3 ms·
No famines in India that resulted in mass deaths after 1947. If the difference was just governance, Indians vs. British, then the fault lies with the British. T
by haltingproblem 3y ago
No famines in India that resulted in mass deaths after 1947. If the difference was just governance, Indians vs. British, then the fault lies with the British. The Indian governments inherited British institutions in India but Indian leaders lacked administrative experience. They also did not have the resources of the British empire and had to face the mass horrors and disruption of partition.
All this lays the culpability at the door of the British for the Bengal famnine.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y agoThere was a famine in Bangladesh in 1974 that may have killed 1.5 million people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_famine_of_1974 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_famine_of_1974
- polygamous_bat 3y agoWhich was also caused by the atrocities of the (arguably colonial) Pakistani military during the Bangladeshi liberation war. If you are trying to argue self-governance can also cause famines, this isn't an example to be used.
- cppenjoyer 3y agoThat's about Bangladesh, not Bengal. Bangladesh is a neighboring country of India.
- ralfd 3y agohttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/90/IndiaPolitical1893ConstablesHandAtlas.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/90/IndiaPolitica... Bangladesh was part of British Indian Empire and the Bengal region is partly in it.
- cppenjoyer 3y ago[flagged]
- concordDance 3y agoWasn't the green revolution shortly after that? Which just leaves a <20 year window where a famine was possible. And British India had plenty of gaps of that size. I won't say it's literally zero evidence that famine was much more frequent under British rule, but its not very strong given the obvious confounder.