India: History C‑class High‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Death C‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Countering systemic bias Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Famine in India was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
- While I continue to agree that extensively quoting Churchill here would be undue, I hope you do notice that at least four of those sources have nothing to do with Mukherjee's book (which, whatever its position, wouldn't make up facts, anyway): [3], [4], [5], [6]. Plus, for instance, the statement that "I am by no means sure whether on this subject of India he is really quite sane" occurs in at least four books other than Madhushree's. Shreevatsa (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- @Zuggernaut: Above you say "World War II is more or less European history and I think its a distraction in this discussion. We need to focus on the famine of 1943 and Churchill's connection." So you would be happy to say that Churchill failed to supply the resources necessary to avoid the famine, yet omit the detail that Churchill had very good reason to believe that the free world was about to be overrun, and that all effort must be focused on defeating Nazism. That would be an astonishingly POV approach, and one that is unacceptable at Wikipedia. Many people blame Churchill for the deaths of thousands of allied troops who were forced to undertake impossible tasks, however the history of World War II cannot be replayed with alternative scenarios, so we will never know if Churchill was right or wrong; all people can do now is to speculate, while pointing out that owing to the difficulties of the time, resources were not provided to avoid the famine. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that WW2 is more or less European History. Close to 2.5 million Indian soldiers fought in the war with about a 100,000 casualties. The war was fought on the border of India, with parts of present day India briefly occupied by Japanese troops. India's independence was hastened by the war. No. Stating that the war was more or less European history is only possible if you view the events from a very narrow perspective. About racism, Churchill etc., I think the quote is overkill. If there is a significant scholarly opinion that Churchill deliberately worsened (or even may have worsened) the Bengal famine because he considered Indians, or the Hindu, an inferior race, then, of course that opinion should be included. However, one book with press coverage does not necessarily meet the 'significant' threshold. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I understand you right but you seem to be suggesting that Churchill is vindicated from the deaths of 5 million Bengalis because he defeated the Germans. That would be original research. Can you provide sources that link all of the following:
- The Bengal famine of 1943
- Churchill's well known racist hate towards Indians
- The delibrate decisons to prevent food aid from reaching the 5 million dying Indians
- German defeat
- Zuggernaut (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- @Zuggernaut: Above you say "World War II is more or less European history and I think its a distraction in this discussion. We need to focus on the famine of 1943 and Churchill's connection." So you would be happy to say that Churchill failed to supply the resources necessary to avoid the famine, yet omit the detail that Churchill had very good reason to believe that the free world was about to be overrun, and that all effort must be focused on defeating Nazism. That would be an astonishingly POV approach, and one that is unacceptable at Wikipedia. Many people blame Churchill for the deaths of thousands of allied troops who were forced to undertake impossible tasks, however the history of World War II cannot be replayed with alternative scenarios, so we will never know if Churchill was right or wrong; all people can do now is to speculate, while pointing out that owing to the difficulties of the time, resources were not provided to avoid the famine. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you all for providing feedback on the original proposition. Based on the feedback, here's a revised proposition:
- Note 1: Churchill is known to have made statements like "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.[6]
- This is based on multiple, independent, secondary and reliable sources. We can also add the Mukherjee source when we are able to cite it accurately with page number and all.
- Polya, Dr. Gideon; Williams, Robyn (1998), Bengali Famine, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, retrieved 20 December, 2010
{{citation}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
(help) - Guha, Ramachandra (2005), Churchill's Indiaspeak, The Hindu, retrieved 20 December, 2010
{{citation}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
(help); Unknown parameter|day=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - Reading, Michael; Sen, Amartya (2008), The Things We Forgot To Remember, BBC, retrieved 20 December, 2010
{{citation}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
(help); Unknown parameter|day=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - Hari, Johann (2010), Not his finest hour: The dark side of Winston Churchill, The Independent, retrieved 20 December, 2010
{{citation}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
(help); Unknown parameter|day=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - Hari, Johann (2010), The Two Churchills, The New York Times, retrieved 20 December, 2010
{{citation}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
(help); Unknown parameter|day=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)
- Polya, Dr. Gideon; Williams, Robyn (1998), Bengali Famine, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, retrieved 20 December, 2010
- Zuggernaut (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Entirely inappropriate Z, it implies that the role reason was racism which during a major world war is dubious and original research/synthesis. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, its a place to report what we can verify, apply WP:Weight and maintain a NPOV. If you ever want to get this to good article status you are going to have to work in taking a more balanced point of view. Your summary above completely ignores the bulk of editors who have commented here --Snowded TALK 17:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- The original research/synthesis is in the sources.All of the 5 sources above state Churchill's decision to prevent food aid from reaching Bengal in the same breath as his racist hatered towards India (it's always either in the same paragraph, in juxtaposed sentences or in the same sentence). Righting great wrongs talks about using secondary sources and avoiding original research so I do not think that applies here I am not sure about weight either since it is definitely not a view held by an "extremely small" minority. If you are unhappy with the wording, may I ask that you put forward a reworded version which captures the following:
- That Churchill hated Indians becasue of their race
- That several influential publications imply that this racist hatred was the cause of his preventing aid from reaching India (and Mukherjee makes an explicit connection).
- Perhaps we can also add that the British man-made famine was later blamed by Churchill on India "for breeding like rabbits". Here's the New York Times source:
“...I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” This hatred killed. In 1943, to give just one example, a famine broke out in Bengal, caused, as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proven, by British mismanagement. To the horror of many of his colleagues, Churchill raged that it was their own fault for “breeding like rabbits” and refused to offer any aid for months while hundreds of thousands died.
- There seems to be support for including this content as long as we keep the focus on the famine.
- Zuggernaut (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think the current wording is fine for this article and as far as I can see other editors are also concerned about your use of reviews and general issues of balance. If you want to edit the article on Churchill then that might be a more appropriate place for some of this. I'll put it on watch --Snowded TALK 05:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I've addressed your concern about balance below. According to my understanding of tertiary sources, book reviews are tertiary source and can be used for broad summaries such as this one. Here's the revised version:
Scholars imply that rejection of pleas of emergeny food aid was due to Churchill's racist hatered towards Indians. However, according to Christopher Baily of Cambride University, it is difficult to blame Churchill alone since these were Cabinet decisions.
- Same sources and footnotes apply. The source for the 2nd sentence is BBC/OU
- Zuggernaut (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- To be half way accurate it would need to say "Some scholars have asserted that ..." but overall I don't see the point. This is an article about Famine in India not about Churchill. There is already reference there to Churchill, its enough. I don't see the need for this addition unless you want to propose it as an alternative to something which is already there. --Snowded TALK 07:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Snowded; it's unnecessary to mention Churchill here. Although the consensus of academics is that the 1943-44 famine was a policy disaster, the failure to send aid is only one part of the famine, and the connection between Churchill's prejudices and the decision is not always made. There were a lot of factors in the famine: the army took away the fishing boats and thus the livelihood of many, even those with work found their wages suddenly insufficient to buy food, rice continued to be exported, there was resistance to famine relief based on a belief in the "invisible hand of the market" (the article already contains a bit of this, in the context of the 1877 famine), and the British government refused American/UNRRA aid because they didn't want American influence in the region. Out of all these reasons, to prominently mention one speculated reason for just the absence of aid seems excessive. To put it differently, if you're discussing Churchill's views on the "beastliest people next to the Germans", the telegram incident is a telling one; but if you're discussing the famine, then unless you discuss it in detail (which is what Bengal famine of 1943 is for), mentioning the incident is undue. Shreevatsa (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- While I disagree and strongly feel that the one line with a footnote is apt here, it is clear that we may not acheive the level of consensus needed to get that content included. I've provided several sources but I won't be pursuing the addition to Famine in India since it appears it will be futile and a waste of everybody's time. Just want to point out though that Snowded is mistaken - there is no mention of Churchill in this article at all as of now. As for the Bengal famine of 1943, Snowded has already been there and supressed the content. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Snowded; it's unnecessary to mention Churchill here. Although the consensus of academics is that the 1943-44 famine was a policy disaster, the failure to send aid is only one part of the famine, and the connection between Churchill's prejudices and the decision is not always made. There were a lot of factors in the famine: the army took away the fishing boats and thus the livelihood of many, even those with work found their wages suddenly insufficient to buy food, rice continued to be exported, there was resistance to famine relief based on a belief in the "invisible hand of the market" (the article already contains a bit of this, in the context of the 1877 famine), and the British government refused American/UNRRA aid because they didn't want American influence in the region. Out of all these reasons, to prominently mention one speculated reason for just the absence of aid seems excessive. To put it differently, if you're discussing Churchill's views on the "beastliest people next to the Germans", the telegram incident is a telling one; but if you're discussing the famine, then unless you discuss it in detail (which is what Bengal famine of 1943 is for), mentioning the incident is undue. Shreevatsa (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- To be half way accurate it would need to say "Some scholars have asserted that ..." but overall I don't see the point. This is an article about Famine in India not about Churchill. There is already reference there to Churchill, its enough. I don't see the need for this addition unless you want to propose it as an alternative to something which is already there. --Snowded TALK 07:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Recent deletions by Snowded
Snowded undid some recent changes and asked to discuss this on the talk page, hence this post. I cannot make sense of or grasp Snowded's terse explanation of the undoing in his edit summary - "slanting the article to a political perspective without context". I'm seeking feedback from other editors as to whether these well sourced edits should or should not be there in the article. I made the edits to:
- Move the recent content to appropriate paragraphs within the article, copyedit and fix some references
- Balance recent additions by IP addresses which insinuate that the British, not Indians in independent India eliminated famine.
Here's a brief explanation of why I added the content.
- 1. The following addition was made with the intention to balance a recent addition which made the suggestion that famine was most severe in ancient India and not in British India.
- 2. This second addition shown below was made to balance a recent addition which suggested that the British eliminated famine in India which conflicts with pretty much all of the mainstream sources.
However, K. V Narayana argues that a new class of an "agricultural labor" emerged in rural India due the destruction of centuries old village economy by the British.[8] British economic policy had a devastating effect on the agricultural population causing famine after famine in the 19th century, particularly towards the end of that century.[fn 2][9] Jawaharlal Nehru in his Discovery of India cited import of cheap industrial goods from England as the cause of unemployment of the agricultural laborer and artisans, the population most affected by famines.[10]
- 3. I made this third addition to balance recent claims that railways of the British era helped reduce famine which is still debated in academia.
However the economist Dr. Daniel Keniston at MIT cites two models that have advanced arguments suggesting that the railways of British India actually increased famine mortality.[11] He goes on to state that such arguments do not have strong supporting evidence, instead concluding that railways of that era did not have a major impact on decreasing famine mortality.[12]
I'm asking other editors to take a look and provide feedback on whether this looks like "slanting the article to a political perspective without context". Zuggernaut (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- What you are consistently doing Z is to argue a particular theory of famines, and also a crude position of "British Empire BAD, Indian Democracy/pre British GOOD". Lets take an example in the your first case namely 17 before 31 during. Firstly how accurate are records before? Secondly what is the population change during that period? The hand loom is another example. You might want to read up on what happened in the UK as a result of the woolen mills and their impact on home weaving. Cheap industrial goods changing local industry is a universal phenomena. We had the same thing over Churchill a few weeks ago. Selecting quotes out of full context, slanting the text around those quotes to imply a certain position. The real issue is that you have yet to realise that some of these changes need discussion first, you make a whole series of changes at a time, all direct to the article leaving editors little choice but to revert. Make the non-controversial ones, post anything that you know will be controversial here first, and do one at a time. --Snowded TALK 05:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not my position that the "British Empire BAD, Indian Democracy/pre British GOOD". Multiple reliable sources take this position unambiguously. Why do we need to indulge in original research and question the quality of data when, again, multiple reliable sources support the 17 famines versus 31 famines argument?
- Reliable sources clearly state that the artisan, the agricultural laborer were affected by the handlooms and industrialization imposed by the British. The British government had the poor laws to take care of the poor of that era where as they would not have anything like that for the Indians because they were Indians. By ignoring the the context of poor laws, democracy for the British citizen and drawing a comparison with the subjugated, enslaved Indian you are clearly twisting the context. From what I can see, you are doing all of this and resorting to original research because you want the article to be slanted to a British POV. I will continue editing per WP policies like WP:BRD. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Selective use of sources to support a particular POV is not on Z and I really find it very amusing (as will other editors) that I am being accused of a British POV. Otherwise on your second point I think you really need to do some more reading. --Snowded TALK 06:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- You need to provide sources which show the opposite rather than just making a generic accusation of using sources selectively. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Selective use of sources to support a particular POV is not on Z and I really find it very amusing (as will other editors) that I am being accused of a British POV. Otherwise on your second point I think you really need to do some more reading. --Snowded TALK 06:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
- This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Famine in India/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
Famine in India was nominated for good article status. It failed to achieve GA status for failing criterion 5 of good article criteria (article stability). A discussion regarding the issue can be found on the good article review page of the article. I am renominating because the article history shows it is stable. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- A very basic starting point for GA and then FA articles is that editors work collaboratively and attempt to build consensus for changes. As at least one editor here persistently does not do that but constantly re-introduces contested material and operates with an un-consensual spirit, I suggest that any GA approach at this stage would be fraught with difficulty. Simply put, the ball is in your court Zuggernaut - pre-discuss changes you intend to make - obtain consensus and them make them. Otherwise, we will just go round and round in circles. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with James in that a GA/FA would materialise only when editors work consensually, however quality shouldn't be sacrificed at the altar of GA/FA, Z has done fantastic work on the need to incorporate the sources which he seeks to. The ball is in the community's court that they accept them. Just as Hitler gassed the Jews, Churchill starved the Bengalis, that is what Z's source says, that too at a similar time, the source is as sound as any as Z has painstakingly demonstrated.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Some questions on the Scholars Opinions Sections
I was reading the various comments here about POV in the article and this section struck me as one needing some improvement. I have some points I would like to make:
- 1) Would Florence Nightingale really count as a 'scholar'? I think most people when seeing the section heading had in mind modern day scholars, rather than contemporary observors. Perhaps the section could make clear that we are also discussing contemporary opinions, that way we could include Indian Nationalist opinions of the famines (such as R.C. Dutt) and the critique of their writings by British writers (such as C.W. McMinn's 'Famine Truths, Untruths and Half Truths').
- 2) The way the quote by Amartya Sen is presented is slightly POV. The quote simply says (more or less) that famines are easy to relieve. This has the same implications for pre-British authorities as it does the British Raj.
- 3)The source for the lack of a postive legacy in India left by the British. In fact it impliedly hints at some in its final sentence. What it says is that some Indians harbour resentment over these issues.
Regards,
Andrew
- Andrew, welcome to Wikipedia. Please consider signing up/becoming a regular editor here. Nightingale has numerous publications directly relevant to this area hence she would qualify as a scholar but we can move her observations to a different section if it can be established that her work was not scholarly. Getting in to the claims and counter claims of the likes of Indian nationalists like Romesh Chunder Dutt and McMinn would be WP:UNDUE here unless it was part of mainstream discourse. The earlier famines in ancient India have not caused as much loss of life as did the famines in British India and Amartya Sen's quote makes sense in that regard. I'm not sure what you mean in your third point. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Zuggernaut, thank you for your response and kind words. I will accept that Nightingale would count as a scholar is she published scholarly works on the famines at the time. I was not aware that she did so I am will to accept this one. I am not sure that mentioning R.C. Dutt, William Digby or C.W. McMinn would be undue weight as, in the 19th century, they were mainstream discourse. Certainly if Nightingale counts as mainstream discourse then they would as well, no? I also do not agree with you on the pre-British famines. This article shows that several famines were quite bad, as bad as some under the British (the one in the 1630's killed four million people). And what period is Sen talking about? Is he talking about the 1940's, when famines were easier to relieve, or the 1870's, or 1830's, or 1770's? Given that he does not make clear, I think the best thing to do would be to assume that Amartya Sen's comment is applicable to all famines regardless of the regime. Incidentally, Michelle Burge McAlpin, in her book 'Subject to Famine: Food Crises and Economic Change in Western India, 1860-1920' (Princeton: 1983) devotes several pages analysing whether or not famines were actually worse in the pre-British period before concluding that it is likely they were just as bad. Finally, what I mean by my third point is that the source doesn't support what it is attributed to it. At no point does it state that the Bengal famine of 1770 is one of the reasons why Britain doesn't have a positive legacy. In fact, the final sentence, by stating that by remaining silent on colonialism, Cameron might be able to reap some of its benefits, implies that there is a positive legacy.
Regards, Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.164.170 (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Pre-British famines Certainly the famines in pre-British period were just as bad. However appropriate measures were taken (such as importing food and banning of exports. Sometimes the punishment towards traders found to be exporting food in times of famine was very severe) to ensure that the citizenry did not die of starvation. As an example, take a look the the Peshwa Sawai Madhavrao's response to the Deccan famine.
- Opposed to this, there was practically no relief under the EIC and even under the Crown, food continued to be exported to Britain in times of famines. In order to understand why this happened we need to grasp that the Indian economy was setup to be a "colonial economy", i.e, it's main purpose was to provide capital, raw material and other resources to Britain. Australian and Canadian economies were setup in a similar fashion but the revenue generated from India was more than the combined revenue from the white colonies.
- Sources (Dutt, McMinn) We need to exercise caution regarding sources from that era because the British would suppress and imprison any Indian who criticized the British government under specially enacted sedition laws. Pretty much all prominent Indian leaders and politicians have done time for speaking out against the government. Romesh Chunder Dutt may be a reliable source but I'm not sure about McMinn - he has one minor 140 page book on famines and seems like an alternative author than a mainstream one.
- Will Heaven - legacy I agree that you may have a point about the relation between the Bengal famine of 1770 and legacy so feel free to edit the article to remove that content. However I do not agree with your reading of the article in that Heaven suggests that there is a positive legacy. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you have agreed with me about Will Heaven's article so I shall remove that content and not worry about our dispute over that article itself. Moving onto sources, as far as I am aware (and all I am going on is the wikipedia article) is that R.C. Dutt was never imprisoned in his life. Consequently I fail to see your point about the need for caution over the use of contemporary sources: R.C. Dutt speak out against government policies, quite publicly, and as far as I know he was never imprisoned. But even if, so what? He still made the arguments he did. I agree that now, McMinn is not as well known as R.C. Dutt is, although given that his book was written as a direct response to R.C. Dutt I think its fair to mention him (he is not completely forgotten either, there are several modern works that cite him). Finally, I think the debates about pre-British famines are getting us away from the issue of the A.K. Sen quote; you are reading into it that he damns the British administration whilst letting the Mughal's off. This is based not on what A.K. Sen actually says in the quote, but what has been argued by other authors (and disputed by others; this article already cites several authors a little less optimistic about famine relief in the pre-British era and a little less pessimistic about the Indian economy in the 19th century). I think that is wrong, and the way it is Sen's statements apply equally to Mughal and British famines.
Perhaps other people on here can weigh in?
Regards,
Andrew
- As far as I am aware, McMinn has only one publication which reads like an alternative, non-mainstream book, not to dissimilar from the ones in the arena of the Aryan Invasion Theory which try to re-write Indian history. Muslim and Mughal rulers like Akbar, Allaudin Khilji and others imported food in times of famine which was not the case under the British. The role of railways in famine is unclear. Numerous academicians claim that the railways actually worsened famines, others claim the opposite and some say it didn't have any impact. Due to this, I'm rectifying your recent edit to reflect this. Let us discuss the role of railways further before making an addition. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- What makes you think that McMinn is not mainstream just because it is an 'alternative' view? I think that te edits I made about Tirthankar Roy were perfectly legitimate. Some academics claim they worsened them, some state they had no impact, others say they improved the situation. My edits did not present this as fact, but presented it as one scholar's opinion. Also, as other wikipedia articles show, food was imported into areas during the famines under British rule. But that is not the point. Amartya Sen says famines are easy to relieve, and the fact that there were terrible famines under Mughal rule suggests that Sen's critique applies to Mughal rulers as well. Regards, Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.71.25 (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Railway edit - Given that there is no consensus in academia about this, the proper way to include this in the article is to have consensus on which view is the majority view and which is the minority view and then include both of those in the article per Jimbo's e-mail from 2003 as shown in the NPOV policy.
- Amartya Sen and relief - From whatever documentation is available, famines in pre-British India have had a much better relief response than in the British era (this includes Muslim and Mughal rulers).
- Roy edit - I have undone the remaining part of your Roy edit because this is factually incorrect. The Bengal famine of 1943 was the one which was the last one. So if you have objections to my removal of that addition, we can discuss that here per WP:BRD and add the content back later once we reach a consensus.
- It looks like we are handling too many different issues at the same time. Let us take them up one at a time, reach consensus, make edits to the article then tackle the next one. I am creating a separate section below to discuss the McMinn source. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- 'Railway edit'-Agreed. The issue is whether or not there is a minority view or a majority view, or whether or not the issue is split roughly evenly.
- 'Amartya Sen and Relief'-Your comment is irrelevant for two reasons. a) it ignores the evidence presented in this article about the problems with Mughal relief and more importantly b) the quote suggests any famine deaths are unneccessary as they are easy to prevent. Ipso facto, the fact that famines under Mughal rule could and did kill millions, suggests that he is
- 'Roy Edit'-The 1900 famine was the last all India famine. The Bengal famine of 1943 was regional famine brought about by the circumstances of World War Two. In my opinion there isn't much to discuss. A scholar has given his opinion, and you have simply removed it because you disagree with him.
Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.71.25 (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you examine the context more carefully, you will see that Roy is talking about "weather induced" famines. In fact in the very same paragraph he mentions the Bengal famine of 1943 which is considered man-made in literature. As long as we include the context and the fact that Bengal famine of 1943 was an artificial one, we can certainly include your addition. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- That is indeed correct. Roy argues that changes under colonial rule alleviated weather induced famines in the long run. And he does right that state's interventions in the grain market could still have a devastating impact. Although the Bengal famine was still a local famine and not of the same scope or scale as the earlier famines in the 1890;s or 1870's. I shall make these changes to reflect these points of view. You did not mention the Amartya Sen quote in your latest comment? We seem to be going round in circles somewhat with it so I was considering asking other members who have commented or been involved on this page for their take on it.Led225 (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
McMinn as a reliable source?
A few reasons why McMinn may not be a reliable source:
1. Other than Wikipedia articles, I could not find any other academician citing McMinn's work.
2. Can you cite accomplished authors, scholars supporting and speaking favorably of his work?
3. His works seem to be emotive with outbursts supporting the British rule in India.
4. He states the following in the preface and then bases his work on that
In other words the three hundred millions of India (sic) are are informed that they have only to revert to the rule and customs of their ancestors, getting rid somehow of the British incubus, then they will find peace, plenty, and bliss of every kind.
5. Then on pages 106-107 he discredits the work of successive Famine Commissions which where the cornerstone of the Indian Famine Codes.
Yet in the twenty-three folios of reports and appendices there is comparatively little of any value to the student; what there is is overloaded with detail, and is buried in masses of figured statement and comment which could only be of use once, as a check in the account department.
6. On page 129 he states that
The Rajas, the Independent Chiefs of India know that the British rescued them long ago from the most cruel bondage to Maratha or Moghul Empire, they agreed to pay half their revenues to the British...
7. On page 130, he concludes
To conclude, I see nothing but prosperity before India, the lookout is far better than when I came here in 1862; all will be well if the people will only labor and learn, listening to no false prophets, if also Government continues to introduce reform, steadily progressing towards the satisfaction of just national aspirations.
All of these are non-mainstream views, some of which if true would mean that the Indian Independence Movement was a freak accident and would/should not have happened. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Other Academics''-Do a search on google books. He is cited as an example of contemporary opinion on the famine in several studies. In fact he was prominent enough to be used as a source in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, but that isn't the point. The point was that it was a notable point of view at the time, in the same way R.C. Dutt's view was.
- 'Emotive and Polemic'-So was R.C. Dutt and William Digby's work. All three wrote for political purposes but their works were undeniably mainstream circa 1900 and scholarly.
Regards Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.71.25 (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Google books works in different way at different times and in different places and I could not find much. Can you provide a list of sources you have access to? Also, how can we call an author mainstream when he makes a claim as shown in item 4 above. We know very well that Indian freedom fighters did not want to go back to the days of their ancestors. WE have sufficient evidence to the contrary in legislation like abolishment of Sati, child marriage which the Indian social reformers worked hard for. The same goes for item 5 (I've fixed a typo there) when we know that the Famine Commissions were the critical component in the development of the Indian Famine Codes. The statement he makes in item 6 is laughable and the conclusion he draws in item 7 is juvenile given that it was written about a decade and a half before the events of the Jalianwala Bagh Massacre. There are other strange statements he makes about Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Gandhi's guru but let us deal with these first. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- The point is not that he 'is' mainstream per se, but that he 'was' mainstream. He was involved in a scholarly debate around the turn of the century with prominent Indian nationalist writers. Your statements about what followed afterwards have no bearing on C.W. McMinn's book. He could not have predicted any of them. A list of books he is cited as an example of contemporary scholarly opinions of the famine include The Famine of 1896-1897: Availability or Entitlement Crisis by Malabika Chakrabarti; Communalism in Bengal : from Famine to Noakhali, 1943-47 by Rakesh Batabyal; Imperial Sceptics: British Critics of Empire by Gregory Claeys. But the point about McMinn wasn't to base whole chunks of the article around him. It was only that, if Florence Nightingale is allowed as a scholar, then surely other contemporaries should be mentioned as well. McMinn was only one exampleLed225 (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Given the gaffes he's made above (see items 4, 5 and 6) he wasn't mainstream back then and he's archaic and obsolete now. He's published one small work on famines entirely dedicated to an agenda. Of the list of books in which he is cited, Chakrabarti actually gives reasons for why he isn't mainstream. The other two cite him in a minor footnote or two. As for Nightingale, she is of an entirely different stature and reputation; moreover she has hundreds of very well received editions, many of which deal with famines. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- The point is not that he 'is' mainstream per se, but that he 'was' mainstream. He was involved in a scholarly debate around the turn of the century with prominent Indian nationalist writers. Your statements about what followed afterwards have no bearing on C.W. McMinn's book. He could not have predicted any of them. A list of books he is cited as an example of contemporary scholarly opinions of the famine include The Famine of 1896-1897: Availability or Entitlement Crisis by Malabika Chakrabarti; Communalism in Bengal : from Famine to Noakhali, 1943-47 by Rakesh Batabyal; Imperial Sceptics: British Critics of Empire by Gregory Claeys. But the point about McMinn wasn't to base whole chunks of the article around him. It was only that, if Florence Nightingale is allowed as a scholar, then surely other contemporaries should be mentioned as well. McMinn was only one exampleLed225 (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Madras Famine 1952
The article does not appear to mention the famine in Madras in 1952. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- I will look for sources and add content on causes, number of deaths, duration of the famine, etc. In the mean time, if you have any good sources, please feel free to share with us. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- I dont think what happened in 52 was a famine - it was the run of the mill rice shortage. There was a sharp rise in rice prices (due to rainfall shortage and reduced yield the previous year). The communist led opposition seized the issue and demanded an increase in the ration allocations. The newly sworn in Congress govt of Rajaji was then leaning toward abolishing rationing and had to backtrack. There is no mention of famine in the legislative records for that year [7]. I have the biography of Rajaji and the autobiography of C. Subramaniam (the chief minister and the food minister respectively of that period) and they dont mention anything about famine. (rice shortage and the rationing issue yes, but nothing about famine).--Sodabottle (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK understood it was certainly refered to as a famine at the time The Hindu [8] has a quote from India's Food Minister, Mr. K.M. Munshi, returning to Madras after a tour of famine-affected districts in Madras State told a press conference that conditions in these districts called for immediate action and steps to prevent further deterioration.. The London Times 29 March 1952 has an article "Famine in Madras Province - 10 Million Sufferers", it talks about the governor of madras making an appeal for funds at a sheriff's meeting. It mentions the cause was the failure of the rains in four consecutive years. 30,000 homeless in the Markapur-Taluq-Kurnool district. On the 12 May 1952 the Times mentions six new districts threatened. No mention of any deaths just widespread disruption "The Government has taken measures to provide work for unemployed and to feed aged people and children. London Times 9 October 1952 mentions that Mr Nehru said that the famine code would not solve the problem of food scarcity in the Rayalaseem area. It may well be a widespread disruption but it looks like the measures taken may have worked as I cant find any mention of deaths, although they must have been some. Some issues that the central government could not deploy wheat in to what is a rice eating area and that an international rice shortage wasnt helped by the failure of the crop in Rayalaseema. The state government dont appear to have been that helpful as has been mentioned removing some controls on food and it was the central government that was deploying free food. Perhaps it should be mentioned as a one of the threatend famines that was resolved by government actions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nehru refers to it in his own writings. (I hope others can see this Google Books ref - it's from Volume 21, covering the first quarter of 1953) [9] Nehru says lack of rain has caused what he terms "near-famine conditions". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes this should be added to the "near misses", if the Hindu of that time is mentioning it as a "famine", then this certainly was considered serious. The Rajaji Story by Rajmohan Gandhi also claims rainfall resumed in May 1952 and rice prices were deregulated. "within days grain started to flow and the queues disappeared". But thats in contradiction with London Times report from October. I will try to find some non-biographical references to this incident.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- In order to call it a famine, we need to find out how many deaths the famine caused. Other parameters listed in the template:infobox famine will also help understand the scale and cause of the famine. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK, it looks like some sources are calling it famine and some drought. The Andhra Pradesh district gazetteers: Volume 8 Andhra Pradesh (India), Bh Sivasankaranarayana - 1977 says this:
- "The drought which hit the district from 1951 to 1953 was, however, the most severe. A sum of Rs. 8.97 lakhs was altogether spent on relief. The army was called to help the civilian operations in the deepening of wells."
- I will keep looking for more sources over the week. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes this should be added to the "near misses", if the Hindu of that time is mentioning it as a "famine", then this certainly was considered serious. The Rajaji Story by Rajmohan Gandhi also claims rainfall resumed in May 1952 and rice prices were deregulated. "within days grain started to flow and the queues disappeared". But thats in contradiction with London Times report from October. I will try to find some non-biographical references to this incident.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
It looks like this was a drought, probably not worthy of mention in the article but I am open to mention it in the post-independence section if the majority feel so. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking at it Zuggernaut, I think it is worth a mention as a near miss as it may the sort of thing that a reader looks up and says why is this not mentioned and it can be explained that measures were taken to prevent a famine, although happy to go with a majority decision on inclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Fails quite a few GA criteria
As the author of a large number of pages on famines in India (Chalisa famine, Doji bara famine, Agra famine of 1837–38, Orissa famine of 1866, Rajputana famine of 1869, Bihar famine of 1873–74, Great Famine of 1876–78, Indian famine of 1896–97, Indian famine of 1899–1900, William Robert Cornish, Timeline of major famines in India during British rule (1765 to 1947)) I am very troubled by this page.
- No attempt has been made to coordinate information in the Famine in India page with these pages; indeed often the individual famines are not even Wikilinked.
- The references chosen are highly selective, with great preference given to polemical left-wing writers such as Mike Davis (who is the author of a trade paperback, but has no history of writing any scholarly papers on Indian famines).
- The article is poorly written. Here are a handful of examples. (I will add the rest when I do the GA review.)
- In the lead itself, Dorji Bara and Chalisa had nothing to do with policy failures; the Bengal famine of 1943 had little to do with a drought.
- In the Ancient India section, the text says, "Yet other measures included construction of public works, canals, and embankments, and sinking wells." What canals and embankments? There were just a handful of (rudimentary) canals in India (almost all silted up), that is, until the British built proper ones according to modern civil engineering principles and in the process founded the first engineering college in India (Thomason College of Civil Engineering, Roorkee; now IIT Roorkee).
- In the British rule section, it is not mentioned that in 1770, the Company only had the rights to the Diwani (ie. revenue collection), but not the Nizaamat (criminal prosecution and law and order) in Bengal. The latter still lay with the Nawab of Bengal. Furthermore, this was long before the Permanent settlement and the Company farmed out the revenue collection to the previous collectors under the Nawab using the previous Mughal-based system.
- In the scholarly opinion section, Michelle McAlpin is mentioned at the very end, even though her work predates that of Sen or Swaminathan. Moreover, other views such as that of economic historians such as: Jeff Williamson, Stephen Broadberry, Bishnupriya Gupta, B. R. Tomlinson, Very Anstey, are not included. Tirthanker Roy is mentioned without any understanding of his work.
- In the causes section, most of the text has nothing to do with causes.
- In the famine code section, where is the more detailed discussion of the famine commissions? There were four commissions: Sir George Campbell’s Commission of Inquiry after the Orissa famine of 1866; Sir Richard Strachey’s Famine Commission of 1878–1880; Sir James Lyall’s Famine Commission of 1898, and the Famine Commission of 1901. Where is the discussion of the reports of these commissions? The commissions largely anticipated the entitlements approach to famine.
- The Bengal famine of 1943 section offers a one-sided view of the famine. O Grada and Sen, themselves, say that the primary cause was the hoarding, profiteering, and speculation by Indian merchants, grain traders, and farmers. Nothing is said in the section about the circumstances of World War II, when thousands of refugees from Burma and Assam suddenly began to arrive in Bengal. Nothing is said about the thousands of soldiers from the US and Britain who began to arrive in boats, thus taking up all available water transportation. Nothing is said about the stresses created by the Quit India Uprising of 1942. Nothing is said about the Indian provisional government at was in place in Bengal and that was reluctant to prosecute the traders and farmers. Please see the references in the subpage: User:Fowler&fowler/Profiteering and hoarding in the Bengal famine of 1943.
- In the British response section, where is the discussion of British relief efforts, in each of the famines starting in the Agra famine of 1837–38.
I'm traveling and short of time right now, but I will write a more detailed GA review in the next day or two. I should add that in skimming the article, I find that it fails many of the GA criteria. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Good work Fowler, this is a great opportunity for improving the article, we will wait for the full review. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Updates:
- Policy failure - The block quotes you've been adding to Doji bara famine themselves indicate there was policy failure in this famine.
- Wikilinking - All the famines mentioned by Fowler have already been linked. You just need to look carefully at the tables on the right. Linking them again in the text would be WP:OVERLINKING.
- Canals - The source says there were canals and embankments. They may not have been of the industrial age since the industrial revolution did not happen in India. There is no need to measure everything against Western standards. Any reader, however uninitiated, knows that industrialization came to Europe before India and is capable of co-relating the facts about canals with the industrial revolution. I see no reason why this point is being brought up in a GA review unless the intention is to highlight and emphasize the fact that the Indians were unable to industrialize on their own.
- Diwani - Details of the Mughal system of governance, revenue collection, the gradual annexation of India by the British is WP:UNDUE here. Details can be listed in the Bengal famine of 1770.
- Indian Famine Codes - There is a separate article on the Indian famine codes. I would love a detailed study of the four commissions (especially their reports) but I it would be WP:UNDUE here again.
- Bengal famine of 1943 - Bengal was under British occupation in 1943 and, again, separating out people by ethnicity (Indian and British) is not necessary. The final responsibility lies at the top - with the British government.
Zuggernaut (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Famine relief by Peshwa or lack thereof?
The Ancient India section claims all kinds of stalwart efforts on the behalf of the Peshwa. Desregarding the fact that this particular Peshwa lived in 1790, which was long after India was Ancient, other available evidence (both Bombay Gazetteers) points to exactly the opposite view, i.e. the Peshwa didn't do diddly-squat. See the subsection: Doji_bara_famine#Maratha_kingdom. I would like to see the full quotation from the Bombay Gazetteer, Volume 16, which has been cited for this claim. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- I found the quote. It is:
But the oldest famine of which any details have been traced is that of 1791-92. This is the severest famine of which any local record remains. Liberal revenue remissions were granted by the Peshwa, the exportation of grain was forbidden, and its price was regulated. Rice was brought in large quantities from Bengal by private traders. In October, rain fell abundantly, and the late crop which throve well helped to cheapen grain and relieve distress.
You have paraphrased this as:
The oldest famine in pre-colonial Deccan with well-preserved local documentation is the famine of 1791–92. Relief was provided by the ruler, the Peshwa Sawai Madhavrao II, in the form of imposing restrictions on export of grain and importing rice in large quantities from Bengal via private trading, ...
I'm afraid that's not a very faithful paraphrase. For one the text didn't say anything about well-preserved local records. For another it didn't say that the Peshwa imported rice through private traders ... Pleased correct. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- The trading was private and we do mention that. The private traders were ruled by the Peshwa and were infact encouraged by the Peshwa to import grain from Bengal. It is a normal practice to attribute such famine relief to the local administration. Were it trading taken up directly by the Maratha administration, we would have said "public trading". If details of the records were preserved, then they are well preserved though I am open to rephrasing if it leads to improvement. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- The source you have uses says nowhere that private traders had anything to do with the Peshwa, we can't use extraneous explanations to infer things here. Also, there is no mention of well-preserved local records; indeed the source only mentions "any records;" they could have been in tatters, for all we know, and required a lot of filling in the blanks. Finally, there are two other sources, both Gazetteers of the Bombay Presidency, quoted in Doji bara famine, which state clearly that the Peshwa did very little and that there were no records. In the interests of citing, "all majority and significant minority views that have appeared," and indeed theirs is the majority view since there are two of them, this contrary viewpoint needs to be mentioned as well. It could be that the picture varied from district to district within (what would later become) the Bombay presidency, and therefore its depictions in the Gazetteers, published almost a hundred years later, are different. But then this needs to be made explicit. You, for example, don't mention what district your Gazetteer volume is about. (The two volumes cited in Doji bara famine are the Dharwar and Belgaum district Bombay Gazetteers.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- PS OK, I just checked. Volume 16 is Nasik District. That needs to be mentioned. Also, the gazetteer was not published in "Pune," which in any case in 1883 would have been called "Poona," but in Bombay. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- PPS Have corrected the citation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've added an additional citation/source that states that the Peshwa encouraged import of food grain from Bengal. I am afraid I can say only this much in the praise of the later Peshwas :-) The earlier source clearly says "But the oldest famine of which any details have been traced" so I am OK if the wording is changed from well-preserved to 'detailed' or something like that. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- So, it could be that the Peshwa tried to help out in regions closer to his home base (such as Poona itself and Nasik, as your gazetteers state), but couldn't do much in places farther away such as Dharwar, Belgaum, and Bijapur (as the three gazetteers from those districts state in Doji bara famine). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure of the geography from that era but these are border areas today. The Marathas and the British were engaged in the Third Anglo-Mysore War fighting side-by-side against Tipu (having signed a treaty to do so at the conclusion of the First Anglo-Maratha War). I doubt the Peshwa had any incentive in providing relief to those areas if they were with the enemy or even bordering areas. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- So, it could be that the Peshwa tried to help out in regions closer to his home base (such as Poona itself and Nasik, as your gazetteers state), but couldn't do much in places farther away such as Dharwar, Belgaum, and Bijapur (as the three gazetteers from those districts state in Doji bara famine). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- PS OK, I just checked. Volume 16 is Nasik District. That needs to be mentioned. Also, the gazetteer was not published in "Pune," which in any case in 1883 would have been called "Poona," but in Bombay. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- The source you have uses says nowhere that private traders had anything to do with the Peshwa, we can't use extraneous explanations to infer things here. Also, there is no mention of well-preserved local records; indeed the source only mentions "any records;" they could have been in tatters, for all we know, and required a lot of filling in the blanks. Finally, there are two other sources, both Gazetteers of the Bombay Presidency, quoted in Doji bara famine, which state clearly that the Peshwa did very little and that there were no records. In the interests of citing, "all majority and significant minority views that have appeared," and indeed theirs is the majority view since there are two of them, this contrary viewpoint needs to be mentioned as well. It could be that the picture varied from district to district within (what would later become) the Bombay presidency, and therefore its depictions in the Gazetteers, published almost a hundred years later, are different. But then this needs to be made explicit. You, for example, don't mention what district your Gazetteer volume is about. (The two volumes cited in Doji bara famine are the Dharwar and Belgaum district Bombay Gazetteers.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Famine in India/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ankit Maity 03:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Is it reasonably well written? A. Prose quality: Mostly clear, but with possible improvements as pointed below. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: Not too enamored with the mass of links for See also Is it factually accurate and verifiable? A. References to sources: B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: C. No original research: Is it broad in its coverage? A. Major aspects: B. Focused: Is it neutral? Fair representation without bias: Is it stable? No edit wars, etc: Does it contain images to illustrate the topic? A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Overall: Pass or Fail:
- ^ Polya & Williams 1998, p. 1.
- ^ Guha 2005, p. 1.
- ^ Reading & Sen 2008, p. 1.
- ^ a b Hari 2010, p. 1. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFHari2010 (help)
- ^ Hari 2010. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFHari2010 (help)
- ^ a b Nelson 2010, p. 1.
- ^ a b Reilly 2009, p. 126.
- ^ Narayana 1989, pp. 73–74.
- ^ a b Narayana 1989, p. 75.
- ^ Narayana 1989, p. 76.
- ^ Keniston 2007, p. 7.
- ^ Keniston 2007, p. 20.
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=fn>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=fn}}
template (see the help page).