of the book need not concern us further, since we have established the travelogue is not a reliable source. Please quote the section of Keay that (i) uses the word 'Indianized' in full (ii) links the composition of the Suhrawardy cabinet to the response to the Bengal famine (iii) implies it is responsible for the "failed response".

The Ray quote belongs in a section on cultural response, as I have said several times. I don't see how "someone asked for it" can be a reason to include it in a section where it is not relevant.

As for the rest of it, Bayly does not say, as far as I can tell that the Army did the 'best it could', and besides, the Army's charitable response is barely a fraction as important, according to mainstream studies, as hoarding following informational blackouts, the War Cabinet's actions in London and the refusal to change export targets, government expenditure, confiscation of boats and compulsory pricing. That is clear from Sen, from Bipin Chandra, and, indeed, from pretty much any mainstream source. Relata refero 20:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You two might consider trying to attract attention from the relevant Wikiprojects, or possibly filing an RFC or a RF3O, as it seems to me you differ on the fundamental bases of your arguments; no agreement can come from that. Someguy1221 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe we differ in nothing that a closer examination of reliable sources won't fix. Relata refero 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly let me just say that your own views on this subject seem slanted, to say the least. Not least this statement: "the Army's charitable response is barely a fraction as important, according to mainstream studies, as hoarding following informational blackouts, the War Cabinet's actions in London and the refusal to change export targets, government expenditure, confiscation of boats and compulsory pricing. That is clear from Sen, from Bipin Chandra, and, indeed, from pretty much any mainstream source." No doubt the army's response was not enough; and because that it wasn't enough doesn't absolve the civil service. I'll get back to you on Kaey as I don't own the book (it's in my local library) but I can tell you know it doesn't use the word "Indianized", it does, however, say much the same thing. Although at no point does this suggest that the Bengal government bear "sole responsibility" (I never suggested it did). Tunselmann actually says to converse with regards to the British!

The Army's private response was laudable, but hardly of significance in discussing administrative responses. After all, its charitable work did not cause it, or Whitehall, to rescind the orders for confiscation of shipping. The sole point I was making is that giving prominence to the Army's million free lunches is simply absurd given the scale of the disaster; the only real relevance is to indicate that the famine had an effect on the Army's morale (and, indeed, was possibly responsible for increased desertions to the Indian National Army.) If you wish to include the detail about the Army's charitable work, it should be expressed as precisely that: a detail, rather than to create a pleasant contrast between the ('British') Army and the ('Indian') ICS which doesn't exist in the sources. Relata refero 21:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You have said that the Ray quote does not belong here several times and, to be frank, I think you've been wrong several times.That whole section is about "response". Response is defined as "something constituting a reply or a reaction" (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/response) so how can it not be relevant. How would it be relevant to cultural impact as Ray's opinions at the time are hardly of a great cultural impact (not like his later films). Bayly and Harper actually discuss, in two pages, the response from the army. But what of my other stuff that was removed? Why did you remove that if your only problem was with the travelogue? Led125 "About the focus of the current article. It is mostly about the famine in the context of WW2 politics, British rule, economics, and other somewhat abstract matters. What about some more detail of the effect on Bengal at the time, for instance, what areas were worse affected, how did people react then, et.c.? Imc 18:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)". Ray is relevant where he is. Led125

That section deals mainly with the administrative response and why it caused no diminution in the effects of the famine. To include a Ray quote implies it has something to do with those matters, which is misleading.

If the desire is to discuss the impact on life in Calcutta, Keay discusses the fact that it caused an upsurge in Hindu-Muslim tension, which might be used. The Ray quote is used in the source to illustrate the motivation for his making a movie, and that's where it belongs in the article. Relata refero 21:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It discuesses response. That response can be the resonse of the people of Bengal, the administrative failure, the military, those who did nothing and those who tried to save lives. There is nothing in the title “the failed response” to connote that it is just talking about administration. To include the Ray quote just states what the response of some people of Caluctta was in this instance. It doesn’t suggest that Ray is to blame soley for it (I would like an explanation as to why you think that is the case). I see you didn’t actually move the Ray quote so it’s easy to wonder if you meant it to just disappear. I also see you removed what I added about Churchill, although why I don’t know as it is completely relevant to explaining why he acted in the way he did. Here is another source about “Indianized”: “The managing agents only succeeded in securing unconditional statutory support for the IJMA from the new indianized Bengal Provincial Government, elected in 1937 undre the terms of the 1935 constitution” (“Business, Race and Politics in British India” by Maria Misra p. 153. What Keay writes is “Bengal too had just had a change in government; the returning Muslim league was shaky and inexperienced” when it came to power before the famine (p. 504). Led125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Led125 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Point one: The Ray quote is relevant for his state of mind on reflection - which caused him to make his movie as well as -arguably, and I would generally disagree - for that of the Calcutta upper-class. Your claim that it belongs in a 'response' section that otherwise determines administrative action is absurd. If necessary, the article heading can be changed to overcome your objection; otherwise, it sticks out in the other items like a sore thumb.

POint two: What you said about Churchill was uncited, and there is ample evidence, from the Secretary of State for India's diaries, for one, that he was kept well-informed.

Point three: You seem to not know the fact that a provincial cabinet made up of natives existed did not imply that it had substantive power over policy, which is the point I attempted to make clear above by mentioning the Government of India Act 1935, which set up these cabinets but severely restricted their power. For one thing, the Indian Civil Service was not answerable to them. For another, they could not countermand or order any members of either the Indian or British Armies. For a third, they had no control over economic price-policy. Etc. Which is why it is misleading. Relata refero 07:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Point One: There is nothing in the title “The Failed Response” to imply, suggest, connote or out right say that “response” has to be from the administration. As I said earlier response just means what the reaction was by the military, administration and the people. Ray quote is just another response. However I note that at no point have you attempted to actually move the Ray quote, as opposed to simply removing it. Nor do I ‘claim’ that Ray had a substantial influence on the administration. To suggest otherwise is absurd. The article headline can be change, however we’d then have to add one for “response from military”, “response from people of Calcutta and Bengal” and it would just appear clumsy.

Point Two: What ‘’I’’ said about Churchill was well cited. What I suspect you are referring to is the bit where it says “Churchill’s knowledge remains a mystery”, which was in fact there before my edits. If your problem was just with that then you could have removed just that. But instead you removed the whole lot.

Point Three: Your problem was with the statement: “The Bengal government had been Indianized”. You said this was not properly cited and that my source wasn’t good enough. So I provided some more. It’s a fact. And nor is it the case that the Bengal government was simply too weak to react. Amartya Sen: “Nor are there any reasons to dispute the Famine Inquiry Commission’s indictment of the Bengal government for administrative bungling”. First you criticize what you see as: “assign responsibility to the Bengal government”, then you say that the Natives had no control and so are absolved from blame. Actually Tunzelmann shows that some ‘natives’ could be incompetent bunglers as well. Led125 19:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Point one: Response is not the same as reaction. If you substitute one for the other, you'll see "failed reaction" makes no sense whatsoever. The quote, if relevant at all, belongs in a section devoted to the effect that it had on the upper class in Calcutta. You appear to wish to put it in the same section as administrative and military bungling in order to claim that apathy on the part of those unaffected and active bungling by those in charge are similar in some way.

About Churchill, I removed non-reliable sources (google groups) and a rather pointless statement about Churchill's concern for Greece. Nobody claims that he had nothing on his mind.

POint Three: If you are at all listening, you will see at once that when somone refers to the "Bengal government" between 1935 and 1947 they can mean three different things: the Indianized cabinet; the Whitehall-appointed governor; and the local cadre, both Indian and English, of the Indian Civil Service. All three of these had vastly different powers. By putting the two statements in immediate succession, you oversimplify, mislead, and provide a slant. Relata refero 18:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My Collins English dictionary defines "responsive" as "readily reacting"; Dictionary.com defines it as “the state resulting from response”; “react” as “to act in response to an agent or influence”. Kernermann English multilingual dictionary defines “response” as “a reply or reaction”. Merriam-Webster defines “response” as “something constituting a reply or reaction”. AskOxford.com defines “response” as “an answer or reaction”. Your substitution argument is spurious and, for that matter, what difference is there between Ray’s apathy and the apathy shown by the administration? None whatsoever; aside from the obvious fact that Ray had no control over things. It was just his response. That Greece statement is totally relevant to explaining his mindset. It is not slanted nor is it misleading, nor is it an oversimplification to say that the Bengal government was Indianized. What is slanted are your attempts to slightly alter your disagreement. First you dispute that the Bengal government was Indianized, then you say it had no control over things, now you say that Bengal government can mean one of three things. Maria Misra and John Keay have said it and aside from quietly changing your argument you have provided nothing to actually dispute this. Alex Tunzelmann: “The blame for the famine cannot entirely be laid upon the British; for the government of Bengal was run by elected Indians.” I’ll note that on Ray you’ve also changed your opinion. When saying that it should be moved you refused to move it, now you question “if [its] relevant at all”. What the Ray quote shows is not the “effect” the famine produced on the upper class anymore than the administrative bungling as an effect.Led125 09:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My argument is not changed by your quotes from dictionaries: Ray's statement does not belong with accounts of administrative mismanagement. You have not replied to the central point: "You appear to wish to put it in the same section as administrative and military bungling in order to claim that apathy on the part of those unaffected and active bungling by those in charge are similar in some way," other than to claim they are indeed similar. They are not, but even if they were, one is not relevant to a discussion of the failure to prevent or ameliorate the famine on a policy scale.

Alex Tunzelmann's book is not published by a scholarly press, and her statement would need to be backed up (she is not even writing about the famine, but about 1947). I certainly think that she is quite ignorant of the mainstream thinking on this issue; she is not an academic historian.

How the hell is the claim that Churchill cared about the Greeks relevant to the fact that he didn't concern himself with the Bengalees?

About the "Indianized" thing: I do believe you are not listening.I have been consistent throughout, but if you feel I have not been, concentrate on responding to my last, clear statement. Namely there were three centres of authority in Bengal, and not all of them had equivalent or relevant spheres of power. Unless you can cite something to a reliable academic source specifically indicating what the Suhrawardy cabinet could have done and did not do, or the form in which their bungling took, I am afraid that you are persisting in adding a slant. Relata refero 12:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is what you wrote: “Response is not the same as reaction”. It is, or at least is very similar. Furthermore you have still failed to show what there is in the title “the Failed Response” to indicate that the response must be the administrative response. You have restated it over and over but have not actually substantiated the claim. Again, the Greece statement is relevant to explaining why he didn’t concern himself with the Bengalis. I am aware Alex Tunzelmann’s book is not published by a scholarly press and her book is not about the famine. You may think she is quite ignorant but you have not provided an iota of evidence to actually support this view. I have. Misra’s book is and it does say the same as Tunzelmann. Amatrya Sen also writes that the Bengal government is partly to blame. “The opposition was consistently demanding that famine should be declared…. Suhrawardy was adamant and instead of declaring famine committed his department to a food drive aimed at unearthing hoarded food grains” (“Communalism in Bengal” by Rakesh Batabyal p. 91). There is no slant. And no, you have not been consistent throughout. First you said: “AS written the text uses Dutta's book to assign responsibility to the Bengal government, which is hardly the mainstream view”, then you question the government being “Indianized”, then you say that the natives “had no power”. You've not been consistent.Led125 14:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Response implies that something that was supposed to be done, especially in the sense of 'failed response'. I would hardly, for example, expect that a section on an article on Darfur describing western reports of generalised apathy in the world be titled "the failed response" and include the reactions of individuals along with the actions of administrations and the UN. That would be inappropriate, as would any similar approach here

The Greece statement is hardly relevant, and exists merely to attempt to claim that Churchill was busy elsewhere. There was a war on, he is expected to be busy. It does not change the fact that he was kept informed; when put there it sounds particularly ridiculous, implying that Churchill was unhappy that Greeks died but careless that Bengalis did, which is grossly misleading.

I don't have to claim that Tunzelmann is grossly ignorant, even if she is, merely that she doesn't constitute a reliable source.

Amartya Sen discusses the Suhrawardy approach, and that should be in the article; as I said earlier, the fact that the famine was used in political maneuvring between Congress and League factions is extremely relevant. The League focussed on hoarding as a cause because of the perception that the trader class was mainly Hindu.

Again, instead of focussing on my perceived inconsistency over time, about which you are wrong, please try and answer the substantive point I have made, which is that using citations for the "bengal government" is not useful unless it is clear which administrative apparatus is being referred to. Relata refero 11:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree strongly about the response part of what you say. I have already adequetly demonstrated that response and reaction can be one and the same thing and are in this case. Also, if the Darfur article did have a section that was entitled “failed response” and a prominent person spoke out that there should be no intervention then it would be relevant. The Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse article, or example, lists some of those responses (under a bigger heading entitled “reaction”). So on that point your wrong. You are also wrong about your inconsistensy. Actually it is well known (and adequetly cited) that Churchill didn’t care about the Bengalis and part of that reason was that he was preoccupied with the Greeks. S. Gopal: “he believed the starvation of Bengalis, who were anyhow underfed, was less important than that of sturdy Greeks”. I never deleted (presumably) you addition of his response to a note from Mountbatten. So I am not misleaing. It is you who are misleading. Again, the only point you seem to have some legitamate quarrel with the part at the start, which was in there before and which someone had edited to the point where it was just half complete, thus making no sense. If you have a problem with it I won’t mind you removing ‘’just’’ that. You have also got nothing to show Alex Tunzelmann is an unreliable source. In fact the source for something you presumably added also cites Tunzelmann.Nobody, as far as I know, disputes what she writes about the famine. People have disputed what Amartya Sen writes about the famine but we still consider him a reliable source. Now, Sen doesn’t actually mention Suhrawardy in his book “Poverty and Famines”, however he does say that the fat that the famine was not declared played a big role in the fact that it was as severe as it was. He cites a statement by the British governor T. Rutherford explaining that this was not done due to a lack of food to give to the prescribed ration. I have already provided a source saying that Suhrawardy was also adament that famine should not be declared, and I could provide another explaining why he felt, and the Bengal government felt, that this should be the case. Led125 15:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

1. You have not demonstrated any such thing; there remains no reason that apathy among those not affected and administrative non-reaction should be in the same section. Obviously "speaking out against intervention" is a false analogy.
2. Whether I am 'misleading' is irrelevant. Churchill's views on the Greeks are irrelevant. If you feel that Gopal's line implies that he thought that the Bengali diet made them more resistant to famine, then please feel free introduce that, though I think it sounds ridiculous.
3. Alex Tunzelmann is not publishing about the famine, and is not publishing in an academic source. Her book's one of pop history. The Bengal Famine is one of the most studied incidents in history, we don't need to pick up marginal notes in an unrelated non-academic book to support a particular POV.
4. Go ahead, talk about suhrawardy and the remaining response of the government. As I have made clear, the communal ramifications to the famine are of interest. Relata refero (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I have already demonstrated beyond a reasonably doubt why this is relevant. My analogy is not false. It is just that your own analogy has been complemented with another. Again, you have been unable to prove why it should not be in the article. Unless you can do so then you’ve got not case. 2. I am sorry but the fact that you are misleading is not ‘’irrelevant’’. If is totally relevant and quite bizarre that someone would suggest that being misleading is irrelevant. Gopal shows what his beliefs were, however incorrect his beliefs may be. I will take her word over yours. 3. That she is not an academic, or here a scholarly press did not publish book, does not automatically mean she is wrong. You’ve shown nothing to demonstrate she is wrong. I have then gone to the effort to find books that were published by scholarly presses to prove that she is not incorrect. I did this. So even if you are not happy with Tunzelmann there are other sources that are more than adequate. 4. The Suhrawardy response i.e. the response of the Indians in the Bengal government seems to be the thing you keep on removing. I suspect ehre that our difference here is due to wording so I’ll try and re-word it once I get the opportunity.Led125 (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I have not said that a mention of Ray's remarks should not be in the article; I have said that if you wish to include them, they should be in a section discussing cultural memories of the event. Conflating Ray's discussion with administrative reaction is confusing and inappropriate, and you have not demonstrated why they should be in the same section.
2. Sarvepalli Gopal is a man, and if you wish to introduce Churchill's views on Bengali diet as mentioned by Gopal, go ahead. I am tired of pointing out that I have been consistent in insisting on proper references.
3. That Tunzelmann is not 'wrong' is irrelevant to the fact that she is not a suitable academic source for the power relations in Bengal in 1942. If you wish to discuss those issues, you need a suitable reference that indicates which of the power centres in Bengal had which power. Otherwise it is the equivalent of, for example, saying "Although the previous elections had ensured a Republican victory, the United States bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1998", implying that one centre of power (Congress) had control over a certain aspect (the bombing campaign) which they did not. Relata refero (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
4. The only thing that I remove relevant to the Muslim League govt of the time is the Famine Code part. I fully believe that some mention of that is relevant, but it must be worded appropriately, indicating the political pressures involved, what alternative provisions were made, what the impact of it was, and not properly placing it in the context of the more essential forms of famine relief. Absent that, its a particularly obvious slant. Relata refero (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1. You did question its relevancy. What you wrote was “The quote, if relevant at all, belongs in a section devoted to the effect that it had on the upper class in Calcutta”. Like I said there is absolutely nothing in the title “The Failed Response” to indicate that it is dealing solely with administrative errors. You provided a weak Darfur analogy and then I provided one about Abu Grahib. I have already adequately explained why it should remain in the section (as it was his “response”), it is you that have failed to show why 1) Response is only talking about the administration and 2) why Ray’s response is not really a response but a “reaction” or merely an “effect”. 2. You’ve been consistent in saying that it is irrelevant, you’ve failed to show why it’s not relevant though. 3. You wrote “That Tunzelmann is not 'wrong' is irrelevant to the fact that she is not a suitable academic source for the power relations in Bengal in 1942”, so I’ll take this as a subtle admission that Tunzelmann is in fact right. You’ve dismissed out of hand my sources which do say that the Bengal government had a substantial Indian participation and that these Indians bear some responsibility for the failures. As for your Belgrade bombing analogy the military cannot bomb a city without some form of approval from the government. 4. I do fail to see how a slant is present in the way it is however I’ll try and re-word it when I get the opportunity.Led125 (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1. As I said before: "The quote, if relevant at all, belongs in a section devoted to the effect that it had on the upper class in Calcutta. You appear to wish to put it in the same section as administrative and military bungling in order to claim that apathy on the part of those unaffected and active bungling by those in charge are similar in some way". You are yet to respond. My Darfur analogy was exact; your Abu Ghraib analogy was incorrect, as that article clearly puts them in different sections. The administration is supposed to respond, and its administrative and amelioratory response is the central question; the effect on the population and on cultural memory is a separate matter.
2. I have twice now pointed out that proper sectioning, proper sourcing, and a lack of slant are all I require.
3. "I’ll take this as a subtle admission that Tunzelmann is in fact right." Nonsense, its actually to point out that I have no interest in the rights and wrongs, merely in the sourcing to appropriate authorities. As it happens, she's inaccurate.
4. I have not dismissed any sources "out of hand". I have pointed out that there are ample reasons that in a reliable source, a reference to the "bengal government" must be related to which particular part of it is under discussion, if your intention is to try and shift responsibility around. And my Belgrade example was to point out that while the statement "Although the previous elections had ensured a Republican victory, the United States bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1998" is factually correct, it implies that Congress had control over the bombing campaign. The US government had control over the bombing campaign, but the Department of Defence did not answer to Congress. A similar point is relevant in your 'sources'. Relata refero (talk) 09:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I have responded. The Ray quote is not indicative of an “effect” the famine produced. If apathy were an effect then the administrative bungling would also qualify as an “effect”. It is his response, which is why it belongs in a section dealing with response. There is nothing in the title “The Failed Response” to suggest it is dealing solely with the administration’s response. You’ve made this claim a number of times, I have asked you to say why you feel this is the case and you have not done so. Your Darfur analogy was pathetic and not least because the situation was purely hypothetical. My Abu Ghraib analogy was exact as it shows that responses, even indifferent ones, belong in a larger section entitled “reactions”. The Darfur article dealing with the reaction of the international community does not support your argument in any way. If the Ray quote was dealing with the legacy of the famine then you’d be right, however he is recollecting his opinions at the time (his response), and so you are wrong.
2. Proper sourcing has been provided. You’ve first claimed that I have misinterpreted my sources however you failed to show why this is the case. You have also failed to demonstrate why you feel there is a slant. I see no slant. It could be argued that removing a fact is indeed giving it a slant
3. If something is “not wrong” then by default it is right. You’ve claimed she is wrong but have failed to refute it with facts or a source for those facts. I have found other sources that agree that the Bengal government was ‘Indianized’. As for ‘relevant sources’: that article by Pankai Mishra is not about the famine either. It is about the legacy of the Indian partition and relies on Tunzelmann as a source. To say that Tunzelmann is not relevant but then cite an article also not relevant by any reasonable standards and citing Tunzelmann on several occasions is a double standard bordering on hypocrisy.
4. I don’t quite see what you’re trying to prove with that Belgrade analogy. Are you trying to say that the bombing campaign was conducted without the approval of Congress, or Congress has no say in where the US gets involved in militarily? Or are you saying that a lower level position could act on its own initiative in such an extreme case and therefore more senior levels of government are powerless to stop it? The bombing of Yugoslavia wouldn’t have occurred without the approval of governments to get involved in the conflict.Led125 (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

1. "There is nothing in the title “The Failed Response” to suggest it is dealing solely with the administration’s response." Yes there is. The word "failed".
2. I've said before, the title can be changed. The point is that the cultural effect and administrative actions should not be conflated. "Media coverage" - which is hardly analogous - and UN reaction are kept separate in the Darfur article. You are yet to give a reason why they should not be so here.
3. I've pointed out that it doesn't matter on WP whether Tunzelmann is right or wrong. What matters is that she is not a reliable source in this case, for this point, in this article.
4. You miss the point about Belgrade; I believe when you get it, you'll understand what you're doing wrong. Saying that the Congress was Republican at the time of the bombing implies that the two facts are connected, whereas US administrative separation of powers is such that Congress does not supervise the mechanics of the bombing campaign. Similarly, the fact that one part - the least powerful part - of the "Bengal government" was predominantly native doesn't mean that their specific powers and responsibilities overlapped significantly with famine-related powers and responsibilities. Implying that it did is not permissible on WP. Relata refero (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The word “failed” does not in itself connote administration. It says that the response was not sufficient to end the famine. I’ll change the title to “Response” which hopefully will resolve any disputes on that front.
2. You’ve claimed Tunzelmann is not reliable, however you’ve done nothing and provided nothing to support this claim. You also fail to address the article by Pankai Mishra. As it is not about the famine either (and relies on Tunzelmann) it should also be removed. And this still leaves my other sources which agree with Tunzelmann.
3. I understand what you’re trying to say, I just don’t agree with it. I have already provided a number of sources which agree that the ‘Indianized’ sections of the Bengal Government were also culpable. Maria Mishra, in her book “Vishnu’s Crowded Temple: India Since the Great Rebellion” she writes that the Bengal Government had been ‘Indianized’ and was also culpable for the disastrous response to the famine (the native sections as well as the European). I have also provided another source which says that Suhrawardy refused to declare a famine and so was, to some degree, culpable. Also the opposition to Suhrawardy condemned him and his official’s reactions to the famine. Why would they have done this if he had been utterly powerless to stop it? It is not as if there was no precedent to native officials such as Suhrawardy acting decisively to avert a famine (they did so in 1907).Led125 (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

1. No it won't, I'm afraid. This famine is frequently studied, and those studies focus on why it happened, and what governments can do to ensure that it doesn't happen again. Putting otherwise interesting information about Ray in with the bread-and-butter content of the article, namely administrative action and its consequences (or lack thereof) is simply inappropriate. Any title that includes both is so broad as to be essentially meaningless. Call it what you want, but they must be in separate sections.
2. Tunzelmann, once again, was not published by an academic press, which is my primary objection. Henry Holt is a well-known publisher, but do not know whether its fact-checking or editorial review compares to academic standards. Mishra's article, however, was published by the New Yorker, which is generally supposed to have top-class editorial review. In any case, if you wish to remove that particular reference, that telegram is widely known - I don't think Tunzelmann quotes it, actually, Mishra is reproducing it from elsewhere - we can use Panigrahi's classic study of the 1940s, which is published by Routledge, if necessacry.
3. About the culpability of Suhrawardy, as I've said before, all I ask for is clarity of sourcing, and to ensure that when people talk about the "bengal government" we know what they mean. That Suhrawardy refused to declare a famine is certainly a well-known and well-studied fact, and should be in the article. What should also be in the article is the possible reasons for it, and the political tension that would set it in context. (as for why the Opposition condemned his refusal, they recognised it as politics-as-usual, which is what they were similarly playing: trying to give the responsibility for the famine a communal dimension. There's work on that that is needed for context. Its just that I cannot accept a single line saying that the Bengal government was Indianized and it was inefficient as well. Each organ of the government did something wrong, including the Army, and we need to spell that out, also including the degree to which some actions are considered more causative than others. Relata refero (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I must disagree. Putting the Ray quote in another part of the article, unless it is specifically about Ray, would be unnecessary. The Irish Potato Famine article has the reaction of some Irish men in the same overall section as the administrative failure. The article heading “response” does not imply it is dealing solely with administration as if it was then it wouldn’t mention military, public charity etc. All it suggests is what people thought, did and did not do. Ray’s quote is relevant for that. On reflection I agree it should be balanced with something else showing the charity of other people of Calcutta. However to say it is irrelevant to the section of the article dealing with “response” is not true.
2. You’ve said many times Tunzelmann was not published by an academic press. You have also said that you “think that she is quite ignorant of the mainstream thinking on this issue” and “she is not a reliable source”. So I went to the effort to find other sources to corroborate what Tunzelmann wrote and I found them (some published by an academic press). The New Yorker, is just a magazine, whether it’s articles are known for being top quality does not make academicially rigourous or indeed reliable at all. Pankaj is not an actual historian, he is just a written and as far as I know he has no formal history qualifications. And yes, the telegram does appear in Tunzelmann’s book, that wasn’t what my disagreement was. So I wouldn’t be surprised if Mishra was re-producing it from there. It was with the use of Pankaj’s article if Tunzelmann’s account is not to be trusted. If you want to find another source, go ahead and find one, I know the telegram exists.Be aware though that I have already corroborated what Tunzelmann writes with other sources as well.
3. The sources I have got said explictely about the Bengal government being ‘Indianized’, Wikipedia is not designed to sugar coat the facts, they must tell them as they are and the fact is that the Bengal government was Indianized to a signifcant degree and therefore what is in the article is accurate. Maria Mishra has said it, and the culpability is Suhrawardy has been mentioned and the culpability of the Bengal government as a whole has been pointed to. Saying that the Bengal government was ‘Indianized’ “and inefficient as well” is totally acceptable, because it was ‘Indianized’ and wholly inefficient when it came to delaing with the famine. I think you’re right about getting some context into the article so we should mention wartime pressures and the inexperience of the government, the lack of a famine code and the food shortages throughout India which prevented other parts of India sending food to Bengal. I also agree that some of the wording could be changed, however I can’t do this at the moment until I get some free time.Led125 (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)