Famine Commissions During British Rule in India

During the British Raj, famine was a common occurrence on the Indian subcontinent. The British-developed agrarian system featured a built-in mechanism of agricultural destruction. Apart from the conventional causes of famine, such as monsoon failure and natural disasters, the British Economic Policy created a situation in which food scarcity and periodic famines became all too common in India.

Famine is a term used to describe a situation in which a huge number of people die as a result of a lack of food. The history of British rule in India was marked by a series of repeated famines, which were unavoidable repercussions of the British rule's character.

Famines were frequent, and a large number of people died as a result of hunger, putting pressure on the British government in England. The severe impact of the 1876-78 famine forced the British government to take action to prevent future famines in India. As a result, three commissions were constituted to investigate the causes of the famines.

The population's poverty manifested itself in a series of famines that ravaged India in the second half of the nineteenth century. The first of these famines struck Western UP in 1860-61, killing about 2 lakh people.

The Government of British India created the Famine Inquiry Commission, often known as the Woodhead Commission, in 1944 to investigate the Bengal famine of 1943. Surprisingly, it refused to criticize the British government, emphasizing the famine's natural rather than man-made causes.

The article is focused on the discussion of the three main famine commissions during British rule in India; the article also focuses on the detailed description of these famine commissions. The famine commission is the Strachey commission, Lyall commission and Campbell commission. The article also discusses the famine policy of the British.

Campbell Commission of 1866

A famine engulfed Orissa, Bengal, Bihar, and Madras in 1865-66, killing nearly 20 lakh people, with Orissa alone losing ten lakh lives. The famine is known as the Orissa famine because it was the most severe in Orissa. Despite being forewarned, government officials did nothing to prepare for the disaster.

The government followed the ideas of free trade and the law of demand and supply, and it employed table-booked men while leaving charitable aid to voluntary organizations. The famine, however, proved to be a watershed moment in the history of Indian famines, as it was followed by the creation of a commission led by Sir George Campbell.

The previous belief that it was the responsibility of the general population to assist the vulnerable was disproved. The government was anticipated to take out loans to fund the construction of railways and canals. Furthermore, district officers were tasked with preventing all deaths that could have been avoided.

The Committee criticized the government system for producing famine-like conditions and urged that during famines, the government should organize relief efforts. The famine committee also suggested that immediate actions be taken to provide employment in order to reduce the effects of famine.

The Campbell Committee's suggestions were ignored, and a terrible famine erupted in several parts of the country, notably Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, and Madras, in 1876.

Strachey Commission of 1880

The Great Famine of 1876-1878 was possibly the worst disaster since the beginning of the nineteenth century. Madras, Bombay, Uttar Pradesh, and Punjab were also hit. In a single year, approximately five million individuals died. The government made only half-hearted attempts to assist the starving victims.

The government's famine code was ineffectual and inefficient, and the approach was clearly foolish. The Government of British India created a panel in 1880, led by Richard Stretchy, to formulate basic principles and offer specific preventive and protective measures. The Commission suggested that certain fundamental principles be adopted.

To begin, employment on the job must be ordered before the applicants' physical effectiveness has been harmed by poverty. Wages should be modified from time to time to ensure that a laborer has enough food to live on. Second, it should be the state's responsibility to provide free assistance to the powerless poor, including a list of those who are eligible to recommend the implementation of a few fundamental concepts.

The aid could come in the form of raw grain, money, or prepared food, all of which would be delivered in exchange for living in poorhouses or relief camps. The affected tracts should be divided into circles for aid distribution, with each circle being assigned to a competent officer. Food supplies in troubled areas should be closely monitored. Suspensions and remissions of land revenue and rentals were also suggested by the commission. The provincial governments were supposed to cover the expense of famine aid.

When necessary, however, central aid was to be made available. When there is an extended period of drought, cattle should be free to migrate to grassy forest areas where there is plenty of pasture. The government accepted the commission's recommendations in principle, and attempts were made to raise new funds for the establishment of a famine fund.

The interim famine code, which served as a reference and basis for the provincial famine codes, was created in 1883. The code outlined safeguards to be taken in normal times, directions to be followed during relief campaigns, and the responsibilities of all parties involved once the famine began.

The key points or the famine code developed by the Strachey commission can be summarized into the following points.

• It is essential to construct a famine code.

• It is critical to creating irrigation facilities.

• During famines, land revenue collection should be halted promptly, and land revenue should be remitted.

• Data about the situation of the Indian peasantry and agriculture should be gathered.

• A famine fund should be established.

Despite the creation and implementation of famine policies, India was hit by a series of famines. A severe famine struck in 1896-97, followed by another in 1899-1900.

Lyall Commission of 1896

The famine of 1896-97 followed closely after. It impacted nearly every province, though to varying degrees, and the total population affected was estimated to be around 34 million people. The relief measures were carried out with a good deal of success.

Expensive relief activities were carried out, and individuals were relieved in their own homes in many sections of the country. A commission presided over by Sir James Lyall, ex-Lt Governor of Punjab, mainly agreed with their predecessors' views in 1880 but suggested certain changes to provide the maxims approved at the time more flexibility.

McDonnell Commission of 1900

Following the famine of 1899-1900, Lord Curzon appointed MacDonnell to the cabinet. In 1901, it submitted a report summarizing recognised relief concepts and suggested adjustments where warranted. The commission stressed the advantages of a moral strategy approach, early distribution of advances for seed and cattle purchases, and the sinking of temporary wells. It also called for the establishment of a famine commissioner in a province where large-scale relief efforts were envisaged.

It also stressed the enlisting of non-official aid on a broader scale, as well as the preference for the village initiatives over major public works, which had previously constituted the backbone of relief projects in certain circumstances. The commission also emphasized the importance of better transportation, agricultural bank openings, irrigation facility improvements, and aggressive initiatives to accelerate the adoption of new agricultural technologies. The commission's suggestions were mostly accepted, and before Curzon departed India, he had made a number of steps to prevent and combat famine.

Famine relief methods and responsibility were handed to the provincial government with the implementation of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms in 1921. Despite the fact that the British took the aforementioned measures, they were insufficient to bring relief to the millions who were affected by the famine.

The expanse of the land, the variety of causes for famines, and the government's supervisory approach all failed to produce the anticipated results. Above all, the core character of colonial control, with its exploitation and extractive tendency, precluded any serious effort in this area and failed to bring relief and quick recovery to India's millions.

Famine Inquiry Commission

The Government of British India created the Famine Inquiry Commission, often known as the Woodhead Commission, in 1944 to investigate the Bengal famine of 1943. Sir John Woodhead, a veteran civil officer and friend of Amery's who had previously led the Palestine Partition Panel, was appointed to chair the commission in 1944. A representative from the Hindu and Muslim communities, a nutrition expert, and Sir Manilal Nanavati, the former deputy governor of the Reserve Bank of India, were among the other members.

In May 1945, the commission issued its report, absolving the British administration of the majority of the culpability for the starvation fatalities. According to the investigation, one of the main causes of the famine was a deficit in the rice harvest. It also discovered that the shortage lasted barely three weeks and that the shortfall was more severe in 1941 when there was no famine. The report acknowledged some shortcomings in British price controls and transportation measures, but it left the most pointed criticism for local officials in Bengal's (mainly Muslim) provincial government.

In conclusion of the article, famine commissions during British rule in India were ineffective in completing the tasks. Despite the fact that three Famine Commissions were established, the British government never took the welfare programmes for the populace seriously. Famines continued to strike, with the Bengal Famine (1943) being the worst. This was one of the worst parts of history during British rule.