5 ms·

> India was one of the largest recipients of this food aid, particularly during the 1950s and 1960s when it faced severe food shortages. Slightly tangential, b

by n4r9 2y ago

> India was one of the largest recipients of this food aid, particularly during the 1950s and 1960s when it faced severe food shortages. Slightly tangential, but does anyone know why India faced such shortages in the 50s and 60s? I found an article on the subject [0] but it seems to come down to little more than mild crop yield variation combined with market speculation. This is a period of India's history that I find particularly interesting by way of comparison with China's "Great Famine". The latter is often put forward as a strong condemnation of communist economics, for example in the "Black Book of Communism". But in Chomsky's article response "Counting the bodies" (which I cannot seem to find a link for) he points out that India's per capita excess mortality rate over roughly this period is in fact greater than China's. I'm neither an authoritarian communist or a big fan of Chomsky's, but I would love to find reliable sources on this topic to come to my own conclusions. [0] https://www.economicsdiscussion.net/india/food-problem/food-problem-in-india-with-measures/21604#google_vignette https://www.economicsdiscussion.net/india/food-problem/food-...

anon291 2y ago
India and China both had socialist systems at the time, so using India as some kind of foil to China's communism is not going to work. People confuse democracy with the free market. It's not. India up until the 90s had a tightly regulated economy that rivaled China's economic control.
- n4r9 2y ago
  By all accounts I've read, describing India as "socialist" in the 1950s is not quite right. You only need look at the article I linked to see that a big reason for people going hungry was because couldn't afford the rising food prices. The prices being determined by purchasing power and market forces. And there was a functioning parliamentary democracy. At best you could say it was a mixed economy where the ruling party had some socialist economic policies. But you could say that about many modern European countries. So I still think the comparison with China is interesting.
  - anon291 2y ago
    Based on my own parents telling, I believe there was food rationing, price controls, licensing for basic businesses, etc Yes more free than China, but not so much market wise. All centrally planned from what I understand I could be wrong. Indian politics is not my strong point . I do think many people conflate it being the largest democracy for it being a free market. I personally witnessed the economic reforms of the 90s as an outsider via several visits and it was interesting to see as an outsider.
    - n4r9 2y ago
      Food rationing has certainly happened in India's recent history. The British colonial administration established it in the 40s, and it was then revived in the 60s following acute shortages. But prior to that revival, food availability and pricing seems to have been subject to market forces. This suggests - if anything - that central planning was actually used to prevent famine deaths. But it is very difficult to find much accessible literature on that period.
rawgabbit 2y ago
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution_in_India [2] https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/sca/rls/rm/31553.htm https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/sca/rls/rm/31553.htm <quotes> Low productivity: In the context of India's rapidly growing population, the country's traditional agricultural practices yielded insufficient food production. By the 1960s, this low productivity led India to experience food grain shortages that were more severe than those of other developing countries.[1] The effort was in fact an adoption of America's agriculture land grant system for universities on Indian soil. It helped launch what we now commonly call India's "green revolution." The U.S. Government, through the United States Agency for International Development (AID) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, partnering with the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, helped establish five state agriculture universities in India - including the Punjab Agricultural University - PAU - in Ludhiana. This was a significant joint intellectual and scientific effort: American universities sent educators and agricultural advisors to India to work side-by-side with Indian scientists and students. At the same time, American universities welcomed a corps of Indian agricultural specialists to American university campuses where they could learn first-hand about the technologies we employed in productive farming, ranching and crop science.[2] </quote>
- n4r9 2y ago
  Thanks for the links. It does seem like outdated agricultural practices and a booming population are critical factors. But that doesn't easily explain why there was an acute food shortage in 1958-59, despite rising yields (as per the article I linked).
  - rawgabbit 2y ago
    From the URL you posted. “There was actually no shortage of food grains, but what worried the people and the Government was the increase in food grains prices.” I remember reading during Indian Green Revolution was the introduction of practices to prevent hoarding and speculation. Unfortunately I don’t remember the details.

by n4r9 2y ago

anon291 2y ago

India and China both had socialist systems at the time, so using India as some kind of foil to China's communism is not going to work. People confuse democracy with the free market. It's not. India up until the 90s had a tightly regulated economy that rivaled China's economic control.

n4r9 2y ago
By all accounts I've read, describing India as "socialist" in the 1950s is not quite right. You only need look at the article I linked to see that a big reason for people going hungry was because couldn't afford the rising food prices. The prices being determined by purchasing power and market forces. And there was a functioning parliamentary democracy. At best you could say it was a mixed economy where the ruling party had some socialist economic policies. But you could say that about many modern European countries. So I still think the comparison with China is interesting.
- anon291 2y ago
  Based on my own parents telling, I believe there was food rationing, price controls, licensing for basic businesses, etc Yes more free than China, but not so much market wise. All centrally planned from what I understand I could be wrong. Indian politics is not my strong point . I do think many people conflate it being the largest democracy for it being a free market. I personally witnessed the economic reforms of the 90s as an outsider via several visits and it was interesting to see as an outsider.
  - n4r9 2y ago
    Food rationing has certainly happened in India's recent history. The British colonial administration established it in the 40s, and it was then revived in the 60s following acute shortages. But prior to that revival, food availability and pricing seems to have been subject to market forces. This suggests - if anything - that central planning was actually used to prevent famine deaths. But it is very difficult to find much accessible literature on that period.

rawgabbit 2y ago

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution_in_India [2] https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/sca/rls/rm/31553.htm https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/sca/rls/rm/31553.htm <quotes> Low productivity: In the context of India's rapidly growing population, the country's traditional agricultural practices yielded insufficient food production. By the 1960s, this low productivity led India to experience food grain shortages that were more severe than those of other developing countries.[1] The effort was in fact an adoption of America's agriculture land grant system for universities on Indian soil. It helped launch what we now commonly call India's "green revolution." The U.S. Government, through the United States Agency for International Development (AID) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, partnering with the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, helped establish five state agriculture universities in India - including the Punjab Agricultural University - PAU - in Ludhiana. This was a significant joint intellectual and scientific effort: American universities sent educators and agricultural advisors to India to work side-by-side with Indian scientists and students. At the same time, American universities welcomed a corps of Indian agricultural specialists to American university campuses where they could learn first-hand about the technologies we employed in productive farming, ranching and crop science.[2] </quote>

n4r9 2y ago
Thanks for the links. It does seem like outdated agricultural practices and a booming population are critical factors. But that doesn't easily explain why there was an acute food shortage in 1958-59, despite rising yields (as per the article I linked).
- rawgabbit 2y ago
  From the URL you posted. “There was actually no shortage of food grains, but what worried the people and the Government was the increase in food grains prices.” I remember reading during Indian Green Revolution was the introduction of practices to prevent hoarding and speculation. Unfortunately I don’t remember the details.