Analysis Of Famine In India And China
Introduction
India and China are the most populous countries in the world, but just 60 years ago they experienced devastating famines. A famine is described as a shortage/extreme scarcity of food which can take the lives of millions. Developing countries are especially vulnerable due to the poverty levels and health of existing occupants of the country; the results of famine are fatal. In India, particularly Bengal, and China this is exactly what happened when famine struck – death tolls were sky high and all hope seemed lost. However, at this current point in time both countries boast impressive customer lists for their exports and have experienced high levels of growth towards the end of the 20th century and at the start of the 21st. India and China have had an astronomical rise over the last 60 years but it has not come easily. This essay will examine how and why the famines began, how each country recovered and what other developing countries can learn from the unfortunate events that took place. It will look to highlight the work of government intervention in each case.
About Bengal Famine and Possible Causes
In 1943, Bengal experienced what can only be described as a nightmare. A famine swept India where ‘Some three million Indians died’ (Biswas, 2010) with the majority of deaths occurring in Bengal. There are many possible causes for how the famine occurred. Firstly, in October 1942, a cyclone hit the Indian state killing approximately 11,000 people and affecting roughly 1,000,000 lives. However, the huge tidal wave not only killed people, but also livestock, crops and homes. This caused great suffering for the Bengalese people.
Not only was there a cyclone, but there was also an outbreak of the ‘Helminthosporium oryzae’ fungus which devastated rice crops. According to S.Y. Padmanabhan, approximately 90% of all rice crops were lost. Under usual circumstances India would turn to Burma and import rice in the event of a bad harvest, but the war prevented them from doing so. The Japanese Imperial Army (the opposers) had occupied Burma and because India was under British reign, they would refuse to help. Not only did Bengal have a poor harvest, they were exporting 70,000 tons of rice to the British troops says Szczepanski (2019). Biswas (2010) says this would have been enough for 400,000 people to live on for a full year.
Next, and possibly the most devastating cause of the famine, was British intervention, or lack of it. Winston Churchill feared that the Japanese would storm the Bay of Bengal and so decided to seize all boats and rice stocks. Boats were used for fishing and also transport, taking them away from the Bengalese took away a part of their lives. Not only did Churchill do this, he also refused aid from the US, Canada and Australia. When Australia attempted to send wheat to India, Churchill diverted the ships and used them to stock up European reserves instead Tharoor (2010) found out. Despite all of this, he (Winston Churchill) continued to insist that India export rice to ‘fuel the war effort’ even though he refused to give them what they truly required, wheat. In addition, Britain made sure that India were economically unable to import grain themselves by paying inflated prices on the market. It is argued by many that the famine of Bengal in 1943 was ‘engineered by Winston Churchill’ who was once quoted saying “I hate Indians, they are a beastly people with a beastly religion”, he continued and said the famine was their own fault for “breeding like rabbits”. Ultimately it can argued that the main cause of the famine was ignorance from both Indian policymakers and the British government (Singh, 2018).
Relief Efforts for Bengal Famine
Word spread of the famine and some countries were keen to try and help the poor Bengalis. Canada and Australia in particular seemed the most keen to help – as both countries has surpluses of wheat. Firstly, Canada offered to provide India with 100,000 tons of grain which could be used to make basic necessities. For example, this amount of grain could make roughly 37.5 million loaves of bread according to Adams. However, this approach was rejected by the British Government due to the amount of time the food would take to reach the victims of the famine. Churchill is noted saying “Wheat from Canada would take at least two months to reach India” (Lear, 2018). Not only was shipping time an issue, but also Canadian ships in the Indian Ocean had been moved to the Atlantic so they could move grain and food to Britain. The Brits however already had a huge stockpile of food which is why Churchill’s decision may be seen as a surprise.
Secondly, there was Australia. Part of the reason for Britain’s refusal of Canadian help was partnered with the knowledge that Australian supplies could reach India in nearly half the amount of time. Leopold Amery, the Secretary of State for India, pleaded with Churchill for grain such as wheat and is thought to have requested 1 million tons; this would be used to feed the army and civilians with the leftovers. However, in August 1943, Australian wheat can be shown going to Ceylon (now known as Sri Lanka), the Middle East and Southern Africa but not to India. This again raised further questions as to why India was being ignored. Ultimately the famine came to an end not because of the British relief, but due to a successful harvest towards the end of 1943. This can provide a vital lesson to other developing countries that a laissez-faire approach is not perhaps the best.
Road to Recovery 1944 – Present Day
In the years that led to the famine, India’s GDP growth can be described as erratic due to the high fluctuation. However, in the years that followed, an upwards trend began to emerge. In 1944 GDP growth was roughly -1.62, but by early 1947, it was positive again. Life expectancy and child mortality rate also saw a huge improvement at the time. It is no coincidence that India’s recovery came at the time they gained independence in 1947.
Firstly, there were reforms in the agricultural sector. This sector in India was notorious for its low productivity under the British reign despite the vast open space available for use. Therefore, when the British left, India turned these open spaces into areas suitable for farming. However, the Indian population was growing at an uncontrollable rate; from 1950 to 1967 the population roughly increased by 143 million. Therefore, in 1967, the Green Revolution began. This revolution is what helped India become one of the largest producers of agricultural product worldwide in 1978 and onwards. The use of a new type of seed, HYV seeds (Reddy, 2018), may be the reason India was able to recover so quickly. This seed not only required less water, but also meant that India could have 2 harvests every year – rather than one. HYV stands for ‘High Yield Value’ and this is exactly what it brought to India in an attempt to feed the rapidly rising population. However, it must be noted that despite these efforts, poverty levels in India remain very high.
Another key reform was that to the irrigation facilities. India recognised that although the introduction of HYV seeds was vital, it was more important that there was water available for these crops. The ‘rainy season’ was where India would get the first harvest, but the second harvest would rely heavily on irrigation – in particular, dams. Dams provide a method of water storage meaning in times of no rain, farmers are still able to have a constant supply of water to grow their crops. The creation of dams and other water facilities not only helped people already in work, but also presented job opportunities to those out of work.
The remarkable rise of India was not only due to the Green Revolution however, it is also due to a government with clear plans of action. As a developing economy, it is vital to set achievable goals rather than those that are unattainable. Therefore, India focused primarily on agriculture rather than industry where it knew it lacked the financial power to compete. It can therefore be said that it wasn’t for government intervention after the gaining of independence, India would not have recovered at the speed in which it did. The way in which the recovery was handled may not have been perfect, but the steps taken were necessary to stop growth stagnating or fluctuating as it had done previously. The way the new government handled the recovery should be noted by other developing countries as they set short-term goals and achieved them efficiently.
About Chinese Famine
As the 1950s came to an end, China fell victim to its third famine since 1917 where the combined death toll is estimated to be more than the 2 previous combined. The death toll of the ‘Great Famine’ has been subject to much deliberation with numbers ranging from 10million to 47million, but one thing is for certain – it is one of the worst ever experienced.
Similarly to India, it can be argued that the famine was caused by natural disasters that could not be prevented. The first contributing factor was the flooding of the Yellow River – which is known to flood frequently. The largest recorded flood of the Yellow River occurred in 1958 (Chen et al, 2012), which destroyed an estimated 100million acres of agricultural land (Kucha and Llewellyn, 2015). In the following year, a drought saw Chinese crop fail in Shaanxi and Hubei and Northern states were hit by more drought in 1961. While the Northern states endured drought, the Southern states experienced further flooding.
Given the volume of natural disasters, it would be safe to assume these are the reasons for the famine. However, again like India, it is also safe to say this famine was too engineered by those in charge. At the 7,000 Cadres Conference in 1962, after the famine, Liu Shaoqi admits that the famine was due to the actions of the CCP. Mao Zedong, the leader of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), wanted to transform China from an only-agricultural economy, to one that also thrived in the industrial sector. The Communist flag displays a hammer and sickle, but China was only focused on the sickle – Mao intended to change this. He proposed a scheme called ‘The Great Leap Forward’ that’s purpose was to mass-produce steel in furnaces in the gardens of Chinese citizens – in doing this, agricultural production suffered.
Grain production fell drastically from 1958 to 1962 as China turned its focus to industry. Grain per capita in this case between 1960 and 1961 increases significantly when compared to the grain production of the 2 years, this is perhaps due to the population also falling drastically. From the evidence available, it could be said that despite the unfortunate natural disasters, similar to Bengal, the Chinese famine was orchestrated by the government. This should be seen as a lesson to any other developing countries who look to grow too quickly with resources and skills that are unavailable to them.
Relief Efforts for Chinese Famine
Under the rule of Mao and the Communist party, it is fair to say China became ‘politically isolated’ from the West and so the famine was largely kept quiet. News of the famine only began to reach the rest of the world near the start of 1961, 3 years after the famine began. According to Ashton et al. (1984) the Red Cross had reached out to China in order to help but their proposed aid had been rejected. Rumours circulated that the US were discussing the idea of aid but President Kennedy put an end to these in early 1961 when confirming that the US would in fact not be sending anything.
It can therefore be concluded that due to China’s isolation and Communist ties, relief efforts were not able to reach them as they were being rejected by the government. Perhaps the biggest problem for China was an issue of pride, they rejected this help to help ‘save face’ for the CCP and this can prove to be very helpful for developing countries now. It is important that we realise if we are struggling, there are others who are there on hand to help alleviate the problems.
Road to Recovery 1962 – Present day
Under the rule of Mao, record numbers of grain were seized and either stored to hit procurement targets or imported to fund the huge industrial effort (Lim, 2012). However, many within Mao’s own party recognised that if no action was taken, China wouldn’t see an end to the suffering. Therefore, in 1960, China put an end to the grain hauls and also procurement targets in order to feed the nation. Rather than exporting to fund industry, they began importing from countries such as Australia and Canada according to Kucha and Llewellyn (2018).
Another reason for China’s recovery was that new policymakers once again allowed farmers to farm rather than smelt steel in home-made furnaces. From 1961 to 1967, cereal production went from roughly 107 million metric tons to 178 million metric tons and has been on the rise ever since. This agricultural production is how China is now considered one of the fastest growing economies worldwide. Furthermore, the new policymakers recognised that although China’s agricultural production is one of the best, it is best to specialise in the areas where you thrive. Therefore, China continued to produce cereals on a high-scale but they now chose to import high volumes of rice. This is due to a theory known as Comparative Advantage which means China focuses on cereals because it can produce them at a lower opportunity cost.
Although China was still run by the CCP, the idea that China must compete with the US and other developed countries were abandoned as the new policymakers realised this was unrealistic. The Great Leap Forward attempted to achieve decades worth of work, in a few years. In addition, China became less isolated and encouraged trade with more and more countries which opened up more sales opportunities. This proves to be a key lesson for prevention in developing countries. Rather than attempt to catch up with the rest of the world overnight, it is important to specialise and grow at an achievable rate.
Similarities and Differences in Recovery Efforts
One similarity between the two is change of policies and policymakers. In India, their recovery really looked to kickstart when they achieved independence from the British reign and began their own agricultural reforms. For China, although the political party didn’t change, those making the policies did. Mao took a backseat for Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping to help save the people of China. Both of these developing countries realised that they should specialise in areas they are most efficient as they did not have the financial strength to compete with the Western superpowers.
The second similarity between the two was the lack of aid received. Although Australia had proposed aid to India, it never arrived due to the British diversion of it. Canada had also offered help but again, the British rejected it. As for China, when the Red Cross offered to help, they said no. This may have been done to save face for the Communist party who could not be seen to have failed their people. However, this lack of aid did not particularly hinder recovery because eventually, in both cases, the country’s own government realised they had to take action. The laissez-faire approach the British took in India should show others that this is not the way to deal with famine or poverty. Simply ignoring the problem will not make it disappear, action must be taken.
A key difference between the two recoveries is the change of government for India. Although China seemingly recovered straightaway, it was not so simple for India who’s recovery appeared to start when they gained independence. The new government in India realised what needed to be done to help improve production and realised the importance of their people – who needed to be protected. By converting vast open spaces into farming fields, this opened up job opportunities and a source of income for many people thus, helping reduce the poverty levels. China however did not have a change in government, Mao remained in charge. But, this was not a bad thing, Mao came under immense pressure and took a backseat for others to make a change. China recovered seemingly quickly and experienced very high levels of growth in the following years.
Secondly, another difference is how the countries traded. China recognised how important comparative advantage could be for them and therefore specialised production in areas where they are most efficient – even though they could easily produce some of the products they imported. As for India, they used a new type of seed to help produce a higher volume of goods of many varieties. They produced wheat, rice and cereals whereas China opted to import the majority of their wheat.
Conclusion
In conclusion, 2 vital lessons can be learnt from what occurred in China and India during the 20th century. Firstly as developing countries, the primary focus must first be what you are best at. For example, the reason for poverty and famine in China was due to an attempt to industrialise a very agricultural society with a specialised skill set. As for India, they are a country with a lot of land and fields, so when the British left they made this land suitable for crop growth. Using their HYV seeds, they increased output and also GDP. Since developing countries tend to have poor finances, it is advised they focus on farming. Developing countries can use farming as a means to boost exports which in turn causes an increase in aggregate demand which can boost a countries real GDP. Therefore, the governments mustn’t rush into policies if they want to intervene, as this can end up hurting the country.
Secondly, a lesson that can be taken from India is that governments must not be afraid to spend money to reduce poverty – this is known as expansionary fiscal policy. Although (as developing countries) finances are tight, by improving facilities such as irrigation, the whole economy benefits. It means that in periods of drought (experienced by both India and China), water can be stored in dams that can be used to grow crops and ensure famine doesn’t occur. This is something that can be employed by other developing countries.
However, a lot has changed since 1950. In many cases, large companies set up workshops and factories in these developing countries creating job opportunities which help reduce poverty as the workers get paid. Therefore, it is important we use the recoveries in China and India as a guide, not a strict set of rules to follow.
