Causes of the 1943 Bengal Famine-Perspectives of Amartya Sen and

Peter Bowbrick

Ted Smith
Modern South Asian History
 Introduction
In the current age of climate change, massive migrations, and regional conflicts, a look at
historical famines and other such tragic events provides an enriching insight for our
understanding of societal problems and allows us to come up with better solutions. The 1943
Bengal famine is one such tragic event that happened in Bengal (present-day Bangladesh and
the Indian state of West Bengal) in 1943-44. The famine killed almost three million people of
Bengal due to the scarcity of food. This research endeavours to investigate the historical causes
of 1943 Bengal Famine and then analyzes them from the perspectives of Bengali economist
Amartya Sen and British market economist Peter Bowbrick.

Research methodology
This is a qualitative research in which historical approach has been used by adopting
observational and analytical tools. Various primary and secondary sources have been consulted
for the development of content: historical books, journal articles, official reports, historians'
perspectives, etc. In the development of the research, initially, a general description of the
causes of 1943 Bengal famine, on which most of the historians agree, have been layed down
and then each one of the causes has been specifically analyzed by comparing and contrasting
the perspectives of Amartya Sen and Peter Bowbrick. Lastly, conclusion and findings have been
drawn to comprehend the research.

Theoretical framework: Perspectives of Amartya Sen and Peter

Bowbrick
This research takes two distinct views on the causes of famine: Amartya Sen's and Peter
Bowbrick's. Both, Amartya Sen and Peter Bowbrick, are prominent economists and presents an
economic perspective of famine, specifically of 1943 Bengal Famine. According to both, famine
is an economic phenomenon that is caused by certain economic, political and social factors.
However they both hold different opinions over the nature of these factors: For Bowbrick these
are natural factors that are unavoidable while Sen argues that the factors are anthrophongenic
(man-made) that can be controlled by various artificial interventions.
Amartya Ben considers that the causes of famine are more anthropagenic (man-made) than
natural. For Ben, the shortage of food is not as much devastating factor as is the redistribution
of food. He believes that societies are self-sufficient in their own resources ; and they only face
crises like famine when these resources are not distributed efficiently because of various
anthropogenic factors. He asserts that importing resources from abroad is not as efficient as is
managing them from within. He believes that famine can be controlled through artificial
interventions such as proper distribution, rationing, subsidizing, controlling speculation and
black market, enhancing peace and development, etc.
Peter Bowbrick holds that food availability decline remains an easy way to describe and
understand famines. An interruption to the food supply of a given area caused by some force
beyond productive control, what one might colloquially refer to as an act of god (environmental
factors, war, invasive species, etc.), creates and prolongs famine. He believes that a balance
between supply and demand can only be achieved and sustained through the 'invisible hand' of
free market, which can be disturbed by the artificial interventions of the government. He
affirms that instead of relocating the resources, governments need to focus more on the
modes of production so that suffiecient supply can be provided to meet the demands of the
crises like famine.

Objectives and significance of the research

This research is determined to initially investigate the causes of 1943 Bengal Famine and then
to analyze them from a specific perspective of Smartya Sen and Peter Bowbrick. By comparing
and contrasting the views of both economists on a specific case study, this research endeavours
to come up with more sophisticated findings about the major issues and causes associated with
famines. By the evaluation of a specific scenario, this research will explore how and to what
extent different natural and anthropogenic factors can make the conditions drastic. Moreover,
through the suggestions of both these prominent economists, this research will help in findings
new methods and interventions through which disasters like 1943 Bengal famine can be tackled
more appropriately.

Historical background
Bengal had witnessed many crises in history due to a number of natural and anthropogenic
factors. Bengal was an agrarian economy that had been administered by British colonial
government. The economy was highly volatile to natural disasters (drought, cycloon, floods,
etc) that, joined with various other factors, impacted the local population from time to time. In
1770s, Bengal faced the severist famine due to drought that killed almost 10 million people.
However, all the famines that occurred before 1943 were because of drought; the 1943 Bengal
famine was mainly because of heavy rains and wrong policies of British colonial government
that killed almost three million people in the province. Moreover, the famine occured during
World War II that devastated the conditions further. This research tries to investigate the
causes of 1943 Bengal famine and then analyzes them from the perspectives of Amartya Sen
and Peter Bowbrick.

Causes of 1943 Bengal Famine-perspectives of Amartya Sen and Peter

Bowbrick.
1943 Bengal had occurred because of a number of reasons, both natural and anthropogenic in
nature. The major causes of the famine were: malnutrition, over population vs scarce
resources, rice disease, cycloon, heavy rain, floods, war-time crises, British denial policies,
inter-provincial trade barriers, displacement, British authoritative policies, unequal distribution
of resources, minimized subsidies, political crises, inflation, market failure, and diseases. Here
is a brief description of these causes along with the perspectives of the Amartya Sen and Peter
Bowbrick on these causes.

Malnutrition
The primary and the most drastic cause of 1943 Bengal Famine, where all the other factors and
causes converged to leave an ultimate impact, was malnutrition: the available food was not
sufficient enough to meet the essential energy requirements of the population. Many natural
and anthropogenic factors, coupled with many economic, social, and political conditions
(discussed below) provoked and ultimately created an imbalance between the supply and
demand of food: a huge number of population was left short of food. The scarcity of food-food
being the most essential prerequisite for the survival of any being- resulted body weakness that
triggered multiple diseases and ultimately drew almost 3 million people towards death.
Both, Amartya Sen and Peter Bowbrick, hold that the 1943 Bengal famine was mainly because
of malnutrition. However, they have varying positions on the nature of this cause. Sen argues
that malnutrition was not a natural cause of the 1943 Bengal Famine; rather it was man-made
that happened due to the wrong policies of British government. However, Bowbrick contends
that malnutrition was not preventable; malnutrition was inevitable because Bengal faced
natural disasters-war, floods, etc.- that were, to a greater extent, out of the control of British
government.

Over-population vs scarce resources

The available economic resources of Bengal had failed to meet up the demands of growing
population that ultimately paved the way for 1943 Bengal Famine. The Bengal economy had
been agrarian-based where almost three-quarters of the population was associated with
agriculture. For the last few decades, the population of Bengal had been increasing at a
surprising rate but the land resources and the overall agricultural productivity remained
stagnant. The governmental policies and the methods adopted for agriculture failed to produce
that much enough food and per capita income which could meet the needs of growing
population. Consequently, the balance between supply and demand disturbed drastically and
the proportion of population suffering from malnutrition and impoverishment continued to
increase with passing years. This imbalance, augmented with multiple other factors, resulted
hunger and famine at a massive scale.
Sen and Bowbrick continuously disagree on this point. Sen believes that Bengal had been self-
sufficient in its resources; there was no insufficiency of resources in 1943. By referring to
Famine Commission Reports 1945, Sen asserts that Bengal had 11% more food resources in
1943 than the ones it had in 1941. He contends that the problem came when British
government failed to distribute the resources efficiently and effectively. Bowbrick, on the other
hand, claims that the statistics and arguments of Sen are invalid. He asserts that the resources
of Bengal were continuously lagging to meet the demands of ever-increasing population.

Natural Disasters: rice-disease, Cycloon, heavy rains, and floods.

Natural disasters-fungal disease, cycloon, rains, and tidal waves-destroyed a significant portion
of the rice crop fields which, according to Famine Enquiry Commission 1945, put a 30% cut in
the overall rice supply and became an unprecedented and sudden cause of Famine in Bengal.
Rice had been almost 80% source of food for Bengal. Three crops had been yielded in one year:
the December "aman" crop-74% of output, September "aus" crop-24% of output, and March
"boro" crop-3% of output. In September 1942, a fungal rice-disease spread that defected the
rice crop severely. Moreover, in October, a massive cyclone followed by heavy torrentail rains
and tidal waves destroyed thousands of acres of rice crop and storage places in western Bengal,
causing a shortfall of about 30% of total rice supply in Bengal. This natural disaster put a
sudden shortage which caused the prices to double at the end of the season, a serious
malnutrition in the March, and a full-swing famine in June 1943.
Sen and Bowbrick accepts that Bengal faced some serious disasters that disturbed the general
flow of food supply. However, Sen argues that these disasters were not as lethal as they are
claimed to be. He claims that these disasters were limited to a very small region and asserts
that the average food production of Bengal was cut by only small proportion. On the other
hand, Bowbrick holds that the natural disasters left severe impacts on the supply of food; they
produced a sudden shortfall that could not be met in the short time.

War-time Crises
Japanese intervention: trade Barriers; stoppage of imports
Japan expansion in South East Asia and its occupation of Burma stopped the importation of rice
from Burma and put a severe trade barrier for India in the Indian ocean which contributed to
the food availability decline (FDA) in Bengal. Bengal used to import a significant supply (almost
oneof rice from Rangoon (Burma) to meet its food consumption. The occupation of
Rangoon(Burma) by Japanese forces in March 1942 stopped this import. Moreover, the
expansion of Japanese forces in Bay of Bengal prevented Bengal to trade in the Bay; Japanese
destroyed 100,000 tones of merchant shipping in the Bay. Also, the Japanese forces started
attacking major locations of Bengal in December 1942. This created a sense of emergency and
jolted the supply-demand process significantly, pushing the inducement of famine towards
norrower ends.
Sen and Bowbrick hold similar opinions that the World War II caused a severe disturbance in
the supply-demand chain of food in Bengal. However, Sen call the war an anthropogenic
phenomenon while Bowbrick consider it a natural one. Sen believes that authoritative regimes
tend to provoke instability and warfare; the nations involved in World War II were
authoritative in nature that pulled the war onto people and drew them into misery. He believes
that 1943 Bengal Famine might not have been as devastating if Britain had not pulled India into
WWII. However, Bowbrick believes that nations could not prevent wars due to conflicts of
interests. He believes that war impacted Bengal severally but considers it an inevitable course
of history.

British Denial Policies: 'Scorched Earth'

British Indian government's 'denial policies of rice and boats' to 'scorch the earth' for Japanese
destabilized the running food-chain supply significantly that worsened the already deteriorated
conditions further. In response to Japanese occupation of Burma, its expansion in the Bay of
Bengal, and its air-attacks on major Bengal cities, the British Indian government feared the
occupation of Bengal by Japanese forces and adopted the 'scorched earth' initiative under
'denial policy' to limit the access of Japanese forces to food, transport, and other resources.
Under 'denial policy of rice', the government removed or destroyed the surplus rice in the
coastal districts which severally damaged the food availability in the respective regions. Under
"the denial policy of Boat' army confiscated, destroyed, or relocated the larger boats-
approximately 45,000- in the coastal regions that damaged the fishery- a source of food for
approximately 15% of total population-and food transport system severally. These denial
policies colloquially aggravated the food crises further.
Sen and Bowbrick consider the denial policies of British government as the ones that disturbed
the balance of supply and demand. Ben believes that the Britishers policies were always meant
to defend the interests of the Crest Britain; they had no concerns about how much local people
will suffer from it. Ben calls the denial policies of the government as a complete failure, an
anthropogenic act of the government that drew millions of people towards misery. On the
other hand, Bowbick defends the stance of government and considers that the need of hour
demanded the government to enact such policies. He believes that emergencies always
happen in the history of nations; they have to come across such policies; the crises of the time
forced the government to enact such policies.

Inter-provincial trade Barriers

Anticipating the food crises, the provincial governments in India put barriers on inter-provincial
trade that affected the Bengal province severally. There has been an ongoing shortfall in the
availability of food due to various natural and war-time crises (some discussed above, some
below). This raised the concerns of provincial administrations. To prevent famine in their
respective areas, the provincial governments, through the Defence of India Act, 1939, put
barriers on inter-provincial trade. Bengal, which had been among the last ones to stop the
exportation of Bengal to other provinces, lost a significant portion of its proportional food, and
the inter-provincial trade barriers left no way for it to import food from anywhere.
Consequently, Bengal suffered the most when it was hit by shortage of food and famine.
Ben and Bowbrick, both, call this action of government an unwise dicision. Sen calls this policy
as another act of government that provoked unequal distribution of resources. He believes that
this policy restricted the Bengal to overcome the crises of famine. On the other hand, Bowbrick
believes that free flow of goods always stabilizes the supply-demand chain through 'invisible
hand'. Bowbrick believes that this policy of government restricted the 'invisible hand's to work
freely.

Displacement

There had been a huge displacement, both military and civil, in Bengal during the war-time
crises that increased the food demand and put a huge burden on the food supply. The influx of
soldiers and refugees from across the borders and from within was massive in Bengal. Fearing
the Japanese invasion, a large number of allied soldiers of USA, china, and the Great Britain
have camped in Bengal. Moreover, the Burman occupation by Japanese forces pushed almost
half million of refugees to Bengal. The local food resources had already been lagging to meet
the needs of local people; this influx further worsened the condition and put an extra burden
on the Bengal. Moreover, this influx worsened the sanitary conditions, spread diseases, and
triggered malnutrition.Resultantly, the rate of the expansion of 1943 Bengal famine increased
further.
Sen and Bowbrick consider that the influx of refugees and soldiers put a pressure on the food
supply that increased the rate of famine. Sen believes that the government should first
prioritize the welfare of local people. He asserts that government should not have allowed this
displacement, especially in Bengal when it was already going through so many crises. While
Bowbrick puts that displacement was not as much bigger problem. The influx was not asuch a
big problem if government had somehow managed to increase the supply of food in Bengal.

British Authoritative Policies

Due to its indulgences in World War II, British government prioritized war-policies and paid little
heed to famine crises. The government did not took substantial steps that could stop or limit
the famine. In addition, the British Indian government adopted authoritative policies that
worsened the conditions further. Its unequal distribution of resources, minimized subsidies,
and political crises fueled the fire of famine further. Consequently, the havoc of 1943 Bengal
famine proved more devastating. Here is a brief analysis of British authoritative policies during
1943 Bengal famine.
 Unequal distribution of resources

To maintain control, British colonial policies, historians claim, distributed resources on the basis
of loyalties and favouritism and this trend increased especially during famine and war-time
crises which contributed to severe impoverishment of 'unprivileged' sections of society. In
1943, Bengal had already been facing a significant shortage of food. The unequal distribution of
resources worsened the conditions further. The British government grabbed thousands of acres
of land from farmers for military purposes. Moreover, through its Food Stough Scheme, it
distributed food and services on preferential basis to those who are associated with high
priority roles such as armed forces, war industry, civil servants, etc. so that they won't leave
their positions. Consequently, there developed a higher polarity: some sections enjoyed high
privileges while, on the other hand, some lived a life of hunger and impoverishment.
Both, Sen and Bowbrick, condemns this act of government. Sen blames this factor as the major
reason of famine in Bengal. He claims that Bengal would not have faced famine if the
government had distributed the resources and efficiently. He claims that this policy allowed
some sections of society to have extra privileges while another section suffered to death
because of this policy. Bowbrick also condemns this policy. He goes further that government
should limit its interventions in the property affairs of its citizens and should encourage a free-
market.

Minimized Subsidies

Due to war-time crises, the British government stopped subsidizing the food shortage in India
that put an extra burden on the food economy. During famine crises, governments used to
subsidize the food, and the British government did too in previous times, but this time, in 1943
Bengal Famine, due to war-burden, it stopped all kind of subsidy to food industry.
Consequently, the effect of the famine became more lethal than it could have been otherwise.
Ben and Bowbrick have contradictions on the minimized subsidy policy of British government.
Ben asserts that government ought to have subsidized the food. He claims that through
rationing and subsidizing, the government could have prevented thousands of people from
dying. On the other hand, Bowbrick considers that rationing and subsidizing might not have
been an effective policy. He states that subsidizing disturbs the free market, and if government
had subsidized food, then food crises might have been much severe than the one being faced
by Bengal.

Political crisis

Political crises in India also became one of the factors that played role in worsening the famine
conditions. Famine occured in a time period when political crises in India were at their peak.
British Indian government was completely indulged in World War II and political movements-
like Quit-india Movement-were highly mobilized throughout India. To prevent civil war in India,
the government put severe instructions on political rights and freedoms. It jailed many leaders
of the Quit-india movement; banned popular gatherings; and censored printing press. In
reaction, local people held violent strikes. Consequently, political crises in India provoked
disruption and instability in the mechanism of food supply which increased the impact of
famine further.
Ben and Bowbrick both considers that political crises disturbed the supply-demand chain of
food. However, Sen blames the government for political crises but Bowbrick puts this blame
on the local people. Ben asserts that the government had restricted the rights and freedoms of
its citizens; the citizens could not participate in the demand-making process; they could not get
their voices heard in the political arena; the authoritative government was not accountable to
anyone. Consequently, government did not care about people and adopted such policies that
impacted the local people the most. Ben believes that the consequences might not have been
that much dark in a democracratic state as they were there in the authorian regime of British in
India.

Inflation
The war-time crises, coupled with many other factors (discussed above), devolped a massive
inflation of food- an increase in the prices of food and services- which became one of the most
fatal reasons in 1943 Bengal Famine. To fund military escalations, government grabbed land
from thousands of farmers; printed excessive money; payed farmers in cash-devalued one-
instead of monetary fund. These conditions multipled with shortage of food, increase in
demand, and irregular distribution of resources aggravated the inflation and increased the
prices of food to an exponential level. Consequently, it became more and more difficult for a
greater portion of population to buy food, increasing the lethality of the famine further.
Sen and Bowbrick shares the opinion that a severe inflation occurred during 1943 Bengal
Famine. However, Sen blames that this inflation was triggered by the wrong policies of
government that allowed speculations and unequal redistribution of resources which allowed
the prices to rise at their peak. On the other hand, Bowbrick condemns this opinion and holds
that inflation was inevitable during the famine and government could not prevent it because a
there was a massive shortage of supply of food in the market.

Market failure
Market failure, historians claim, has also been one of the major factors that triggered the
devastations of famine. Market forces failed to keep the balance between supply and demand
that resulted massive instability in the steady flow of food. The rising demand, the declining
supply, and the elevating inflation of food resulted extensive speculation in the market. This
speculation worsened the conditions, triggered black mafia, and rose prices to its peak. The
'invisible hand' of the market failed to keep all these forces in control that ultimately resulted a
massive shortage of food in the market that became the prime reason of the famine.
Ben and Bowbrick, both, accepts that during 1943 Bengal famine, market failure was at its peak.
However, Sen calls the improper redistribution of resources as the real cause of this failure
while Bowbrick holds that the shortage of supply was the principle factor behind this inflation.

Diseases
Diseases became apparent in the second phase of famine -late 1943- but left denting marks in
the devastations of famine. After malnutrition, diseases became the second most lethal cause
of deaths during the famine. Almost half of the total deaths (almost 1.5 million) in the famine
resulted from diseases-cholera, malaria, etc- that spread due to: malnutrition; displacement;
and bad sanitary and health conditions. By the end of 1943, most of the issues related to food
scarcity has been tackled but the weakness that have prevailed among population because of
starvation killed almost one and half million people in the next six times.
Ben and Bowbrick both accepts that diseases triggered the lethality of the 1943 Bengal famine.
However, Sen considers that it was the negligence of the government that provoked diseases
while Bowbrick holds that diseases were the natural disasters that the government could not
prevent from happening.

Conclusion and Findings

This research investigates the causes of 1943 Bengal Famine and then provides a critical
analysis of them from the perspectives of eminent economists Amartya Sen and Peter
Bowbrick. It finds that 1943 Bengal famine resulted from both the natural and anthropogenic
factors. There has been natural disasters as well as the wrong policies of the government that
collectively resulted the 1943 Bengal famine. The famine has been caused by: natural disasters-
diseases, cycloon, heavy rains, floods; war-time crises; colonial authoritative policies-unequal
distribution of resources, political crises, etc.; inflation; and market failure that jointly made
the famine so devastating and lethal that it put almost three million people to death. The
research finds that the severity of famines can be minimized significantly if the governmental
and market agencies succeed in implementing effective interventions for deterring the natural
and anthropogenic causes.
 Bibliography

 Binay Bhushan. “The Process of Depeasantization in Bengal and Bihar, 1885–1947.” Indian Historical Review, vol. 2, no. 1, 1975,

www.sas.upenn.edu/~dludden/bibessay.htm. Accessed 4 May 2022.

 Bowbrick, Peter. “The Causes of Famine: A Refutation of Professor Sen’s Theory.” Food Policy, vol. 11, no. 2, 1986, pp. 105–24, 10.1016/0306-

9192(86)90059-X.

 Brennan, Lance. “Government Famine Relief in Bengal, 1943 | Lance Brennan | Download.” Ur.booksc.eu, vol. 47, no. 3, 1988, pp. 541–66,

ur.booksc.eu/book/26802010/d23379, 10.2307/2056974. Accessed 4 May 2022.

 Commission, Famine Inquiry. “The Famine Inquiry Commission Final Report.” 14.139.60.153, vol. V, no. 1, 1945, 14.139.60.153/handle/123456789/8946.

Accessed 4 May 2022.

 Das, Tarakchandra. Bengal Famine (1943) as Revealed in a Survey of the Destitutes in Calcutta. Open WorldCat, Calcutta, University of Calcutta, 1949,

www.worldcat.org/title/bengal-famine-1943-as-revealed-in-a-survey-of-the-destitutes-in-calcutta/oclc/471540399. Accessed 4 May 2022.

 Frost, Marcia J. “The Demography of Famines: An Indian Historical Perspective. By Arup Maharatna. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996. Xviii, 317 Pp.

$32.00 (Cloth).” The Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 57, no. 2, May 1998, pp. 581–583, 10.2307/2658909. Accessed 30 Jan. 2021.

 Greenough, Paul R. Prosperity and Misery in Modern Bengal: The Famine of 1943-1944. Open WorldCat, New York, Oxford University Press, 1982,

www.worldcat.org/title/prosperity-and-misery-in-modern-bengal-the-famine-of-1943-1944/oclc/7875535. Accessed 29 Apr. 2022.

 Greenough, Paul R. “Indian Famines and Peasant Victims: The Case of Bengal in 1943–44.” Modern Asian Studies, vol. 14, no. 2, Apr. 1980, pp. 205–235,

10.1017/s0026749x00007319.

 Mukherjee, Janam. "Hungry Bengal : War, Famine and the End of Empire". Oxford: Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. Accessed February 20,

2022. ProQuest Ebook Central.

 Sen, Amartya. “Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation.” Harvard.edu, Clarendon Press, 2012,

scholar.harvard.edu/sen/publications/poverty-and-famines-essay-entitlement-and-deprivation. Accessed 26 June 2019.