This article argues that genocide is not a useful concept for understanding the government’s role in the Bengal Famine. Genocide is here defined as ‘not a specific type of violence’, but rather ‘a general charge that highlighted the common elements of many acts’. Due to the necessity of clear intent to kill, faminogenic behaviour is the most useful concept regarding government accountability and the Bengal Famine because it looks more at negligent and reckless actions. Next, using the concept of faminogenic behaviour, this article explores where culpability for the severity of the Bengal Famine lies and the importance of the government’s role There was a decline in the food availability which triggered a decrease in entitlement exchange and maldistribution. However, both the British and Bengali government are responsible. Britain prioritised war and did not interfere in the Indian and Bengali government’s mishandling of the crisis. The Bengali government should be held accountable for their maldistribution and mishandling of the food supply and with the British for refusing to get involved earlier. Furthermore, Indian politicians themselves are partially to blame for the Bengal famine through their prioritisation of political gain.
[…]
genocide as a concept remains deficient as an conceptual basis for studying the Bengal Famine. Instead, faminogenic behaviour is a more suitable concept for assessing culpability for the famine. It is due to the centrality of intent within the concept of genocide, regardless of whether it is general or specific, that this article concludes that genocide should not be used to understand the government’s role in the Bengal Famine, or in famines themselves more generally. At no point during the Bengal Famine did the British government act deliberately to kill any group of people. A concept, however, that is more useful in understanding the government’s role in the Bengal Famine is that of ‘faminogenic behaviour’, of which there are, according to David Marcus, four degrees. The first two degrees, to Marcus constitute crimes against humanity and of criminal liability. First-degree faminogenic behaviour indeed fits under the umbrella of genocide as it currently stands. This is because it requires intentionality, and therefore the deliberate use of hunger as a tool to bring about the extermination of a specific group of people. In contrast, second-degree faminogenic behaviour is characterised by government ‘recklessness’. Here, governments need not intend to kill, but may be held accountable for pursuing policies risking mass starvation (Marcus 2003).
The Bengal Famine comfortably aligns with second-degree faminogenic behaviour. This better encapsulates the role of government in the famine, given that the Bengal Famine was largely caused and worsened by the war-time prioritisation of the British government’s and their lack of interference with the Indian and Bengali governments’ handling of the crisis. This did not necessarily reflect any direct intent to harm the citizens of Bengal. Famines from the twentieth-century onwards were rarely caused by an actual decline in food availability, but were rather the consequence of human action. Sen has shown that famines are sufficiently avoidable, so it is effectively a government’s responsibility as to whether a famine occurs or not. Likewise, Marcus argues that famines are ‘so easy to prevent that it is amazing that they are allowed to occur at all’ (Marcus 2003, 245). Due to the primacy of genocide within international law regarding crimes against humanity, it is easy for faminogenic behaviour to be overlooked. Marcus, advocating for the codification of faminogenic behaviour in international law, argues that in the absence of specific intent, those who facilitate mass deaths through reckless conduct – which demands a lesser mental state – should still be held accountable (Marcus 2003). This article aims to contribute to the literature of faminogenic behaviour by viewing it in relation to the Bengal Famine. In doing so, the faminogenic behaviour of the British government, the central and provincial Indian governments, and the local political parties are revealed.