Introduction
While famines were not unknown in pre-colonial India, the 19th and early 20th centuries under British rule witnessed an alarming increase in their frequency, intensity, and human cost. This catastrophic phenomenon was not merely a result of natural calamities like drought or floods but was profoundly exacerbated, and in many cases directly caused, by the exploitative colonial economic policies. Heavy land revenue demands, forced commercialization of agriculture, de-industrialization, and the drain of wealth collectively undermined the resilience of the Indian rural economy, leaving millions vulnerable to starvation. The British famine policy, initially characterized by indifference and strict adherence to laissez-faire principles, gradually evolved with the establishment of Famine Commissions and Famine Codes, yet often remained inadequate, delayed, and failed to address the fundamental structural causes of famine, leading to persistent nationalist critiques.
Increased Frequency & Intensity
Historical Anomaly
Historical evidence suggests a significant increase in the number and severity of famines during the 19th and early 20th centuries compared to earlier periods, particularly the Mughal era. This indicates a profound shift in the vulnerability of the Indian populace.
Catastrophic Human Cost
Millions perished in these famines, far exceeding mortality rates from similar events in pre-colonial times. This tragic loss of life points to a systemic vulnerability of the Indian population and economy under British rule.
Sources: Amartya Sen, "Poverty and Famines"; Mike Davis, "Late Victorian Holocausts"
Root Causes of Famines
Famines in colonial India were a complex interplay of natural factors and, crucially, exploitative colonial economic policies.
Natural Triggers
- Drought: Insufficient rainfall, leading to crop failures.
- Floods: Excess rainfall and inundation, destroying crops.
- These factors were always present, but their impact was amplified by colonial policies.
Heavy Land Revenue Demand
British policies (Permanent, Ryotwari, Mahalwari) imposed extremely high and rigid revenue demands, often payable in cash regardless of harvest conditions. This left no surplus for peasants to save or invest in improvement.
Commercialization of Agriculture
Forced shift from food crops to cash crops (cotton, indigo, opium, jute) for export to Britain. This reduced local food security and exposed peasants to market price fluctuations.
De-industrialization
Destruction of India's traditional handicraft industries led to mass unemployment. Artisans were forced back to agriculture, increasing pressure on land and removing alternative livelihoods during crises.
Drain of Wealth
Continuous outflow of wealth from India to Britain prevented indigenous capital accumulation and investment in productive sectors, leading to general impoverishment and reduced crisis-withstanding capacity.
Neglect of Irrigation
British often neglected traditional irrigation systems (tanks, wells, canals). New projects were limited and often prioritized cash crops, increasing dependence on unreliable rainfall.
Laissez-faire Attitude
Initial adherence to strict non-interventionist economic ideology, believing market forces would correct shortages. Resulted in governmental apathy and lack of systematic relief.
Source: Amartya Sen, Mike Davis, Bipan Chandra
Crucial Point: Initially, despite railways, transport networks were inadequate or not prioritized for famine relief. Food grains were often still exported from famine-affected areas to meet British demands, exacerbating local shortages.
Major Famines: A Historical Timeline
-
1770
Bengal Famine of 1770
One of the earliest and most devastating, occurred during the Dual Government. Led to the death of an estimated one-third of Bengal's population, largely due to the Company's ruthless revenue collection and apathy.
-
1866-67
Orissa Famine (1866-67)
Caused by drought and neglect of irrigation. Millions died. This catastrophe led to the appointment of the George Campbell Commission, marking a slight shift in British policy.
-
1876-78
Great Famine (1876-78)
Devastated vast areas, particularly Madras, Bombay, Mysore, and Hyderabad. Millions perished across Southern and Central India. Led to the appointment of the influential Strachey Commission.
-
1896-1900
Famines of 1896-97 & 1899-1900
Widespread and severe famines towards the end of the 19th century, prompting the Lyall Commission and later the MacDonnell Commission (appointed by Lord Curzon), which was considered the most elaborate.
-
1943
Bengal Famine of 1943
A catastrophic famine towards the end of British rule, amidst WWII. Caused by a combination of natural factors (cyclone, blight), British wartime policies (diversion of food, denial of imports, "scorched earth" in Burma), and lack of effective distribution. Amartya Sen argued it was primarily an "entitlement failure".
Source: Amartya Sen, Mike Davis, Spectrum
Evolution of British Famine Policy
The British response to famines evolved from initial indifference to a more systematic, though often inadequate, approach.
Early Indifference & Laissez-faire
In the early phase (e.g., Bengal Famine of 1770), the Company's response was marked by extreme apathy and rigid adherence to laissez-faire principles, believing state intervention would distort markets. Revenue collection continued ruthlessly.
Famine Commissions
As famines became more devastating, and with growing criticism, various Famine Commissions were appointed to investigate causes and recommend relief:
- George Campbell Commission (1866-67): After Orissa Famine, emphasized better distribution & public works.
- Strachey Commission (1880): Most influential, after Great Famine. Recommended a comprehensive Famine Code.
- Lyall Commission (1896-97)
- MacDonnell Commission (1900-01): Appointed by Curzon, considered most elaborate, emphasized moral duty of state, private charity, and intelligence gathering.
Development of Famine Codes
Based on the Strachey Commission's recommendations, a model Famine Code was developed in 1883 for provinces to adopt. These codes provided structured guidelines for systematic relief measures:
- Employment on Public Works: To provide income to the able-bodied (e.g., digging canals, building roads).
- Gratuitous Relief: Providing food/money to the infirm, aged, or young children unable to work.
- Suspension/Remission of Revenue: Suspending or remitting land revenue payments during famines.
- Loans: Providing small loans to cultivators for seeds, cattle.
- Early Warning Systems: Emphasis on better intelligence gathering.
Limitations of Famine Policy: Despite the codes, relief efforts were often inadequate, delayed, and poorly implemented. The policy was reactive, focused on managing crises rather than addressing root causes like poverty, lack of irrigation, or exploitative revenue systems. They managed symptoms, not the disease.
Source: Spectrum, Amartya Sen, Mike Davis
Nationalist Critique: Man-made Disasters
Voices of Dissent
Indian nationalists (e.g., Dadabhai Naoroji, R.C. Dutt, G.V. Joshi, G.K. Gokhale) vehemently criticized the British famine policy and strongly linked the increasing frequency and severity of famines directly to colonial economic exploitation.
Key Arguments
- Man-made Disasters: Famines were not natural calamities but products of British policies that impoverished the peasantry.
- Drain of Wealth: Continuous outflow prevented capital accumulation and investment in India.
- High Revenue Demands: Left peasants with no savings.
- De-industrialization: Destroyed alternative livelihoods.
- Forced Commercialization: Shift to cash crops reduced food security.
- Apathy and Inaction: Criticized continued export of food grains during famines.
Source: Bipan Chandra, "Economic Nationalism in India"
Impact: This nationalist critique became a powerful tool in mobilizing public opinion against British rule, highlighting its exploitative nature and the suffering it inflicted on the Indian population.
Famines and British Policy: Summary
| Aspect | Description / Key Characteristics |
|---|---|
| Severity | Increased frequency & intensity in 19th/early 20th C, millions perished. |
| Causes (Colonial) | Heavy land revenue, Commercialization of agriculture (shift from food crops), De-industrialization, Drain of wealth, Neglect of irrigation, Laissez-faire attitude (early). |
| Major Famines (Examples) | Bengal Famine (1770), Orissa (1866-67), Great Famine (1876-78), Bengal (1943). |
| Evolution of Policy | Early Indifference (Laissez-faire). Gradual response: Famine Commissions (Campbell, Strachey (1880 - Famine Code), Lyall, MacDonnell (1900-01)). Development of Famine Codes (1883): public works, gratuitous relief, revenue remission. |
| Policy Limitations | Relief often inadequate & delayed; Focused on symptoms, not root causes; Did not change exploitative economic policies. |
| Nationalist Critique | Argued famines were man-made disasters, direct result of colonial exploitation (Drain, heavy revenue, de-industrialization, govt. apathy). |
UPSC Ready Notes
- Famines became more frequent and severe in the 19th century under British rule.
- Causes (British policies): High land revenue demands, forced commercialization of agriculture (shift from food crops to cash crops), de-industrialization (loss of alternative livelihoods), Drain of Wealth (impoverishment), neglect of irrigation, and the initial laissez-faire attitude of the government.
- Major Famines:
- Bengal Famine of 1770: Occurred during the Dual Government.
- Orissa Famine (1866-67).
- Great Famine (1876-78): Affected Madras, Bombay, Mysore.
- Bengal Famine of 1943: Occurred during WWII.
- British Famine Policy:
- Initially, indifferent and adhered to laissez-faire.
- Later, Famine Commissions were appointed:
- Strachey Commission (1880): Recommended the development of a Famine Code.
- MacDonnell Commission (1900-01): Appointed by Lord Curzon, considered the most comprehensive.
- Famine Codes: Provided guidelines for relief (employment on public works, gratuitous relief, revenue suspension).
- Limitations of policy: Relief was often inadequate and delayed; policies addressed symptoms, not the root causes of famine (colonial economic policies).
- Nationalist critique: Leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji and R.C. Dutt linked famines directly to colonial exploitation, arguing they were "man-made" disasters.
Major Debates/Discussions:
- Natural vs. Man-made Famines: While natural calamities (drought, floods) were triggers, the core debate centers on whether famines were primarily "man-made" disasters due to colonial economic policies and administrative failures. Nationalist historians (R.C. Dutt, Amartya Sen, Mike Davis) strongly argue for the latter, emphasizing "entitlement failure" and colonial exploitation.
- Effectiveness of British Famine Policy: Was the evolution of famine policy (Commissions, Codes) a genuine humanitarian effort or a necessary administrative response to criticism and unrest? Critics argue it remained inadequate, late, and failed to address systemic causes.
Historical/Long-term Trends, Continuity & Changes:
- Impoverishment and Vulnerability: British economic policies systematically impoverished the Indian peasantry, stripping them of resilience.
- Shift in State Responsibility: Gradual shift from complete laissez-faire to an acknowledgement of state responsibility for relief, albeit limited.
- Integration into Colonial Economy: Forced commercialization undermined local food security, making India susceptible to global market fluctuations.
- Nationalist Mobilization: Famines became a powerful tool for nationalist leaders to expose exploitation.
Contemporary Relevance/Significance/Impact:
- Food Security: Profoundly shaped post-independence agricultural and food security policies (Green Revolution, PDS).
- Disaster Management: Lessons learned inform modern disaster management and relief efforts (NDMA).
- Poverty Alleviation: Understanding historical roots crucial for contemporary poverty alleviation and rural development.
- Economic Justice: Nationalist critique highlights enduring questions about economic justice and equitable resource distribution.
While the topic is historical, its profound human and economic consequences continue to inform contemporary debates and policies related to food security, poverty alleviation, and disaster management in India.
- Food Security Programs: Current government schemes like the National Food Security Act (NFSA), Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana, or debates on food subsidies and buffer stocks directly address issues of food security and hunger that have historical roots in colonial-era famines.
- Disaster Management: India's contemporary disaster management framework (e.g., National Disaster Management Authority - NDMA) and its evolution reflect lessons learned from past disasters, including famines.
- Agricultural Reforms & Farmer Welfare: Discussions around farmer distress, crop insurance (e.g., PM Fasal Bima Yojana), and improving rural livelihoods implicitly refer to the vulnerabilities created by colonial policies that led to famines.
- Academic Research: New academic publications, economic history research, or documentaries that revisit the causes and consequences of specific colonial famines (e.g., Bengal Famine of 1943) often draw on new data or theoretical frameworks (like Amartya Sen's entitlement theory).
UPSC Previous Year Questions
Prelims MCQs
UPSC CSE Prelims 2019:
Q. In the context of the history of India, 'R.C. Dutt' is known for which of the following?
- (a) Founding the Indian National Congress.
- (b) Leading the Swadeshi Movement.
- (c) Formulating the 'Drain of Wealth' theory.
- (d) Writing a comprehensive 'Economic History of India'.
Hint: R.C. Dutt, a key nationalist critic of British economic policies, wrote "The Economic History of India," which extensively covered famines and their link to colonial exploitation.
New Prelims MCQ (based on themes):
Q. Which of the following Famine Commissions recommended the establishment of a Famine Code in British India?
- (a) George Campbell Commission
- (b) Strachey Commission
- (c) Lyall Commission
- (d) MacDonnell Commission
Hint: The Strachey Commission (1880) was instrumental in recommending the development of a comprehensive Famine Code.
UPSC CSE Prelims 2016:
Q. Which of the following statements about the Great Famine of 1876-78 is correct?
- (a) It primarily affected Bengal and led to the adoption of a strict laissez-faire policy.
- (b) It led to the appointment of the George Campbell Commission.
- (c) It caused widespread devastation in Madras, Bombay, and Mysore Presidencies.
- (d) It was the first famine for which the British government provided systematic relief efforts.
Hint: The Great Famine of 1876-78 devastated large parts of Southern India.
Mains Questions
UPSC CSE Mains 2019: General Studies Paper I
Q. Why was there a sudden spurt in famines in colonial India since the mid-18th century?
UPSC CSE Mains 2020: General Studies Paper I
Q. To what extent did the 'Drain of Wealth' contribute to the underdevelopment of India during British rule? Discuss the main components and mechanisms of this drain.