Jake J.

Winston Churchill and the Bengal Famine

Summary of Life

Winston Churchill, remembered for his leadership during the Second World War, succeeded Neville Chamberlain as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. While his wartime leadership made him a global hero, he is also someone who is very controversial. His role in the Bengal Famine of 1943, a disaster that led to millions of deaths in British-occupied India, is a topic that is often brought up in conversation about his life. 

Born in 1874, Churchill was a statesman, soldier, and prime minister. Coming from a wealthy family in Oxfordshire, he was elected as a Conservative member of parliament in 1900 but later defected to the Liberals in 1904. Under Herbert Henry Asquith, Churchill was Home Secretary and the president of the Board of Trade. However, the Gallipoli campaign of the First World War got him demoted after it proved to be a disaster. Churchill ended up resigning, then rejoined the government again under David Lloyd George, taking on different titles within the government in the late 1910s. At the outbreak of WWII, he was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty, a position he previously held under H.H. Asquith. In 1940, Churchill became prime minister and oversaw Britain's involvement in the war. With the combined efforts of the Allies, Churchill contributed to the war effort against the Axis powers, winning in 1945 (International Churchill Society). 

After the conservative party lost the election in 1945, he became the leader of the opposition. He warned of Soviet influence throughout Europe and wrote about his life as a soldier. When he returned to office in 1951. This second term was mainly characterized by foreign affairs, notably as India was no longer a part of the British Empire. 

The Bengal Famine, 1943

Churchill’s administration during his first term was mainly focused on navigating the war, and he has been commended for his leadership, but other parts of his legacy were not so valiant. The Bengal Famine of 1943 was a disaster that led to an estimated three million deaths, and for many years, the British have said the famine was caused by weather anomalies, but many others believe Churchill is to blame for the atrocity in India. 

Churchill was not only disliked for his policies, but also for his outwardly offensive rhetoric towards people of color. As the United States and the United Kingdom deployed troops in Bengal, the colonial government decided that all costs of the Allies in the region would be covered by Indian resources until the end of the war. This and other policies majorly exacerbated the famine. John Maynard Keynes, an economist, was one of Churchill's main advisors on Indian monetary policy and proposed an indirect tax through intentional inflation. For this tax, the British government printed large amounts of money for the military, increasing demand and the price. As the prices were so high, normal people were pushed deeper into poverty. Keynes aimed to reduce the consumption of the poor, this way there would be more resources for military expenditure. These limitations placed on the Bengal people had harsh repercussions, and they fell into a deep famine (Hickel).

Another factor that contributed to the Bengal Famine was a devastating typhoon that swept through the coastal regions of Bengal. This typhoon desecrated the rice crop of 1943, and those who were already living on the edge of starvation were forced deeper into poverty. To make matters worse, Japan invaded Burma around the same time, which was India’s main source of rice exports. All these reasons amounted to one of the worst humanitarian crisis’ the British Raj faced. The heat intensified in the summer of 1943, people started dying, and the local government was unready. John Herbert, the Governor of Bengal, fell ill and died, and other members of Bengal’s Muslim ministry were profiting during the rice shortage. Overall, there were many factors that contributed to the famine, and a large part was mainly due to British non-intervention (Herman). 

Despite all these considerations that contributed to the famine, there has been no definitive evidence that places Churchill as the sole spark of the famine. Still, his racist attitude blinded him from seeing the deaths happening in India, and continued to make decisions that may have aggravated the death toll. He stopped food shipments to India, but ordered the food shipments from India to Britain to continue. 

The Bengal Famine is a critical aspect to look at when looking at Churchill’s complex and extensive legacy. The famine highlighted Churchill’s failure to balance his leadership roles in Britain and colonial-India, and nearly 3 million people died because of this. His racist bias was the main cause for this, and many scholars blame it for his indifference. 

Works Cited 

"Cabinet Papers: Bengal Famine." The National Archives, 1943. Accessed 11 Oct. 2024.

"Churchill’s Policies to Blame for 1943 Bengal Famine: Study." Al Jazeera, 1 Apr. 2019. Accessed 11 Oct. 2024.

"Famine in India: Disturbances in Bengal and Orissa." The National Archives, 1944. Accessed 11 Oct. 2024.

Herman, Arthur. "Without Churchill, India’s Famine Would Have Been Worse." International Churchill Society, 13 Sept. 2010. Accessed 11 Oct. 2024.

How British Colonizers Caused the Bengal Famine." New Internationalist, 7 Dec. 2021, Hickel, Jason. Accessed 11 Oct. 2024.

Masani, Zareer. "Churchill and the 1943 Bengal Famine: Taking a Closer Look." The Churchill Project - Hillsdale College, 25 Oct. 2019.

Mukerjee, Madhusree. Churchill's Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India During World War II. India, Penguin Random House India Private Limited, 2018.

Mukerjee, Madhusree. "Did Churchill Let Them Starve?" The New York Review of Books, 23 Dec. 2010. Accessed 11 Oct. 2024.

Artist's Statement

This screenplay examines the controversies of Winston Churchill by exploring a less-well-known topic: the Bengal Famine. Millions of lives were lost, and I intended to emphasize the tension Churchill had in every decision he had to make. In general, I wanted to portray a side of Churchill that is more nuanced than his history at a glance.