So I learn about an even called the Bengal Famine of 1943 today and figure to read up more up on it. I hit up its wikipedia page, and it doesn't make sense.
The civil administration did not intervene to control the price of rice, and so the price of rice exceeded the means of ordinary people. People migrated to the cities to find food and employment; finding neither, they starved.
I think to myself who wrote this nonsense? John Maynard Keynes? So they argue famine happened because the government didn't fix the problem of scarcity by introducing price controls??
But not to fear a short Google search later I learn it was actually the government which caused the prices to rise sky high in the first place, by buying up all the food to the point people could not compete with their meager resources anymore and could not buy any for themselves: Food deliveries from other parts of the country to Bengal were refused by the government in order to make food artificially scarce. This was an especially cruel policy introduced in 1942 under the title "Rice Denial Scheme." The purpose of it was, as mentioned earlier, to deny an efficient food supply to the Japanese after a possible invasion. Simultaneously, the government authorized free merchants to purchase rice at any price and to sell it to the government for delivery into governmental food storage. So, on one hand government was buying every grain of rice that was around and on the other hand, it was blocking grain from coming into Bengal from other regions of the country.
http://www.samarthbharat.com/bengalholocaust.htm
The lesson: sometimes Wiki sucks.
Another lesson: interventionism always sucks.
PS, isn't it interesting how we often hear about the Stalin-made famine and the Mao-made famine, but what about this Churchill-made famine? 3 million people died in it.
You should edit wikipedia then. Wikipedia is being used to spread statist ideas. It is not casual that all articles go in that direction.
"PS, isn't it interesting how we often hear about the Stalin-made famine and the Mao-made famine, but what about this Churchill-made famine? 3 million people died in it."
Didn't old Winston say: "history shall be kind to me for I intend to write it"?
In any case, Churchill is/was an example of the ultimate statist.
The civil administration did not intervene to control the price of rice [..]
So this is actually a total lie. According to your source, the administration did everything to change the price and availability of rice. I encourage you to change the Wiki.
It is quite hard to get to the bottom of this as it seems only freaking pinkos cluless of economics have ever tackled this event.
But it seems to have been a combination of things. Some of it was market break down due to the war. Nothing could be imported from Japanese controled Burma. Export from the region by sea was also hampered due to temporary Japanese naval supremacy.
Further market was hampered due to British measures directly related to the war, there was some scorched earth policies going on and people expelled from certain strategic sectors. Also the confiscation of most private boats by the government collapsed a part of the transportation and of trade.
Also the provincial Indian staffed governments generally closed themselves off from one another and hampered food from moving back and forth.
Then there were the British moves not directly connected to the war effort, they attempted to get their hands on large quantities of food to stockpile it for their use and so that there would be no reserves lying around for the Japanese invaders to live off. Apparently they also took measures to prevent food from elsewhere coming into the Bengal region, but it nowhere really says what these measures were (other than those of provincial Indian governments).
Then the final nail in the coffin was that in such a situation, of war, uncertainty and food vanishing into British storages, the natural impulse of the populace was to stockpile food for themselves. Better to buy it and store it before the government does, or before the Japanese invaders confiscate it. So in this race to buy it up, the poor lost out and died. Not only were they competing with government purchases directly, but also with people subsidiesed by the government. Various local government officials, native colonial soldiers, and workers in the defense industries. They had plenty of money to go around (in relative terms) since their employer (the government) could just print more money to hand it over to them and so they could stockpile all the food they felt like. Ordinary people who were the last to receive the inflated money however were in a tight spot.
Among the victims you actually had farmers that sold off their harvest whole since they were excited about the (initialy) slightly higher price, their thinking was they could buy a portion of it back later when the price would normalize and make a small gain only to see the price subsequently just rise and rise. They couldn't have known there was no reason to expect a let up in the price since the government could just print more money and therefore keep up the demand artificially high indefineteley.
The WP article lists various claims which are not completely in sync with that statement, so it is at least in doubt. As others have recommended, you should edit the page. Especially, with loaded issues, it is best to be very picky about the quality of resources. The article you've linked looks rather partisan, but it links to at least one source of interest - http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/1/Pfitzner71-75.html
See also http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/nov252004/1322.pdf -
"The 1942–45 famine is a direct consequence of the occupation policies in the form of (a) ‘boat denial scheme’, which resulted in the confiscation of 65,500 boats and as a consequence practically all fishing in the Bay of Bengal ceased and inland water navigation collapsed, (b) confiscation of land for military fortifications, which led to expulsion of 150,000 to 180,000 people from their land, making them homeless, and (c) export of food from the Bengal region in the framework of ‘rice denial scheme’."
Look around for this work: "Greenough, P. R., Prosperity and Misery in Modern Bengal, Oxford University Press, New York, 1982." - it seems to be a good source, but can't find a download (may require an account in some places).
See also the book Bengal tiger and British Lion starting with "The introduction of price controls on wheat in December 1941..."
There is probably much more out there, so gather the resources and you'll be good to go. :)
Mises Wiki | Economic Resources and Books (search engine)
Speaking of famines in Bengal and price controls, there was a flicker of hope somewhere - Schuettinger in his Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls mentions:
In the Indian province of Bengal failed the rice crop in 1770 and a third of the population died, the disaster attributed to the rigid policy of the government, determined to keep the price of grains down. But for at least once in human history, government did learn by experience. In 1866, the province of Bengal was again on the verge of famine. This time the procedure was completely different, as William Hunter relates: "Far from trying to check speculation, as in 1770, the Government did all in its power to stimulate it . . . . In the earlier famine one could hardly engage in the grain trade without becoming amenable to the law. In 1866 respectable men in vast numbers went into the trade; for the Government, by publishing weekly returns of the rates in every district, rendered the traffic both easy and safe. Everyone knew where to buy grain cheapest and where to sell it dearest and food was accordingly bought from the districts which could best spare it and carried to those which most urgently needed it."
Yeah, they must had forggotten some of the lessons because I read this preview later on yesterday and there are quite a bit of references of price controls and requisitions at "limited prices".
I wish I lived someplace where libraries were stocked with these books, but since they are not I don't think I have a hope of getting to the bottom of this.
Use the Internet, as far as it goes - it can't give you all resources in the world, but enough of them. By now you should have a decent enough amount to document at least a part of the story.
Let us know how it turned out!
I edited Wikipedia to include the quote you provided and eliminate that Keynesian nonsense. We'll see how long it lasts.
Excellent! Have expanded the resources to give it more oomph, let's see how it all works out.
I'm confused, the Wiki article on "Famine in India" says that the 1874 free market approach was a disaster. Perhaps a more enlightened poster can expand upon this and/or correct the article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India
Actually, what it seems to be saying, is, that the free market approach worked there, and was very successful; but failed during the next famine, hence free market evil. But depending on reading it could be a failure of the government relief effort:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#Famine_and_relief
Nobody says the free market can magically solve every single problem in the world, especially if one looks on purely commercial activities - but there is plenty of space for charity as well. Seeing a large-scale government relief effort, one is tempted to theorize if it wasn't at fault, and if it didn't crowd out more efficient helpers...
...but the sources seem to be missing. Anybody knows more about this one?
Wikipedia has basically turned into a propaganda tool to promote statist agendas. Here's another example: History of climate gets 'erased' online. I wonder who's really in charge at Wikipedia? The idea that "the people" determine the content seems like the myth that "the people" are the government in a democracy.
hugolp: You should edit wikipedia then. Wikipedia is being used to spread statist ideas. It is not casual that all articles go in that direction.
Wikipedia has a vangaurd, dissention is not allowed.