PeerReviewBot (talk | contribs) Archiving peer review (bot task 1) |
Zuggernaut (talk | contribs) →Churchill quote: Replies to Johnuniq and Snowded |
||
Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
[[Bengal famine of 1943]] includes more UNDUE factoids mentioning Churchill but with no hint that World War II might have been influencing Churchill's decisions. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 09:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
[[Bengal famine of 1943]] includes more UNDUE factoids mentioning Churchill but with no hint that World War II might have been influencing Churchill's decisions. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 09:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
: Well, in a discussion of government policy, mention Churchill isn't necessarily undue. BTW, here are two more sources, written as reviews of Mukherjee's book: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/10/how_churchill_starved_india.html] [http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/reviewofbooks_article/9943/]. I haven't checked if they're usable; just mentioning them. [[User:Shreevatsa|Shreevatsa]] ([[User talk:Shreevatsa|talk]]) 09:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
: Well, in a discussion of government policy, mention Churchill isn't necessarily undue. BTW, here are two more sources, written as reviews of Mukherjee's book: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/10/how_churchill_starved_india.html] [http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/reviewofbooks_article/9943/]. I haven't checked if they're usable; just mentioning them. [[User:Shreevatsa|Shreevatsa]] ([[User talk:Shreevatsa|talk]]) 09:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
:World War II is more or less European history and I think its a distraction in this discussion. We need to focus on the famine of 1943 and Churchill's connection. Bringing in the connections to World War II and Nazism is Eurocentric. That may damage an article on Indian famines due to an unintentional but inherent [[Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus|bias]] by trying to justify Churchill's views. While we are at it, according to Anupam Srivastav living in Albany, NY, Winston Churchill was akin to [[Adolf Hitler]] to Indians who "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121029983015579867.html#articleTabs%3Darticle hold the British in general, and Mr. Churchill in particular, responsible for the tragic deaths of millions in the great Bengal famine of 1943"]. [[User:Zuggernaut|Zuggernaut]] ([[User talk:Zuggernaut|talk]]) 16:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::I have no objection to debunking the various Churchill myths but it has to be balanced and appropriate. We also need to remember that Mukherjee is a journalist writing a book from a particular perspective. Its also fairly recent and academics have not yet commented on it in much depth (and they may not). Interesting that the Bengal article has similar problems with this one, in that a PoV position that democracies do not have famines is given undue prominence. --[[User:Snowded|<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">'''Snowded'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK</font>]]</sup></small> 09:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
::I have no objection to debunking the various Churchill myths but it has to be balanced and appropriate. We also need to remember that Mukherjee is a journalist writing a book from a particular perspective. Its also fairly recent and academics have not yet commented on it in much depth (and they may not). Interesting that the Bengal article has similar problems with this one, in that a PoV position that democracies do not have famines is given undue prominence. --[[User:Snowded|<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">'''Snowded'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK</font>]]</sup></small> 09:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::Neither have academics rejected any of her claims. In fact she has received world-wide reviews for the book, nearly all of which single out and discuss the proposed content. The table below lists some of the numerous sources that have reviewed her book as well as some other independent non-Mukherjee sources. |
|||
:::{|class="wikitable" |
|||
!Media organization!!Source type!!Highlight/Summary |
|||
|- |
|||
|Australian Broadcasting Corporation||[http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s19040.htm Non-Mukherjee]||The famine in British-ruled Bengal in 1943-44 ultimately took the lives of about 4 million people. The speaker talks of how this man-made famine is absent from the history books and virtually unknown to most people. |
|||
|- |
|||
|Time Magazine||[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2031992,00.html Book review]||Churchill's only response to a telegram from the government in Delhi about people perishing in the famine was to ask why Gandhi hadn't died yet. |
|||
|- |
|||
|Rediff News||[http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-churchill-bengal-famine-madusree-mukerjee/20101204.htm Book review]||Could a man applauded for his courage in standing up to Adolf Hitler have had such contempt for another race that he did not change policies that led to starvation and death of at least three million? |
|||
|- |
|||
|Zee News||[http://www.zeenews.com/news654582.html Book Review]||The book notes that Churchill had a profound contempt of native Indians especially Mahatma Gandhi who for him came to represent a "malignant subversive fanatic" and a "thoroughly evil force." He had remarked in a conversation, "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." |
|||
|- |
|||
|The Telegraph (Calcutta)||[http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101219/jsp/calcutta/story_13317289.jsp Book Review]|| While it is known that the British prime minister during World War II nursed a hatred towards Indians “who bred like rabbits”, it still comes as a shock that shiploads of wheat from Australia bypassed the Indian subcontinent to head for the Balkan states to add to the stockpile of foodgrain there. |
|||
|- |
|||
|BBC - The Open University||[http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/bengalfamine_programme.html Non-Mukherjee]||Audio |
|||
|- |
|||
|The Independent||[http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/churchills-secret-war-by-madhusree-mukerjee-2068698.html Book Review]||Mukerjee has researched this forgotten holocaust with great care and forensic rigour. Mining an extensive range of sources, she not only sheds light on the imperial shenanigans around the famine, but on a host of related issues, such as the flowering of nationalism in famine-hit districts, Churchill's fury about the sterling credit that India was piling up in London, or the dreadful situation in the villages even after the famine was technically over. |
|||
|- |
|||
|NPR||[http://topics.npr.org/article/0fAkbR08879cy Book Review]||The British government had drawn up the Indian Famine Codes during the 1880s to help avoid famine and food scarcity following natural disasters. In October 1942, when there were signs of food scarcity following a cyclone, these codes were not invoked. As economists Jean Drèze and Amartya Sen have said earlier in their book, the famine was "simply not declared" by the British government. |
|||
|- |
|||
|The Sydney Morning Herald||[http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/book-blames-churchill-for-indian-famine-that-killed-millions-20100908-150o6.html Book Review]||The "man-made" famine has long been one of the darkest chapters of the British Raj, but now Madhusree Mukerjee says she has uncovered evidence that Churchill was directly responsible for the appalling suffering. |
|||
|- |
|||
|The Hindu||[http://www.thehindu.com/arts/books/article865340.ece Book Review]||He was bitterly determined to hold on to India; he hated Indians, and intended that they remain subjects for all time. With sources ranging from official documents to first-hand accounts of the Bengal famine, Madhusree Mukerjee brings out the consequences for India, and thereby for hundreds of millions of people. |
|||
|- |
|||
|Outlook||[http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?266849 Book Review]||Mukerjee holds Churchill responsible for “deliberately deciding to let Indians starve”. |
|||
|- |
|||
|The Hindu||[http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mag/2005/06/05/stories/2005060500170300.htm Non-Mukherjee]||On August 4, 1944, after four years of suffering these outbursts, Amery wrote that "I am by no means sure whether on this subject of India he (Churchill) is really quite sane ... ". |
|||
|- |
|||
|BBC||[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/10/how_churchill_starved_india.html Book Review]||"Apparently it is more important to save the Greeks and liberated countries than the Indians and there is reluctance either to provide shipping or to reduce stocks in this country," writes Sir Wavell in his account of the meetings. Mr Amery is more direct. "Winston may be right in saying that the starvation of anyhow under-fed Bengalis is less serious than sturdy Greeks, but he makes no sufficient allowance for the sense of Empire responsibility in this country," he writes. |
|||
|- |
|||
|Hindustan Times||[http://www.hindustantimes.com/V-for-Vendetta/Article1-604268.aspx Book Review]||He saw himself as the lion hunting rabbits — in this case Indians who bred like rabbits. With his advisors and the distorted wisdom of a Victorian-era racism that should have been long past, Churchill blamed the famine on fecund Indians, invoked both Malthus and social Darwinism, and disparaged India as a society that sat out the war while Britain sacrificed blood and treasure. |
|||
|- |
|||
|The Independent||[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html Non-Mukherjee]||Many of his colleagues thought Churchill was driven by a deep loathing of democracy for anyone other than the British and a tiny clique of supposedly superior races. |
|||
|- |
|||
|The New York Times||[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/books/review/Hari-t.html?pagewanted=all Non-Mukherjee]||He later added: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” This hatred killed. In 1943, to give just one example, a famine broke out in Bengal, caused, as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proven, by British mismanagement. |
|||
|- |
|||
|The New York Times||[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/books/review/Chotiner-t.html Non-Mukherjee]||At the same time, his rhetorical exertions (he claimed that Indians were “a beastly people with a beastly religion”) were backed up by policies nothing short of criminal. Gandhi and Nehru were both imprisoned in 1942. The following year a calamitous famine in Bengal left three million people dead. |
|||
|- |
|||
|Wall Street Journal||[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121029983015579867.html#articleTabs%3Darticle Letter]||"...They hold the British in general, and Mr. Churchill in particular, responsible for the tragic deaths of millions in the great Bengal famine of 1943..." |
|||
|- |
|||
|The Pioneer||[http://www.dailypioneer.com/297895/Churchill%E2%80%99s-Bengal-famine.html Book Review]||The high point of Mukherjee’s indictment — and the lowest point of imperial rule — is the Bengal Famine when an estimated three million people died. Haunting memory of that man-made tragedy, there hangs before me as I write one of M Braun’s tinted sepia photographs of eight skeletal forms in attitudes of abject despair. |
|||
|- |
|||
|The Times of India||[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Winston-Churchill-to-blame-for-Bengal-famine-Book/articleshow/6521955.cms Book Review]|| |
|||
Her book, "Churchill's Secret War", quotes previously unused papers that disprove his claim that no ships could be spared from the war and that show him brushing aside increasingly desperate requests from British officials in India. |
|||
|- |
|||
|HNN||[http://hnn.us/articles/129891.html Book Review]||It decided instead that around 75,000 tons of Australian wheat would be transported to Ceylon and the Middle East each month for the rest of 1943, to supply the war effort; and a further 170,000 tons would pass by famine-stricken India en-route to a supply center in the Mediterranean region, there to be stored for future consumption in southeastern Europe. |
|||
|} [[User:Zuggernaut|Zuggernaut]] ([[User talk:Zuggernaut|talk]]) 16:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:28, 19 December 2010
|
December 2010 copy edits
What were the "Temple tests"? This is mentioned in the section "British response." --Diannaa (Talk) 01:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think these relate to the British Lieutenant-Governor, Sir Richard Temple's criterion for eligibility of Indians to receive the benefits of famine relief (mainly meals). I will research further and add in brief. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of Maharashtra famine (1973) success story
I've reverted back User:Jamesinderbyshire's deletion of the Maharasthra famine success story because it is a landmark in the elimination of famines in India. This is a universally known fact but I've added back the content with sources. Feel free to discuss here. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Bihar famine of 1966-7
I am replacing User:Jamesinderbyshire's claim of 200,000 deaths in the Bihar famine of 1966-7 with a subjective "very small number". The Government of India claims a number as less as 0.00117 million and the Indian media at that time contested this number. It is very possible that the Government of India wasn't accurate in reporting the numbers, to put it mildly. But the Indian media isn't accurate either given their habit of sensationalizing issues. It is very likely that the reality was somewhere in-between. This fact is reflected in the majority of sources which refrain from taking an objective view. They simply use words like "very small", "relatively few", "small", "no significant increase in infant mortality", etc. This is because there isn't consensus in academia about the number of deaths in that famine. We at Wikipedia should stick to following the majority view of describing the deaths in a subjective manner. A detailed discussion with a listing of sources is at the talk page of the relevant template. -Zuggernaut (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- I put forward an academic source (two population geographers) who state that the research indicates an excess mortality of 200,000. All you've put forward by way of counter-argument are vague statements about "very few deaths". Quality academic research is always going to win the day in the end. I will change it back if you can't come up with something more concrete as at the moment there is no view put forward to prove that source wrong. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- The source you've brought to the table is not the mainstream view. Sorry, I have to copy-paste from the talk page of the relevant template but here's a detailed list of sources:
Paraphrased quote/Data Source/Publication/Book Government statistics for the number of estimated deaths for Bihar famine: 1177 Drèze, Jean (1991), "Famine Prevention in India", in Drèze, Jean; Sen, Amartya, The Political Economy of Hunger: Famine prevention, Oxford: Oxford University Press US, p 59, ISBN 9780198286363 Dyson and Maharatna (1991) did not find any significant increase in infant mortality during the Bihar famine. Population And Poverty in Naunihal Singh, Mittal Publications, 2002, ISBN 9788170998488 p. 112 "There were very small number of starvation deaths in even Bihar." Population Challenge And Family Welfare, S.M. Mehta, Anmol Publications PVT. LTD., 2001, ISBN 9788126109692 p. 143 "There were relatively few deaths in the Bihar famine." Lancaster, H.O (1990), Expectations of life: a study in the demography, statistics, and history of world mortality, Springer-Verlag, ISBN 9780387971056 "The Bihar famine was averted by employing various famine prevention measures such as improving communication abilities, issuing famine bulletins over the radio, offering employment to those affected by famine in government public works projects and by importing food from other states and from the United States." London School of Economics and Political Science; Gupta, S.P.; Stern, N.H.; Hussain, A.; Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (1995), Development patterns and institutional structures: China and India, Allied Publishers, ISBN 9788170234197 "The number of deaths in the Bihar famine were small compared to the previous famines of the British era." Maharatna, A (1996), The demography of famines: an Indian historical perspective, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780195637113 "The number of deaths in the Bihar famine was very small and it demonstrated the ability of the Indian government to deal with the worst of circumstances." Mehta, S.M (2001), Population Challenge And Family Welfare, Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd, ISBN 9788126109692
- Zuggernaut (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Says you. Others say otherwise. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by User:Jamesinderbyshire
Recent edits by Jamesinderbyshire are begining to look disruptive.
- Jamesinderbyshire's edit summary of a recent deletion reads "This is already covered elsewhere in the article and contains poor grammar unworthy of the main Wikipedia" is not an appropriate way of editing on Wikipedia. If the grammar is poor then it could have been fixed instead of deleting it entirely. Continuing an already ongoing and acitve disucssion on the talk page would have been even better. I do not think that the exact same content is covered elsewhere as he claims in the edit summary.
- In another deletion, Jamesinderbyshire removed an entire section in response to some recent addtions deleting along with it valuable content, most of which had been stable for months. When performing such deletion of sourced content (both new and long standing), Jamesinderbyshire needs to initiate a discussion on the talk page per WP:BRD.
- In an earlier edit Jamesinderbyshire violated WP:BRD and instead pre-emptively accused me of edit warring when he was the one who edited content that was stable for several months.
The article is undergoing a good article review and these disruptive edits along with the "edit warring" can potentially be seen as an attempt to preclude meeting of criterion #5 of the good article criteria. Such behavior could be an attempt to game the system to prevent this article from achieving good article status.
In the past I had to utilize ANI against Jamesinderbyshire for the use of ficticious references which I thought was also an attempt to game the system.
I am bringing back the Bihar famine section and will assume good faith one last time but if this pattern of editing continues without initiating a talk page discussion for deletion of sourced content and without attempting to revolve issues on talk pages or without displaying competence, we will have to reluctantly re-visit ANI. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Churchill quote
The paragraph below was deleted in October 2010 but it's a substantial piece of new information on the Bengal famine of 1943 that can enhance the article.
“ | According to a book authored by Madhusree Mukherjee, Winston Churchill deliberately ignored pleas for emergency food aid for millions in Bengal and left them to starve causing the deaths of millions. Mukherjee attributes Churchill's behavior to his racist views, who is known to have made statements like "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." Mukherjee suggests that Churchill's racist hatred toward Indians was due to his loving for the British Empire which he would rather destroy than let go.(Nelson:2010:p 1) | ” |
Does anyone have any objections in bring it back with or without modifications? Zuggernaut (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- The proposed text places too much importance on Churchill, and would lead many readers to the mistaken conclusion that a primary cause for famines in India was racism. It is well known that many people from Churchill's era had odious outlooks, but Churchill made lots of gruesome decisions during World War II based solely on his commitment to defeating Nazism. While several books claim Churchill should have done this, or should have done that, we will never know whether the appalling decisions made during that world war were essential or negligent, so the proposed text is WP:UNDUE. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- The Bengal famine of 1943 is one of the most analyzed famines in history and it's cause is known to be policy failure and war. The article makes that part clear. The source does not suggest that the racism was the cause of the famine. Neither does it suggest that racism was the cause of all famines in India. It does clearly say that Churchill's racist views were the the reason that the food was diverted away from India and that this decision may have affected famine relief. We need not get in to the peripheral topics such as racism or the war but the source is an important one which adds another dimension and important facts such as:
- That food aid was asked for, offered by foreign countries but rejected.
- That Churchill hated Indians because of their race that this had a role to play in his decisions relating to the Bengal famine of 1943.
- Churchill was the Prime Minister, hence we cannot say we are placing too much importance on him. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- The Bengal famine of 1943 is one of the most analyzed famines in history and it's cause is known to be policy failure and war. The article makes that part clear. The source does not suggest that the racism was the cause of the famine. Neither does it suggest that racism was the cause of all famines in India. It does clearly say that Churchill's racist views were the the reason that the food was diverted away from India and that this decision may have affected famine relief. We need not get in to the peripheral topics such as racism or the war but the source is an important one which adds another dimension and important facts such as:
- It would be good if a reference to this is included, but I think it should be worded in a way such that it doesn't take away the focus from Famines. I don't know if I'm making much sense here, but I feel it should not make Churchill's comments the central point. MikeLynch (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think we need the actual quote is required to demonstrate attitude toward indians - this particular quote was made in September 1940 - well before the famine began. We should use this reference to say Churchill had racist beliefs toward Indians/Hindus and some scholars contend it affected his Bengal famine policy. But this quote (and others like this one, where he has expressed disdain towards india and indians) will be a distraction here.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- PS: A search through gbooks reveals conflicting dates for this quote. I am getting 1940, 42, 43 and even 44 as possible dates in different books. --Sodabottle (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I too think that, given the section as it stands, the entire quote would be highly undue. If there were already a section on the policy decisions that contributed to the famine (and perhaps there ought to be), then a mention within that section, in its appropriate context, may work. As it stands, at most, the article says "According to the Irish economist and professor Cormac Ó Gráda, priority was given to military considerations, and the poor of Bengal were left unprovided for" and maybe one could add "The author Madhusree Mukherjee attributes this to racism on Churchill's part" (with details in a footnote) — but even that may be too much. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Undue is correct. The para talks about Churchhill, not about the famine. A one line is acceptable. That aside, I see some not-so-subtle attempt at diverting the issue by Zuggernaut. Churchhills quote does'nt say "Hindus are..." so he could have well been talking about all Indians, Hindu or not. But Zuggergnaut uses the quote "Hindus are a beastly people with a beastly religion". That is very pathetic canvassing. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Sodabottle, MikeLynch and Shreevatsa - we can keep the focus on famines and add the one line about how Mukherjee thinks that Churchill's racist views may have played a role in the decision making. Madhushree Mukherjee has done the work for us and established the links so we need not try to get in to the details of what year he uttered the quote. A re-read of my post, the presented source and an attempt to grasp the issue might help Deepak change his mind. Reading Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification closely may also help. Zuggernaut (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Deepak, this is undue, a single source and out of context. There have been consistent problems with this article in selective and unbalanced use of authorities, lets not add to them. The heading by the way is a form of canvassing, not very professional --Snowded TALK 08:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Bengal famine of 1943 includes more UNDUE factoids mentioning Churchill but with no hint that World War II might have been influencing Churchill's decisions. Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, in a discussion of government policy, mention Churchill isn't necessarily undue. BTW, here are two more sources, written as reviews of Mukherjee's book: [1] [2]. I haven't checked if they're usable; just mentioning them. Shreevatsa (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- World War II is more or less European history and I think its a distraction in this discussion. We need to focus on the famine of 1943 and Churchill's connection. Bringing in the connections to World War II and Nazism is Eurocentric. That may damage an article on Indian famines due to an unintentional but inherent bias by trying to justify Churchill's views. While we are at it, according to Anupam Srivastav living in Albany, NY, Winston Churchill was akin to Adolf Hitler to Indians who "hold the British in general, and Mr. Churchill in particular, responsible for the tragic deaths of millions in the great Bengal famine of 1943". Zuggernaut (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have no objection to debunking the various Churchill myths but it has to be balanced and appropriate. We also need to remember that Mukherjee is a journalist writing a book from a particular perspective. Its also fairly recent and academics have not yet commented on it in much depth (and they may not). Interesting that the Bengal article has similar problems with this one, in that a PoV position that democracies do not have famines is given undue prominence. --Snowded TALK 09:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Neither have academics rejected any of her claims. In fact she has received world-wide reviews for the book, nearly all of which single out and discuss the proposed content. The table below lists some of the numerous sources that have reviewed her book as well as some other independent non-Mukherjee sources.
Media organization Source type Highlight/Summary Australian Broadcasting Corporation Non-Mukherjee The famine in British-ruled Bengal in 1943-44 ultimately took the lives of about 4 million people. The speaker talks of how this man-made famine is absent from the history books and virtually unknown to most people. Time Magazine Book review Churchill's only response to a telegram from the government in Delhi about people perishing in the famine was to ask why Gandhi hadn't died yet. Rediff News Book review Could a man applauded for his courage in standing up to Adolf Hitler have had such contempt for another race that he did not change policies that led to starvation and death of at least three million? Zee News Book Review The book notes that Churchill had a profound contempt of native Indians especially Mahatma Gandhi who for him came to represent a "malignant subversive fanatic" and a "thoroughly evil force." He had remarked in a conversation, "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." The Telegraph (Calcutta) Book Review While it is known that the British prime minister during World War II nursed a hatred towards Indians “who bred like rabbits”, it still comes as a shock that shiploads of wheat from Australia bypassed the Indian subcontinent to head for the Balkan states to add to the stockpile of foodgrain there. BBC - The Open University Non-Mukherjee Audio The Independent Book Review Mukerjee has researched this forgotten holocaust with great care and forensic rigour. Mining an extensive range of sources, she not only sheds light on the imperial shenanigans around the famine, but on a host of related issues, such as the flowering of nationalism in famine-hit districts, Churchill's fury about the sterling credit that India was piling up in London, or the dreadful situation in the villages even after the famine was technically over. NPR Book Review The British government had drawn up the Indian Famine Codes during the 1880s to help avoid famine and food scarcity following natural disasters. In October 1942, when there were signs of food scarcity following a cyclone, these codes were not invoked. As economists Jean Drèze and Amartya Sen have said earlier in their book, the famine was "simply not declared" by the British government. The Sydney Morning Herald Book Review The "man-made" famine has long been one of the darkest chapters of the British Raj, but now Madhusree Mukerjee says she has uncovered evidence that Churchill was directly responsible for the appalling suffering. The Hindu Book Review He was bitterly determined to hold on to India; he hated Indians, and intended that they remain subjects for all time. With sources ranging from official documents to first-hand accounts of the Bengal famine, Madhusree Mukerjee brings out the consequences for India, and thereby for hundreds of millions of people. Outlook Book Review Mukerjee holds Churchill responsible for “deliberately deciding to let Indians starve”. The Hindu Non-Mukherjee On August 4, 1944, after four years of suffering these outbursts, Amery wrote that "I am by no means sure whether on this subject of India he (Churchill) is really quite sane ... ". BBC Book Review "Apparently it is more important to save the Greeks and liberated countries than the Indians and there is reluctance either to provide shipping or to reduce stocks in this country," writes Sir Wavell in his account of the meetings. Mr Amery is more direct. "Winston may be right in saying that the starvation of anyhow under-fed Bengalis is less serious than sturdy Greeks, but he makes no sufficient allowance for the sense of Empire responsibility in this country," he writes. Hindustan Times Book Review He saw himself as the lion hunting rabbits — in this case Indians who bred like rabbits. With his advisors and the distorted wisdom of a Victorian-era racism that should have been long past, Churchill blamed the famine on fecund Indians, invoked both Malthus and social Darwinism, and disparaged India as a society that sat out the war while Britain sacrificed blood and treasure. The Independent Non-Mukherjee Many of his colleagues thought Churchill was driven by a deep loathing of democracy for anyone other than the British and a tiny clique of supposedly superior races. The New York Times Non-Mukherjee He later added: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” This hatred killed. In 1943, to give just one example, a famine broke out in Bengal, caused, as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proven, by British mismanagement. The New York Times Non-Mukherjee At the same time, his rhetorical exertions (he claimed that Indians were “a beastly people with a beastly religion”) were backed up by policies nothing short of criminal. Gandhi and Nehru were both imprisoned in 1942. The following year a calamitous famine in Bengal left three million people dead. Wall Street Journal Letter "...They hold the British in general, and Mr. Churchill in particular, responsible for the tragic deaths of millions in the great Bengal famine of 1943..." The Pioneer Book Review The high point of Mukherjee’s indictment — and the lowest point of imperial rule — is the Bengal Famine when an estimated three million people died. Haunting memory of that man-made tragedy, there hangs before me as I write one of M Braun’s tinted sepia photographs of eight skeletal forms in attitudes of abject despair. The Times of India Book Review Her book, "Churchill's Secret War", quotes previously unused papers that disprove his claim that no ships could be spared from the war and that show him brushing aside increasingly desperate requests from British officials in India.
HNN Book Review It decided instead that around 75,000 tons of Australian wheat would be transported to Ceylon and the Middle East each month for the rest of 1943, to supply the war effort; and a further 170,000 tons would pass by famine-stricken India en-route to a supply center in the Mediterranean region, there to be stored for future consumption in southeastern Europe.