I doubt this article is true.

1. Germany was knocking at Britain's door when this famine happened. I personally wouldn't spend a lot of effort helping another country after seeing what happened in Germany.

2. The tone of this article sounds like damage control.

War turns even good men cruel, lets leave it at that

The article argues how respectful Churchill was of India and its well-being despite him being occasionally racist and awful. I would have tried to see the point in all fairness, but this article clearly portrays an agenda to clear the dislike (or hatred) people have on Churchill just because he was ill and old then. While I haven't read the primary sources that claim Churchill's efforts in restoring food balance in India, I am not convinced he could not have prevented this from happening in the first place --- after all, Bengal or India was being ruled by them. Feels like damage control and a beg at cutting some slack.

Similar points made as Douglas Murray (Spectator) interviews historian Andrew Roberts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-W6lqwIG2Y&t=1260s

Very interesting. Thanks.

Fascinating article, it argues that Churchill was indeed racist and imperialist toward these people, and yet strove to head off the famine from humanitarian impulses. The more informed histories always seem to be written in shades of grey.

If Churchill wasn’t a bit racist he probably wouldn’t have thought British culture is superior to nazi culture.

Nazi isn’t a race though…

Yeah from what I’ve read this seems the most correct take. Churchill was, in today’s parlance, a racist. He saw other races as inferior, I think it’s hard to deny that. But he _did_ still have respect for them, and certainly did not see other races as subhuman or below moral consideration as articles like the OP claim.

Original article is just Hindu Nationalist 'history' project. Not a single Brahmin merchant released any grain that they hoarded in their warehouses, they were looking for profit. Nobody even bothers to tell this part of the famine. We already hate Churchill for being racist, but complete the picture and tell the role of Brahmins too.

Brahmins aren't the merchant class in the regions where the Bengal famine hit (modern day Eastern Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, and Northern Bengal). Brahmins in that region (in actuality Bhumihar) were traditionally farmers.

Merchants in that region were primarily from the Marwari, Agarwal, Jains, Punjabi (Jatt+Khatri Sikh+Hindu), Telegu, and Bania communities (depending on the region).

Please don't talk about social structures if you don't have the knowledge - especially about regions which in living memory have had severe caste violence.

Bengalis were exploited by Marwari and Agarwals, and Brahmins in administration.

Jatts are merchants? Come on. Jatts are predominantly farmers. No Jatts or Khatris were in Kolkata.

> Jatts are predominantly farmers

So are most Marwaris (Jodhpur region), but a subset of Biradaris migrated east to work in commerce.

Some Jatts

> No Jatts or Khatris were in Kolkata.

Bullshit.

Aroras have always had a decent sized commercial community across the region that was formerly the Bengal Presidency. I know a couple Aroras who's families have been in Kolkata for over a century at this point (rice trading).

And some of the southern Jatts in Rajasthan were called "Marwaris" by the locals in the east (Marwari being a linguistic/regional denonym, not a caste based one). Shouldn't have listed Punjabi Jatts - just waking up.

Also, the Bengal Presidency wasn't only Kolkata - it included a number of other towns and cities that had commercial needs (hence why the communities above entered that segment).

If you are going to argue on the basis of systems you don't understand, at least get your facts right. The class you are blaming is not the merchant class.

It seems quite interesting that this class becomes the focal point of any attack based on ignorance.

Also, your other replies about jatts is definitely not true. There are various sources that class them in the merchant class responsible for agriculture and trading.