Sinister Cultural Marxist
11th August 2011, 17:13
Stalin was a mass murderer, but how many has Capitalism killed by starvation and violence?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770
The Bengal famine of 1770 (Bengali: ৭৬-এর মন্বন্তর, Chhiattōrer monnōntór; lit The Famine of '76) was a catastrophic famine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine) between 1769 and 1773 (1176 to 1180 in the Bengali calendar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengali_calendar)) that affected the lower Gangetic plain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangetic_plain) of India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India). The famine is estimated to have caused the deaths of 10 million people (one out of three, reducing the population to thirty million in Bengal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal), which included Bihar and parts of Orissa). The Bengali names derives from its origins in the Bengali calendar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangla_calendar) year 1176. ("Chhiattōr"- "76"; "monnōntór"- "famine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine)" in Bengali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengali_language)).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770#cite_note-4)
Fault for the famine occurred due to the British East India Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_East_India_Company)'s policies in Bengal.
As a trading body, the first remit of the company was to maximise its profits and with taxation rights the profits to be obtained from Bengal came from land tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax) as well as trade tariffs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff). As lands came under company control, the land tax was typically raised fivefold what it had been – from 10% to up to 50% of the value of the agricultural produce.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770#cite_note-7) In the first years of the rule of the British East India Company, the total land tax income was doubled and most of this revenue flowed out of the country.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770#cite_note-8) As the famine approached its height in April of 1770, the Company announced that the land tax for the following year was to be increased by a further 10%.
Sushil Chaudhury writes that the destruction of food crops in Bengal to make way for opium poppy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_poppy) cultivation for export reduced food availability and contributed to the famine.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770#cite_note-9)
The company is also criticised for forbidding the "hoarding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoarding)" of rice. This prevented traders and dealers from laying in reserves that in other times would have tided the population over lean periods, as well as ordering the farmers to plant indigo instead of rice.
By the time of the famine, monopolies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly) in grain trading had been established by the company and its agents. The company had no plan for dealing with the grain shortage, and actions were only taken insofar as they affected the mercantile and trading classes. Land revenue decreased by 14% during the affected year, but recovered rapidly. According to McLane, the first governor-general of British India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_India), Warren Hastings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Hastings), acknowledged "violent" tax collecting after 1771: revenues earned by the Company were higher in 1771 than in 1768. [10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770#cite_note-10) Globally, the profit of the company increased from fifteen million rupees in 1765 to thirty million in 1777.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29
During the famine approximately 1 million people died and a million more emigrated from Ireland,[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTERoss2002226-3) causing the island's population to fall by between 20% and 25%.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEKinealy1994357-4) The proximate cause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_cause#Historiographical_usage) of famine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine) was a potato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato) disease commonly known as potato blight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato_blight).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTE.C3.93_Gr.C3.A1da20027-5) Although blight ravaged potato crops throughout Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Potato_Failure) during the 1840s, the impact and human cost in Ireland — where one-third of the population was entirely dependent on the potato for food—was exacerbated by a host of political, social and economic factors which remain the subject of historical debate.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEWoodham-Smith199119-6)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29#cite_note-FOOTNOTEKinealy1994xvi.E2.80.93ii.2C_2.E2.80.933-7)
Cecil Woodham-Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Woodham-Smith), an authority on the Irish Famine, wrote in The Great Hunger; Ireland 1845–1849 that no issue has provoked so much anger and embittered relations between England and Ireland as "the indisputable fact that huge quantities of food were exported from Ireland to England throughout the period when the people of Ireland were dying of starvation." Ireland remained a net exporter of food throughout most of the five-year famine.[fn 4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29#cite_note-65)
Christine Kinealy writes that Irish exports of calves, livestock (except pigs), bacon and ham actually increased during the famine. The food was shipped under guard from the most famine-stricken parts of Ireland. However, the poor had no money to buy food and the government then did not ban exports.[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29#cite_note-66)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378
The Great Famine of 1876–78 (also the Southern India famine of 1876–78 or the Madras famine of 1877)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-0) was a famine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine) in India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) that began in 1876 and affected south (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_India) and southwestern India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_India) (Madras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madras_Presidency), Mysore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Mysore), Hyderabad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyderabad_State), and Bombay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Presidency)) for a period of two years. In its second year famine also spread north (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_India) to some regions of the Central Provinces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Provinces) and the United Provinces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Provinces_of_Agra_and_Oudh), and to a small area in the Punjab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_region).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-igi-III-488-1) The famine ultimately covered an area of 257,000 square miles (670,000 km2) and caused distress to a population totaling 58,500,000.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-igi-III-488-1)
Preceding events
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/GrainFamineMadras.jpg/250px-GrainFamineMadras.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GrainFamineMadras.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.17/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GrainFamineMadras.jpg)
Grain destined for export stacked in Madras beaches (February 1877)
The Great Famine was preceded by an intense drought (or "crop failure") in the Deccan Plateau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Plateau).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-2) Earlier, after the Bihar famine of 1873–74 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bihar_famine_of_1873%E2%80%9374), in which mortality was avoided, the Government of Bengal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Presidency) and its Lieutenant-Governor, Sir Richard Temple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Richard_Temple,_1st_Baronet), were criticized for excessive expenditure, which had included the costs of importing rice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice) from Burma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma) and providing generous charitable relief.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-3) Sensitive to any renewed accusations of excess in 1876, Temple, who was now Famine Commissioner for the Government of India,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-igi-III-488-1) insisted not only on a policy of laissez faire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez_faire) with respect to the trade in grain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain),[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-4) but also on stricter standards of qualification for relief and on more meager relief rations.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-igi-III-488-1) Two kinds of relief were offered: "relief works" for able-bodied men, women, and working children, and gratuitous (or charitable) relief for small children, the elderly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elderly), and the indigent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigent).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-5)
Famine and relief
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Famine_in_India_Natives_Waiting_for_Relief_in_Bang alore.jpg/250px-Famine_in_India_Natives_Waiting_for_Relief_in_Bang alore.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Famine_in_India_Natives_Waiting_for_Relief_in _Bangalore.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.17/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Famine_in_India_Natives_Waiting_for_Relief_in _Bangalore.jpg)
People waiting for famine relief in Bangalore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore) From the Illustrated London News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illustrated_London_News) (October 20, 1877)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8b/Madras_famine_1877.jpg/250px-Madras_famine_1877.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Madras_famine_1877.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.17/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Madras_famine_1877.jpg)
A contemporary print showing the distribution of relief in Bellary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellary), Madras Presidency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madras_Presidency). From the Illustrated London News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illustrated_London_News) (1877)
The insistence on more rigorous tests for qualification, however, led to strikes by "relief workers" in the Bombay presidency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Presidency).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-igi-III-488-1) Furthermore, in January 1877, Temple suggested that in Madras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madras_Presidency) and Bombay, a reduced wage (the Temple wage) be adopted in the relief works;[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-hall-mathews2008-5-6) this consisted of 1 pound (0.45 kg) of grain plus one anna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_anna) for a man, and a slightly reduced amount for a woman or working child,[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-7) for a "long day of hard labour without shade or rest."[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-hall-matthews-1996-219-8) The rationale behind the reduced wage, which was in keeping with a prevailing belief of the time, was that any excessive payment might create dependency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_personality_disorder) (or "demoralization" in contemporaneous usage) among the famine-afflicted population.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-hall-mathews2008-5-6)
However, Temple's recommendation was opposed by W. R. Cornish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._R._Cornish), a physician who was the Sanitary Commissioner for the Madras Presidency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madras_Presidency).[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-arnold-1994-7-8-9) Cornish had investigated prison diets in India a decade earlier and was of the view that a minimum of 1.5 pounds (0.68 kg) of grain and, in addition, supplements in the form of vegetables and protein were needed for a healthy diet, especially if, in return, the individuals were performing strenuous labor in the relief works.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-arnold-1994-7-8-9) Eventually, in March 1877, the provincial government of Madras, moved by Cornish's argument, agreed on a compromise ration of 1.25 pounds (0.57 kg) of grain and 1.5 ounces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ounce) (43 g (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram)) of protein in the form of daal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daal) (pulses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_%28legume%29)),[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-arnold-1994-7-8-9) but not before more people had succumbed to the famine.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-igi-III-489-10) In other parts of India, such as the United Provinces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Provinces_of_Agra_and_Oudh), where relief was meager, the resulting mortality was high.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-igi-III-489-10) In the autumn and winter of 1878, an epidemic of malaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria) killed many more who were already weakened by malnutrition.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-igi-III-489-10)
All in all, the Government of India spent Rs. 8 1/3 crores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crore) in relieving 700 million units (1 unit = relief for 1 person for 1 day) in British India and, in addition, another Rs. 72 lakhs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakh) in relieving 72 million units in the princely states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princely_states) of Mysore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Mysore) and Hyderabad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyderabad_State).[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-igi-III-489-10) Revenue (tax) payments to the amount of Rs. 60 lakhs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakh) were either not enforced or postponed until the following year, and charitable donations from Great Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain) and the colonies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire) totaled Rs. 84 lakhs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakh).[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-igi-III-489-10) However, this cost was small per capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita); for example, the expenditure incurred in the Bombay Presidency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Presidency) was less than one-fifth of that in the Bihar famine of 1873–74 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bihar_famine_of_1873%E2%80%9374), which affected a smaller area and did not last as long.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-hall-matthews-1996-219-8)
Aftermath
The mortality in the famine was exceedingly high; in the British areas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj) alone, 5.25 to 5.5 million people died of starvation or disease.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-igi-III-488-1)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-11) Estimates of total famine related deaths vary. The following table gives the varying estimates of famine related deaths.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-12)
Estimate (in millions) Done by Publication 10.3 William Digby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Digby_%28writer%29) "Prosperous" British India, London: Fisher Unwin, 1901 8.2 Arup Maharatna The Demography of Famines: An Indian Historical Perspective, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996 6.1 Ronald E. Seavoy Famine in Peasant Societies (Contributions in Economics and Economic History), New York: Greenwood Press, 1986 The excessive mortality of the Great Famine and the renewed questions of "relief and protection" that were asked in its wake, led directly to the constituting of the Famine Commission of 1880 and to the eventual adoption of the Provisional Famine Code in British India.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-igi-III-489-10) After the famine, a large number of agricultural laborers and handloom weavers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handloom_weaver) in South India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_India) emigrated to British tropical colonies to work as indentured laborers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant) in plantations.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-13) The excessive mortality in the famine also neutralized the natural population growth in the Bombay and Madras presidencies during the decade between the first and second censuses of British India in 1871 and 1881 respectively.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-14)
The Great Famine was to have a lasting political impact on events in India; among the British administrators in India who were unsettled by the official reactions to the famine and, in particular by the stifling of the official debate about the best form of famine relief, were William Wedderburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wedderburn) and A. O. Hume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._O._Hume).[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-hall-matthews-2008-24-15) Less than a decade later, they would found the Indian National Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Congress) and, in turn, influence a generation of nationalists such as Dadabhai Naoroji (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dadabhai_Naoroji) and Romesh Chunder Dutt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romesh_Chunder_Dutt) for whom the Great Famine would become a cornerstone of the economic critique of the British Raj (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj).[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378#cite_note-hall-matthews-2008-24-15)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897
Famine relief
A decade earlier, in 1883, the Provisional Famine Code had been promulgated soon after the report of the first Indian Famine Commission was submitted in 1880.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897#cite_note-igi-III-490b-0) Now, guided by the Code, relief was organized for 821 million units[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897#cite_note-2) at a cost of Rs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rs.) 7.25 crores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crore) (then approx. £ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_sterling)4,833,500).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897#cite_note-igi-III-490b-0) Revenue (tax) was remitted to the tune of Rs. 1.25 crores (£ 833,350) and credit totaling Rs. 1.75 crores (£1,166,500) was given.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897#cite_note-igi-III-490b-0) A charitable relief fund collected a total of Rs. 1.75 crores (£1,166,500) of which Rs. 1.25 were collected in Great Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897#cite_note-igi-III-490b-0)
Even so, the mortality resulting from the famine was great; it is thought that in the British territory alone, between 750,000 and 1 million people died of starvation.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897#cite_note-igi-III-491c-1) Although the famine relief was reasonably effective in the United Provinces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Provinces_of_Agra_and_Oudh), it failed in the Central Provinces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Provinces), especially among tribal groups, who were reluctant to perform labor in public works in order to earn food rations, and who, according to Famine Code guidelines, did not qualify for "charitable relief."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897#cite_note-igi-III-491c-1)
Weavers in the Bombay Presidency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Presidency)
The Famine Commission of 1880 had made special provisions for the relief of weavers, who practised the only trade other than agriculture that employed rural Indians.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897#cite_note-muller-1897-285-86-3) The Commission had recommended that weavers be given relief by offering them monetary advances for weaving coarse cloth or wool that could then be used in poor-houses or hospitals.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897#cite_note-muller-1897-285-86-3) This was preferable, it was felt, to having them produce the finer cloth of their trade, such as silk, for which there was no demand during a famine.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897#cite_note-muller-1897-285-86-3)
However, by 1896, the rural weavers in the Bombay Presidency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Presidency), who were now having to compete with the increasing number of local cotton mills, were already in dire economic straits.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897#cite_note-muller-1897-287-88-4) Consequently, when the famine began, not only were they the first to apply for relief, but also did so in numbers that were much larger than had been anticipated.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897#cite_note-muller-1897-287-88-4) Since the government could now offer only limited relief to them in their own trade because of the large capital required, the majority of weavers—either of their own accord or as a result of official dictate—sought the conventional "relief works," which included earth-works and the breaking of rock and metal for building roads.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897#cite_note-muller-1897-287-88-4)
Tribal groups in Chota Nagpur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chota_Nagpur)
In Chota Nagpur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chota_Nagpur), East India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India), awareness of the famine came late in 1896 when it was discovered that the rice crop in the highlands of Manbhum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manbhum) district had failed entirely on account of very little rain the previous summer.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897#cite_note-damodaran-169-5) The rice, grown on small terraces cut into the hillsides and forming staggered step-like patterns, was completely dependent on the monsoon: the only means of irrigation being water from the summer rains which flooded these terraces and which was then allowed to stand until mid-autumn when the crop ripened.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897#cite_note-damodaran-169-5) The region also had a large proportion of tribal groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adivasi) including Santals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santal) and Mundas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munda_people) who had traditionally relied on forest produce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_produce) for some of their food intake.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897#cite_note-damodaran-169-5)
As the local government began to plan relief measures for the famine, they included, in the list of food resources available, forest produce for the tribal groups; the planned government-sponsored relief for these groups was accordingly reduced.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897#cite_note-damodaran-169-5) The previous decades, however, had seen large-scale deforestation in the area, and what forest that remained was either in private hands or in reserves.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897#cite_note-damodaran-170-6) The tribal groups, whose accessible forests were now few and far between, consequently, first endured malnutrition and later, in their weakened state, fell prey to a cholera epidemic which killed 21 people per thousand.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897#cite_note-damodaran-170-6)
Food exports in Madras Presidency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madras_Presidency)
Although the famine in the Madras Presidency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madras_Presidency) was preceded by a natural calamity in the form of a drought, it was made more acute by the government's policy of laissez faire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez_faire) in the trade of grain.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897#cite_note-ghose-380-7) For example, two of the worst famine-afflicted areas in the Madras Presidency, the districts of Ganjam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganjam) and Vizagapatam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vizagapatam), continued to export grains throughout the famine.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897#cite_note-ghose-380-7) The table below shows exports and imports for the two districts during a five-year period beginning in 1892.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897#cite_note-ghose-380-7)
Foodgrain export from districts in Madras Presidency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madras_Presidency) affected by Indian famine of 1896–97[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897#cite_note-ghose-380-7)
Sea-borne Trade Rail-borne Trade Year Ganjam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganjam) Vizagapatam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vizagapatam) Ganjam & Vizagapatam 1892–93 13,508 tons exported 7,585 tons imported
1893–94 17,817 tons exported 742 tons imported 79 tons imported into V. 1894–95 12,334 tons exported 89 tons exported 7,683 tons imported into V. 1895–96 31,559 tons exported 4 tons exported 5,751 tons exported 1896–97 34,371 tons exported 414 tons exported 7,997 tons exportedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900
The Indian famine of 1899–1900 began with the failure of the summer monsoons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsoon#Southwest_Monsoon) in 1899 over west (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_India) and Central India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_India) and, during the next year, affected an area of 476,000 square miles (1,230,000 km2) and a population of 59.5 million.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-igi-III-491-0) The famine was acute in the Central Provinces and Berar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Provinces_and_Berar), the Bombay Presidency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Presidency), the minor province of Ajmer-Merwara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajmer-Merwara), and the Hissar District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hissar_District) of the Punjab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_region); it also caused great distress in the princely states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princely_states) of the Rajputana Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajputana_Agency), the Central India Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_India_Agency), Hyderabad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyderabad_State) and the Kathiawar Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathiawar_Agency).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-igi-III-491-0) In addition, small areas of the Bengal Presidency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Presidency), the Madras Presidency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madras_Presidency) and the North-Western Provinces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North-Western_Provinces) were acutely afflicted by the famine.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-igi-III-491-0)
The population in many areas had barely recovered from the famine of 1896–1897 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-igi-III-492-1) As in that famine, this one too was preceded by a drought.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-igi-III-492-1) The Meteorological Office of India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Meteorological_Department) in its report of 1900, stated, "The mean average rainfall of India is 45 inches (1,100 mm). In no previous famine year has it been in greater defect than 5 inches (130 mm). But in 1899 the defect exceeded 11 inches."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-igi-III-492-1) There were also large crop failures in the rest of India and, as a result, inter-regional trade could not be relied upon to stabilise food prices.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-dreze95-2)
The resulting mortality was high. In the Deccan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan), an estimated 166,000 people died, and in the entire Bombay Presidency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Presidency) a total of 462,000.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-3) In the Presidency, the famine of 1899–1900 had the highest mortality—at 37.9 deaths per 1000—among all famines and scarcities there between 1876–77 and 1918–19.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-4) Overall, in British areas alone, approximately 1,000,000 individuals died of starvation or accompanying disease; in addition, as a result of acute shortage of fodder, cattle in the millions perished.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-igi-III-492-1) Other estimates vary between 1 million[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-5) and 4.5 million[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-fagan2009-13-6) deaths.
The British had established control over Western India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_India) in the early decades of the 19th century; this consisted of direct administration of the conquered territories in the expanded Bombay Presidency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Presidency) as well as in the British outpost of Ajmer-Merwara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajmer-Merwara) farther north.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-hardiman125-15) The middle decades of the 19th century saw not only the implementation of a new system of land revenue and land rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India#Revenue_settlements_under_th e_Company) in these areas, but also the establishment of new civil law.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-hardiman125-15) Under the new land rights system, peasants could be dispossessed of their land if they failed to pay the land-revenue (or land-tax) in a timely fashion.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-hardiman125-15) The British, however, continued to rely on local Baniya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baniya) usurers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usurer), or Sahukars, to supply credit to the peasants.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-hardiman126-16) The imposition of the new system of civil law, however, meant that the peasants could be exploited by the sahukars, who were often able, through the new civil courts, to acquire title-deeds to a peasant's land for non-payment of debt.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-hardiman126-16)
The mid-19th century was also a time of predominance of the economic theories of Adam Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith) and David Ricardo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ricardo), and the principle of laissez-faire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire) was subscribed to by many colonial administrators; the British, consequently, declined to interfere in the markets.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-hardiman126-16) This meant that the Baniya sahukars could resort to hoarding during times of scarcity, driving up the price of food grain, and profiteering in the aftermath.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-hardiman126-16) All this occurred in Western India during the famine of 1899–1900.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-hardiman126-16)
In Khaira District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kheda_District) in present-day Gujarat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujarat), many peasants were forced to hand over their lands to the sahukars as security for meager loans that not only didn't granted them much relief, but that they later couldn't repay on account of exorbitant interest.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-hardiman133-34-17) The sahukars were to foreclose on these loans in the years after the famine; in the princely state of Baroda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroda_Residency), for example, the recorded land-transfers were to jump from an average of 13,000 per year during the decade of the 1890s, to over 65,000 during the year 1902–1903.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-hardiman133-34-17)
The sahukars, in their effort to drive up prices, were even able to export grain out of areas of scarcity using the faster means of transport that came in with British rule.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-hardiman133-34-17) Here again the colonial administrators declined to intervene, even though they themselves often disapproved of the practice.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-hardiman133-34-17) This happened, for example, in the Panchmahals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchmahal)—one of the worst famine-afflicted areas in 1900—where a railway line had been built in the 1890s.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-hardiman133-34-17) A British deputy district collector (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_collector) recorded in his report, "The merchants first cleared large profits by exporting their surplus stocks of grain at the commencement of the famine, and, later on by importing maize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize) from Cawnpore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cawnpore) and Bombay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay) and rice from Calcutta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcutta) and Rangoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangoon)."[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-18) He went on to record that the sahukars were building new houses for themselves from these windfall profits.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-hardiman133-34-17) The blatant profiteering, however, led to grain riots in the Panchmahals by Bhil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhil) tribals, and grain riots became a feature of other British-ruled areas during times of famine.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-hardiman145-46-19) This contrasted markedly with the princely states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princely_states), where the authorities often did intervene.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-hardiman145-46-19) For example, in Jodhpur State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodhpur_State), a famine-stricken area in Rajputana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajputana_Agency), in August 1899, the state officials set up a shop to sell grain at cost price, forcing the Baniya merchants to eventually bring down their prices.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900#cite_note-hardiman145-46-19)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
The Bengal famine of 1943 is one among several famines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famines) that occurred in British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bengal#British_rule)-administered Bengal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal). It is estimated that around three million people died from starvation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation) and malnutrition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition) during the period[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-0) making the number of Indian deaths higher than the two world wars, the entire independence movement and the massive carnage that followed the Partition of India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-FOOTNOTEKeay2001504-1)
Background and possible causes
The Second World War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World_War) began simultaneously with a series of crop failures and famines. By August 1939, out of 14 states in Rajasthan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajasthan), the nine largest had declared that they were suffering a famine under the Indian Famine Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Famine_Code) as it then stood.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-2) In Bengal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal) in 1940-41 there was a small scale famine although quick action by the authorities prevented widespread loss of life.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-3) Food prices increased throughout India, and the Central Government was forced to undertaking meetings with local government officials and release regulations of price controls[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-4)
The British Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire) had suffered a disastrous defeat at Singapore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Singapore) in 1942 against the Japanese military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Army), which then proceeded to invade Burma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma) in the same year. Burma was the world's largest exporter of rice in the inter-war period, the British having encouraged production by Burmese smallholders, which resulted in a virtual monoculture in the Irrawaddy Delta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrawaddy_Delta) and Arakan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rakhine_State).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-5) By 1940 15% of India's rice overall came from Burma, while in Bengal the proportion was slightly higher given the province's proximity to Burma.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-6)
British authorities feared a subsequent Japanese invasion of British India proper by way of Bengal (see British Raj (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj)) and a scorched earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth) policy was hastily implemented in the Chittagong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chittagong) region, nearest the Burmese border, to prevent access to supplies by the Japanese in case of an invasion. In particular, the Army confiscated many boats (and motor vehicles, carts and even elephants), fearing that the Japanese would commandeer them to speed an advance into India. The inhabitants used the boats for fishing and to take goods to market, and the Army failed to distribute rations to replace the fish and the food lost through the stoppage of commerce.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-7) The dislocation in the area forced many of the inhabitants into the Military Labour Corps, and the break-up of families left many children and dependents to beg or to starve.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-8)
On 16 October 1942 the whole east coast of Bengal and Orissa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orissa) was hit by a cyclone. A huge area of rice cultivation up to forty miles inland was flooded, causing the autumn crop in these areas to fail. This meant that the peasantry had to eat their surplus, and the seed that should have been planted in the winter of 1942-3 had been consumed by the time the hot weather began in May 1943.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-9)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-10) The famine reached its peak between July and November 1943. Famine fatality statistics were unreliable and a range of between 2-4 million has been suggested. According to author John Keay, even if the lower number is accepted, the famine killed more Indians than the two world wars, the entire Indian freedom movement, and the massive death toll that followed the Partition of India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-FOOTNOTEKeay2001504-1).
Amartya Sen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen) holds the view that there was no overall shortage of rice in Bengal in 1943: availability was actually slightly higher than in 1941, when there was no famine.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-11) It was partly this which conditioned the sluggish official response to the disaster, as there had been no serious crop failures and hence the famine was unexpected. Its root causes, Sen argues, lay in rumours of shortage which caused hoarding, and rapid price inflation caused by war-time demands which made rice stocks an excellent investment (prices had already doubled over the previous year). In Sen's interpretation, while landowning peasants who actually grew rice and those employed in defence-related industries in urban areas and at the docks saw their wages rise, this led to a disastrous shift in the exchange entitlements of groups such as landless labourers, fishermen, barbers, paddy huskers and other groups who found the real value of their wages had been slashed by two-thirds since 1940. Quite simply, although Bengal had enough rice and other grains to feed itself, millions of people were suddenly too poor to buy it.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-12)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bengal_famine_of_1943&action=edit§ion=2)] Response
During the course of the famine, the Government of Bengal mobilised 'considerable resources',[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-13) however its efforts were undermined by its own lack of understanding of the situation, the poor coordination of relief efforts and the failure of government officials and departments to work together to combat the famine.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-14) During the Famine Inquiry Commission's investigation, one official stated that 'We felt difficulty about one thing. That was lack of one co- ordinating authority at the time of famine'[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-15)
In December 1942 there was a shortage in Calcutta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcutta) itself. Therefore focused on getting supplies to Calcutta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcutta).[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-16) by trying to buy surplus stocks in the region. The quantities that District Officers were able to locate and purchase were considered too small to end the famine, so the Government introduced free trade in rice in Eastern India, hoping that traders would sell their stocks to Bengal, however this measure also failed to move large stocks to Bengal.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-Tauger.2C_Indian_Famine_Crises_p._183-17) In April and May there was a propaganda drive to convince the population that the high prices were not justified by the supply of food, the goal being that the propaganda would induce hoarders .[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-18) When these propaganda drive was followed by a drive to locate hoarded stocks. When these drives continually failed to locate large stocks it convinced the government that the scale of the loss in supply was larger than they initially believed[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-Tauger.2C_Indian_Famine_Crises_p._183-17)
Bayly and Harper claim that in contrast to the incompetence of the civil service, the British military commanders and the British military in general performed as best as it could to combat the famine,[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-19) providing food to the suffering and organising relief. During the course of the famine the government organised roughly 110,000,000 free meals[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-20) which proved too small to cope with the disaster.
In response to an urgent request by the Secretary of State for India, Leo Amery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Amery), and Viceroy of India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_India) Archibald Wavell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_Wavell,_1st_Earl_Wavell), to release food stocks for India, Winston Churchill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill) the Prime Minister of that time responded with a telegram to Wavell asking, if food was so scarce, "why Gandhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi) hadn’t died yet."[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-Ghose1993-21)[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-Tharoor2003-22) Initially during the famine he was more concerned with the civilians of Greece (who were also suffering from a famine) compared with the Bengalis.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-23)
Overall, Sen argues, the authorities failed to understand that the famine was not caused by an overall food shortage, and that the distribution of food was not just a matter of railway capacity, but of providing free famine relief on a massive scale: "The Raj was, in fact, fairly right in its estimation of overall food availability, but disastrously wrong in its theory of Famines".[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-24) The famine ended when the government in London agreed to import 1,000,000 tons of grain to Bengal, reducing food prices.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-25) Mark Tauger and Peter Bowbrick argue the opposite; that the government had the same view of the famine as Sen did, and tried to locate surplus stocks during the course of the famine, but was unable to do so because no such stocks exist.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-26)
During the course of the famine, 264 thousand tons of rice, 258 thousand tons of wheat and wheat products and 55 thousand tons of millets were sent to Bengal for the purposes of famine relief from the rest of India and overseas[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-27)
The Bengal Famine may be placed in the context of previous famines in Mughal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire) and British India. Deccan Famine of 1630-32 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Famine_of_1630-32) killed 2,000,000 (there was a corresponding famine in northwestern China, eventually causing the Ming dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_dynasty) to collapse in 1644). During the British rule in India there were approximately 25 major famines spread through states such as Tamil Nadu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_Nadu) in South India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_India), Bihar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bihar) in the north, and Bengal in the east; altogether, between 30 and 40 million Indians were the victims of famines in the latter half of the 19th century (Bhatia 1985).
"Food availability decline" or "man made"
Year Rice production
(in million of tons) 1938 8.474 1939 7.922 1940 8.223 1941 6.768 1942 9.296 1943 7.628 Severe food shortages were worsened by World War II, with the British administration of India exporting foods to Allied (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied) soldiers. The shortage of rice forced rice prices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price) up, and wartime inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation) compounded the problem.
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 authorised 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.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-Rice_Denial-28) The price controls on wheat were introduced on December 1941, and on rice in 1942.[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-Price_controls-29)
Amartya Sen has cast doubt on the idea that the rice shortage was due to a fall in production. He quotes official records for rice production in Bengal in the years leading up to 1943 as reported in the table to the right.[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-FOOTNOTE.C3.93_Gr.C3.A1da200727-30) According to Ó Gráda, he also argues that famine and democracy are "virtually incompatible".[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-FOOTNOTE.C3.93_Gr.C3.A1da200711-31) The 1943 yield, while low, was not in itself outside the normal spectrum of recorded variation, and other factors beyond simple crop failure may thus be invoked as a causal mechanism.
Others have drawn attention to the quality of the data that Amartya Sen cites. Mark Tauger (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Tauger&action=edit&redlink=1) has drawn attention to the manner in which the statistics were gathered [33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-32) whilst Peter Bowbrick has described them as 'wildly unreliable'[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#cite_note-33)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade
The Atlantic slave trade, also known as the transatlantic slave trade, refers to the trade in slaves that took place across the Atlantic ocean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_ocean) from the sixteenth through to the nineteenth centuries. The vast majority of slaves involved in the Atlantic trade were Africans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africans) from the central and western parts of the continent, who were sold by African slave dealers to European traders, who transported them to the colonies in North and South America. There, the slaves were made to labor on coffee, cocoa, cotton and sugar plantations, in gold and silver mines, in rice fields, the construction industry, timber, and shipping or in houses to work as servants.
The shippers were, in order of scale, the Portuguese, the British, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch, and Americans. The traders had outposts on the African coast where they purchased people from African slave-traders. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#cite_note-0) Current estimates are that about 12 million were shipped across the Atlantic,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#cite_note-1) although the actual number of people taken from their homes is considerably higher.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#cite_note-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#cite_note-4)
The slave trade is sometimes called the Maafa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maafa) by African and African-American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American) scholars, meaning "holocaust (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/holocaust)" or "great disaster" in Swahili (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swahili_language). Some scholars, such as Marimba Ani and Maulana Karenga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maulana_Karenga) use the terms African Holocaust or Holocaust of Enslavement. Slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery) was one element of a three-part economic cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cycle) — the triangular trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_trade) and its Middle Passage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Passage) — which ultimately involved four continents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent), four centuries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century) and millions of people.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#cite_note-5)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War
Human rights abuses
By the end of the war, it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been killed.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War#cite_note-9)
The internal conflict is described in the report of the Archbishop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishop)'s Office for Human Rights (ODHAG (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ODHAG&action=edit&redlink=1)). ODHAG attributed almost 90.0% of the atrocities and over 400 massacres to the Guatemalan army (and paramilitary), and less than 5% of the atrocities to the guerrillas (including 16 massacres).
In a report in 1999, the UN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN)-sponsored Historical Clarification Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Clarification_Commission) (CEH) stated that the state was responsible for 93% of the human rights violations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights) committed during the war, the guerrillas for 3%.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War#cite_note-10) They peaked in 1982. 83% of the victims were Maya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_peoples).[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War#cite_note-11) Both sides used terror as a deliberate policy.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War#cite_note-autogenerated1-2)
Guatemalan intelligence was directed and executed mainly by two bodies: One the Intelligence Section of the Army, subsequently called Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the National Defense and generally known as "D-2". The other the intelligence unit called Presidential Security Department, also known as "La Regional" or the "Archivo". The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-American_Court_of_Human_Rights) has stated that the intelligence services in Guatemala have been responsible for multiple human rights violations.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War#cite_note-12) The Truth Commission writes that their activity included the "use of illegal detention centres or 'clandestine prisons', which existed in nearly all Army facilities, in many police installations and even in homes and on other private premises. In these places, victims were not only deprived of their liberty arbitrarily, but they were almost always subjected to interrogation, accompanied by torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In the majority of cases, the detainees disappeared or were executed."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War#cite_note-autogenerated1-2)
The CEH stated that at no time during the internal armed confrontation did the guerrilla groups have the military potential necessary to pose an imminent threat to the State. The number of insurgent combatants was too small to be able to compete in the military arena with the Army, which had more troops and superior weaponry, as well as better training and co-ordination. The State and the Army were well aware that the insurgents’ military capacity did not represent a real threat to Guatemala’s political order. The CEH concludes that the State deliberately magnified the military threat of the insurgency, a practice justified by the concept of the internal enemy. The inclusion of all opponents under one banner, democratic or otherwise, pacifist or guerrilla, legal or illegal, communist or non-communist, served to justify numerous and serious crimes. Faced with widespread political, socio-economic and cultural opposition, the State resorted to military operations directed towards the physical annihilation or absolute intimidation of this opposition, through a plan of repression carried out mainly by the Army and national security forces. On this basis the CEH explains why the vast majority of the victims of the acts committed by the State were not combatants in guerrilla groups, but civilians.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War#cite_note-autogenerated1-2)
For more than two decades Human Rights Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch) has reported on Guatemala.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War#cite_note-hrw.org-13) A report from 1984 discussed “the murder of thousands by a military government that maintains its authority by terror.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War#cite_note-14) HRW have described extraordinarily cruel actions by the armed forces, mostly against unarmed civilians.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War#cite_note-hrw.org-13) One example given is the massacre of over 160 civilians by government soldiers in the village of Las Dos Erres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Dos_Erres) in 1982. The abuses included “burying some alive in the village well, killing infants by slamming their heads against walls, keeping young women alive to be raped over the course of three days. This was not an isolated incident. Rather it was one of over 400 massacres documented by the truth commission – some of which, according to the commission, constituted "acts of genocide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_Salvadoran_peasant_uprising
The peasant uprising of 1932, also known as La matanza ("The Slaughter"),[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_Salvadoran_peasant_uprising#cite_note-0) was a brief, peasant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasant)-led rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion) that occurred on January 22 of that year in the western departments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Departments_of_El_Salvador) of El Salvador (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Salvador). The uprising was quickly suppressed by the government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_El_Salvador), then led by Maximiliano Hernández Martínez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximiliano_Hern%C3%A1ndez_Mart%C3%ADnez), and whose army was vastly superior in terms of weapons and soldiers, who then proceeded to execute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execute) anyone who stood against it. The rebellion was a mixture of protest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest) and insurrection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection) and ended in ethnocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocide),[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_Salvadoran_peasant_uprising#cite_note-1) claiming the lives of anywhere between 10,000 and 40,000[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_Salvadoran_peasant_uprising#cite_note-2) peasants and other civilians, many of them indigenous people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_people).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_Salvadoran_peasant_uprising#cite_note-3)
While Martínez may have satisfied the military, popular discontent continued to build and the government's opponents continued to agitate. Within weeks, communists, believing the country was ready for a peasant rebellion, were plotting an insurrection against Martínez. However, the government became aware of the plot and arrested most of the ringleaders.
Nevertheless, actual fighting broke out on January 22, 1932. Rebels, led by the communist party and Agustín Farabundo Martí, Mario Zapata and Alfonso Luna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farabundo_Mart%C3%AD), attacked government forces with support that was largely from Pipil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipils) Indians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas) in the western part of El Salvador. Within three days, they had succeeded in taking control of several towns, disrupting supply lines to many of the country’s towns and villages, and attacking a military garrison. With their superior training and technology, the government troops needed only a few days to defeat the rebels. While the rebels killed fewer than 100 people, the military retaliated with great force. Promising an open discussion and pardons for those involved in the uprising, the government invited them into a large public square where they killed between 10,000 and 40,000 peasants, including Martí.
In Western El Salvador hundreds of peasants rose against the new government led by Martinez which was tainted by corruption, but this was crushed by the Army. Martinez started a genocide against his own population. Since most of the people that participated in the uprising were of indigenous origin, a repression against anyone that looked or dressed like a native or spoke nahuatl was killed by the army. The number of the massacre is estimated in 30,000. There was a saying that circulated around the time of the Matanza. It went like this: "president Martinez was a such good president that he was able to give every Salvadoran a house." (La Matanza by Thomas Anderson). The proportion of the 30,000 Salvadorans killed compared to the population of the actual U.S. population would be 60 million Americans. However, the political ideology of the Martinez administration was fascism (He admired Hitler). He did not allow any Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews), Palestinian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine) or Black people to enter the country.
This ad was received by the military officers and very severe actions were done against the rebels. High officers like Jose Calderon lead the expeditions to the towns of Nahuizalco, Juayua, Apaneca and Izalco. Feliciano Ama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feliciano_Ama), an Indian leader, was hanged and this event was shown on Post Office stamps of the time. Since then from 1932-1979 military officers held the Main Office, with some presidents using more repression than others. El Salvador problems included unfair minimum wages, repression against student and general demonstrations, and election fraud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny#Native_Americans
Manifest Destiny had serious consequences for Native Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States) and African Americans, since continental expansion implicitly meant the occupation and annexation of Native American land, sometimes to expand slavery. The United States continued the European practice of recognizing only limited land rights of indigenous peoples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas). In a policy formulated largely by Henry Knox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Knox), Secretary of War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_War) in the Washington Administration, the U.S. government sought to expand into the west through the nominally legal (by United States law) purchase of Native American land in treaties. Indians were encouraged to sell their vast tribal lands and become "civilized", which meant (among other things) for Native American men to abandon hunting and become farmers, and for their society to reorganize around the family unit rather than the clan or tribe. The United States therefore acquired lands by treaty from Indian nations, usually under circumstances which suggest a lack of voluntary and knowing consent by the native signers, and in many cases a lack of authority by the signers to make any such transaction.
Advocates of civilization programs believed that the process of settling native tribes would greatly reduce the amount of land needed by the Native Americans, making more land available for homesteading by white Americans. Thomas Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) believed that while American Indians were the intellectual equals of whites, they had to live like the whites or inevitably be pushed aside by them.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)], Jefferson's belief, rooted in Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) thinking, that whites and Native Americans would merge to create a single nation did not last his lifetime, and he began to believe that the natives should emigrate across the Mississippi River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River) and maintain a separate society, an idea made possible by the Louisiana Purchase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase) of 1803.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
In the age of Manifest Destiny, this idea, which came to be known as "Indian Removal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal)", gained ground. Although some humanitarian advocates of removal believed that American Indians would be better off moving away from whites, an increasing number of Americans regarded the natives as nothing more than savages who stood in the way of American expansion. As historian Reginald Horsman argued in his influential study Race and Manifest Destiny, racial rhetoric increased during the era of Manifest Destiny. Americans increasingly believed that Native Americans would fade away as the United States expanded. As an example, this idea was reflected in the work of one of America's first great historians, Francis Parkman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Parkman), whose landmark book The Conspiracy of Pontiac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac%27s_Rebellion) was published in 1851. Parkman wrote that Indians were "destined to melt and vanish before the advancing waves of Anglo-American power, which now rolled westward unchecked and unopposed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War
American atrocities
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Phillipines.gif/220px-Phillipines.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phillipines.gif) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.17/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phillipines.gif)
Enraged by a guerrilla massacre of U.S. troops on the Island of Samar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samar), General Jacob H. Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_H._Smith) retaliated by carrying out an indiscriminate attack upon its inhabitants.[77] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War#cite_note-Britannica_Smith-76) His order "KILL EVERY ONE OVER TEN" became a caption in the New York Journal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Journal) cartoon on May 5, 1902. The Old Glory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Glory) draped an American shield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_States) on which a vulture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulture) replaced the bald eagle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_eagle). The bottom caption exclaimed, "Criminals Because They Were Born Ten Years Before We Took the Philippines". Published in the New York Journal-American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Journal-American), May 5, 1902. Smith was eventually court-martialed by the American military and forced to retire.[77] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War#cite_note-Britannica_Smith-76)
It should be noted that the number of Filipino casualties was at the time, and still is, intensely debated and politicized.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] It is estimated that some 34,000 Filipino soldiers lost their lives and that as many as 200,000 civilians may have died directly or indirectly as a result of the war, most due to a major cholera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholera) epidemic that broke out near its end.[78] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War#cite_note-77)
In 1908 Manuel Arellano Remondo (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manuel_Arellano_Remondo&action=edit&redlink=1), in General Geography of the Philippine Islands, wrote: “The population decreased due to the wars, in the five-year period from 1895 to 1900, since, at the start of the first insurrection, the population was estimated at 9,000,000, and at present (1908), the inhabitants of the Archipelago do not exceed 8,000,000 in number.”[79] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War#cite_note-78) In light of the massive casualties suffered by the civilian population, Filipino historian E. San Juan, Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._San_Juan,_Jr.), alleges that the death of 1.4 million Filipinos constitutes an act of genocide on the part of the United States.[80] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War#cite_note-79)
Atrocities were committed on both sides.[81] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War#cite_note-80) United States attacks into the countryside often included scorched earth campaigns[65] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War#cite_note-ScorchedEarth-64) in which entire villages were burned and destroyed, the use of torture (water cure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cure_%28torture%29)[82] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War#cite_note-81)) and the concentration of civilians into "protected zones".[83] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War#cite_note-82) In November 1901, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger reported:"The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog...."[84] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War#cite_note-83)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippine%E2%80%93American_War&action=edit§ion=23)] American soldiers' letters and response
Throughout the entire war American soldiers would write home about the horrors and atrocities which the United States committed in the Philippines. In these letters they would criticize General Otis and the U.S. military; when these letters reached anti-imperialist editors they became national news and forced the War Department to look into their truthfulness. Two of the letters went as follows:
A New York-born soldier: “The town of Titatia [sic] was surrendered to us a few days ago, and two companies occupy the same. Last night one of our boys was found shot and his stomach cut open. Immediately orders were received from General Wheaton to burn the town and kill every native in sight; which was done to a finish. About 1,000 men, women and children were reported killed. I am probably growing hard-hearted, for I am in my glory when I can sight my gun on some dark skin and pull the trigger (Benevolent Assimilation, p. 88).”[85] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War#cite_note-miller1982p88-84)
Corporal Sam Gillis: “We make everyone get into his house by seven p.m., and we only tell a man once. If he refuses we shoot him. We killed over 300 natives the first night. They tried to set the town on fire. If they fire a shot from the house we burn the house down and every house near it, and shoot the natives, so they are pretty quiet in town now.”[85] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War#cite_note-miller1982p88-84)
However, General Otis’s investigation of the content of these letters consisted of sending a copy of them to the author’s superior and having him force the soldier/author to write a retraction. Then, when a soldier refused to do so, as Private Charles Brenner of the Kansas regiment did, he was, remarkably, court-martialed. In the case of Private Brenner, the charge was “for writing and conniving at the publication of an article which…contains willful [sic] falsehoods concerning himself and a false charge against Captain Bishop.”[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War#cite_note-miller1982p89-48) This is not to say that all American soldiers’ letters home explained the atrocities committed by the U.S. so as to bring about the American public’s and General Otis’s displeasure. Many portrayed U.S. actions as the result of Filipino “insurgent” provocation and thus entirely justified. One such letter home was written by Private Hermann Dittner and was titled “the trouble with the nigs”. It went as follows:
“It then became apparent that a fight was imminent. So on February 3 we posted our sentry at the same old place. The insurgents kicked but without avail. Our colonel was down there and an insurgent called him a s - n - -b - h. Of course this made Stotsenburg mad and he gave orders to arrest the lieutenant as soon as they could catch him.”[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War#cite_note-miller1982p60-85) [edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippine%E2%80%93American_War&action=edit§ion=24)] Concentration camps
Filipino villagers were forced into concentration camps called reconcentrados which were surrounded by free-fire zones, or in other words “dead zones.” Furthermore, these camps were overcrowded and filled with disease, causing the death rate to be extremely high. Conditions in these “reconcentrados” were inhumane. Between January and April 1902, 8,350 prisoners of approximately 298,000 died. Some camps incurred death rates as high as 20 percent. "One camp was two miles by one mile (3.2 by 1.6 km) in area and 'home' to some 8,000 Filipinos. Men were rounded up for questioning, tortured, and summarily executed."[87] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War#cite_note-dumindin-holdouts-86)
In Batangas Province, where General Franklin Bell was responsible for setting up a concentration camp, a correspondent described the operation as “relentless.” General Bell ordered that by December 25, 1901, the entire population of both Batangas Province and Laguna Province had to gather into small areas within the “poblacion” of their respective towns. Barrio families had to bring everything they could carry because anything left behind—including houses, gardens, carts, poultry and animals—was to be burned by the U.S. Army. Anyone found outside the concentration camps was shot. General Bell insisted that he had built these camps to "protect friendly natives from the insurgents, assure them an adequate food supply" while teaching them "proper sanitary standards." The commandant of one of the camps referred to them as the "suburbs of Hell."[87] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War#cite_note-dumindin-holdouts-86)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising#Deaths
At least 1,800 African civilians along with 200 British soldiers and policemen and 32 European settlers were killed by the Mau Mau.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising#cite_note-anderson2005_4-10) The colonial government believed the number of Kenyans killed from all instances to be 11,503,[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising#cite_note-corfield1960_316-4) but David Anderson believes that the true figure is likely more than 20,000.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising#cite_note-anderson2005_4-10) Elkins claims it is as high as 70,000 or that they could be in the hundreds of thousands.[152] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising#cite_note-elkins2005_xv-xvi-151) Elkins' numbers, however, have been solidly rebutted by the British demographer John Blacker, in an article in African Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Affairs), in which he demonstrated in detail that Elkins' numbers were over-estimated and that the total number of African deaths was around 50,000.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising#cite_note-blacker2007-5) Blacker's article deals directly with Elkins' claim that up to 300,000 Kikuyu were "unaccounted for" at the 1962 census, judged by comparative population growth rates for other ethnic groups since the previous 1958 census. Of particular note is the number of hangings authorized by the colonial courts: by the end of the Emergency, the grand total was 1,090.[153] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising#cite_note-anderson2005_7-152) At no other time or place in the British empire was capital punishment used so liberally—the total is more than double the number executed by the French in Algeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War).[153] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising#cite_note-anderson2005_7-152)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mau_Mau_Uprising&action=edit§ion=16)] Atrocities
Atrocities were inflicted by all sides. As many as 150,000 Kikuyu were screened by the British and Kenyan authorities.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising#cite_note-anderson2005_5-3)[154] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising#cite_note-elkins2005_xi-153) As noted above, screening was a major source of human rights violations and caused great resentment.
[E]lectric shock was widely used, as well as cigarettes and fire. Bottles (often broken), gun barrels, knives, snakes, vermin, and hot eggs were thrust up men's rectums and women's vaginas. The screening teams whipped, shot, burned and mutilated Mau Mau suspects, ostensibly to gather intelligence for military operations and as court evidence.
“
”
—Caroline Elkins[155] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising#cite_note-elkins2005_66-154)
Mau Mau militants were also guilty of widespread atrocities. At Lari, on the night of March 25–26, 1953, Mau Mau forces herded 120 Kikuyu into huts and set fire to them, killing any who attempted to escape.[156] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising#cite_note-anderson2005_C4-155) Kikuyu were also tortured, mutilated and murdered by Mau Mau in large numbers.[157] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising#cite_note-ogot2005_502-156)
A British officer describes his actions after capturing three known Mau Mau:
I stuck my revolver right in his grinning mouth and I said something, I don't remember what, and I pulled the trigger. His brains went all over the side of the police station. The other two Mickeys [Mau Mau] were standing there looking blank. I said to them that if they didn't tell me where to find the rest of the gang I'd kill them too. They didn't say a word so I shot them both. One wasn't dead so I shot him in the ear. When the sub-inspector drove up, I told him that the Mickeys tried to escape. He didn't believe me but all he said was 'bury them and see the wall is cleared up.'[158] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising#cite_note-anderson2005_299.E2.80.93300-157)
Contrary to African customs and values, [Mau Mau members] assaulted old people, women and children. The horrors they practiced included the following: decapitation and general mutilation of civilians, torture before murder, bodies bound up in sacks and dropped in wells, burning the victims alive, gouging out of eyes, splitting open the stomachs of pregnant women. No war can justify such gruesome actions. In man's inhumanity to man there is no race distinction. The Africans were practising it on themselves. There was no reason and no restraint on both sides.
“
”
—Bethwell Ogot[157] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising#cite_note-ogot2005_502-156)
Settler groups, displeased with the government's response to the increasing Mau Mau threat created their own units to combat the Mau Mau. One settler with the Kenya Police Reserve's Special Branch described an interrogation of a Mau Mau, suspected of murder, which he assisted: "By the time I cut his balls off he had no ears, and his eyeball, the right one, I think, was hanging out of its socket. Too bad, he died before we got much out of him."[159] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising#cite_note-elkins2005_87-158)
After the discovery of the Lari massacre (between 10 pm and dawn that night), colonial security services retaliated on Kikyu suspected of being Mau Mau.[160] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising#cite_note-anderson2005_130-159) These were shot, and later denied burial. There is also evidence that these reprisal shootings continued for several days. (See the reports of 21 and 27 men killed on 3rd and 4 April, respectively.)[161] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising#cite_note-anderson2005_133-160)
Thirty-two British civilians were murdered by Mau Mau militants. The most well known Mau Mau victim was Michael Ruck, aged six, who was murdered along with his parents. Newspapers in Kenya and abroad published graphic murder details, including images of young Michael with bloodied teddy bears and trains strewn on his bedroom floor.[162] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising#cite_note-elkins2005_42-161)
In 1952 the poisonous latex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latex) of the African milk bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphorbia_grantii) was used by members of Mau Mau to kill herds of cattle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle) in an incident of biological warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_revolution#Death_toll
While it is admitted that any attempt to estimate casualties in this war is nearly impossible, the FLN (National Liberation Front) estimated in 1964 that nearly eight years of revolution had cost 1.5 million dead from war-related causes. Some other French and Algerian sources later put the figure at approximately 960,000 dead, while French officials estimated it at 350,000. French military authorities listed their losses at nearly 28,600 dead (6,000 from non-combat-related causes) and 65,000 wounded. European-descended civilian casualties exceeded 10,000 (including 3,000 dead) in 42,000 recorded terrorist incidents. According to French official figures during the war, the Army, security forces and militias killed 141,000 presumed rebel combatants. But it is still unclear whether all the victims were actual fighters or merely civilians, mostly due to the Algerian press and the Second Bureau (the intelligence agency), which regarded every Moslem civilian as a rebel.
More than 12,000 Algerians died in internal FLN purges during the war. In France, an additional 5,000 died in the "café wars" between the FLN and rival Algerian groups. French sources also estimated that 70,000 Muslim civilians were killed or abducted and presumed killed, by the FLN.
Historians, like Alistair Horne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alistair_Horne) and Raymond Aron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Aron), consider the actual number of war dead was far greater than the original FLN and official French estimates but was fewer than the 1 million adopted by the Algerian government. Horne has estimated Algerian casualties during the span of eight years to be around 700,000. Uncounted thousands of Muslim civilians lost their lives in French Army ratissages, bombing raids, or vigilante reprisals. The war uprooted more than 2 million Algerians, who were forced to relocate in French camps or to flee into the Algerian hinterland, where many thousands died of starvation, disease, and exposure. In addition, large numbers of pro-French Muslims were murdered when the FLN settled accounts after independence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide
The Herero and Namaqua Genocide is considered to have been the first genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide) of the 20th century.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide#cite_note-OFAA20060831-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide#cite_note-4) It took place between 1904 and 1907 in German South-West Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_South-West_Africa) (modern day Namibia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namibia)), during the scramble for Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa).
On January 12, 1904, the Herero people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_people), led by Samuel Maharero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Maharero), rebelled against German colonial rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_colonial_empire). In August, German general Lothar von Trotha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothar_von_Trotha) defeated the Herero in the Battle of Waterberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterberg) and drove them into the desert of Omaheke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omaheke), where most of them died of thirst. In October, the Nama people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nama_people) also rebelled against the Germans only to suffer a similar fate.
In total, from 24,000 up to 100,000 Herero perished along with 10,000 Nama.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide#cite_note-5)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide#cite_note-6)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide#cite_note-7)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide#cite_note-Walter_Nuhn_1904-8)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide#cite_note-9) The genocide was characterized by widespread death by starvation and thirst because the Herero who fled the violence were prevented from returning from the Namib Desert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namib_Desert). Some sources also claim that the German colonial army systematically poisoned desert wells.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide#cite_note-10)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide#cite_note-kroll-11)
In 1985, the United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations)' Whitaker Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-Commission_on_the_Promotion_and_Protection_of_Huma n_Rights#Whitaker_Report) classified the aftermath as an attempt to exterminate the Herero and Nama peoples of South-West Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South-West_Africa), and therefore one of the earliest attempts of genocide in the 20th century. The German government recognized and apologized for the events in 2004.[13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide#cite_note-BBC08142004-12)
You could lump any number of other events in with Capitalist crimes against humanity, like WWI, the mass bombing of Vietnam and Cambodia, various individual massacres by the colonial powers, and so on. Playing arithmetic with the various Communist leaders and the various Capitalist leaders is a waste of time and we don't need to know "who killed more" like this is some kind of inverse video game. But anyone who argues that "Communism" is "evil" because a leader who called themselves a Communist did evil things is basically ignoring the fact that people did incredibly atrocious things out of Capitalistic greed, imperialism and the belief in the right of individuals to increase the value of their property by exploitation.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.