Gateway Chronicle 2021

Bengal Famine. This was due to the decision by
Churchill to continue to import rice from Benghal
despite the shortages caused by poor soil conditions.
This was hugely problematic as 75% of all crops
produced in Benghal was rice. To add further to
these problems Japan had invaded Burma in December
1941, so imports of rice from Burma to India
were completely cut off. Churchill feared that Japan
could invade India, so decided and wanted to ensure
they would starve if they did reach India. This led
to British officials destroying or taking by force surplus
rice from the Bengal region in March 1942. In
1943 with the problems mounting Churchill refused
to enact the famine code, which was used in 1873
and led to mass importation of rice and welfare
stimulus across the Bihar region. Churchill even
refused the help of Canada’s offer of 100,000 tons
of wheat, insisting that they continue to deliver all
supplies to British soldiers in the Balkans and the
Mediterranean. Churchill even blamed the Indians
for the famine suggesting that “they were breeding
like rabbits,” and he asked the Viceroy whether
Gandhi had died yet or not.
However, some historians such as Arthur Herman
do point to the fact that Churchill did take some
action in India to help with the situation. For example,
in September 1943 the Cabinet agreed to send
200,000 tons of rice to India. He also may have
vetoed proposals for Canada to send wheat, however
he pushed for Australia to instead fulfil that
commitment. He also acted in October 1943 when
he appointed Archibald Wavell as Viceroy, who
mobilised the army to move stocks around India.
Moreover, when preparing for D-Day Churchill in
February 1944 Churchill even called an emergency
Cabinet meeting to assess the situation in India
with the Bengal Famine. Therefore, it would seem
in this situation Churchill did undermine the British
values as he allowed Indians to starve, when if they
were British, he likely would not have. However, to
blame him alone for the famine and to suggest he
was single-handedly at fault and did nothing to help
would also be incorrect.
Furthermore, we must also remember in his long
Political career before 1940 Churchill did enjoy
some successes. This is especially true of his time
as Home Secretary in which he made much needed
prison reforms and supported a referendum on
women’s suffrage in 1910. His greatest achievement
though was in the lead up to the War when
he unlike Chamberlain was able to see the danger
The Gateway Chronicle
Above: a family on the sidewalk in
Calcutta during the 1943 Bengal
famine
of the rise of
Hitler. This led
Churchill to
take a stance
of anti-appeasement
against his own
government.
However, we
must also remember
he too
made mistakes
as anyone
would across a
long political
career. This
was especially
true in World
War One when
Churchill was
tasked in October 1914 with helping to defend Antwerp.
He however failed to hang on for the required
10 days for the British strategy and in the process
lost thousands of British troops. Furthermore, the
disaster that is most well known from World War
One is that of Gallipoli. In this campaign Churchill’s
lack of planning cost the lives of around 50,000
troops from France, Britain and across the Empire.
Moreover, in the Russian Civil War in October 1919
he proposed to British troops the use of poison
gas. Additionally, as Chancellor in April 1925 he
announced the use of the gold standard, which had
disastrous consequences in the recession and led to
fall of the Conservatives in 1929. Although, these
may have been failures throughout all of these he
did have the best of intentions and was not alone
in his beliefs that this was the best way of doing
things. For example, in the case of gold standard he
was originally against it but was persuaded into it
by knowledgeable economists. Therefore, we could
not really judge these failures as going against those
modern British values, they were more errors on his
part.
Overall, when judging Churchill, we should feel
some slight shame as now he would not live up to
those modern British values that were set out at the
start. We should recognise that he did undermine
the value of respect and tolerance with his views on
those who were different. He also even by the standards
of the time was acting wrongly on the matter
of the Bengal Famine. However, he did also fight
harder than anyone else in Parliament in the 1930s
50