(by G Waugh)
The story of 20th-century Russia (1914-1991) has immense relevance to today’s political and economic life all over the world. The events, when looked at merely as a story, present a compelling tale with moral and philosophical dimensions. The first few chapters will be dedicated to narration of significant events while the last few chapters will purely be analytical.
The series is my attempt at mimicking what Jawaharlal Nehru did in his glorious ‘Glimpses of World History’ written for his daughter. I had initially planned this work for my now 2-year old son, who might find it interesting to read when he grows up. Another reason for me taking up ‘The Russian Revolution’ specifically is to find out why good people, in history so far, in spite of their immense knowledge and sacrificial instincts, end up becoming terrible rulers, sometimes surpassing the sadism that their supposedly regressive predecessors displayed in the past.
PREFACE
1998
I was 10 years old then.
Me – Dad, why do you go to the Union Office and pay them every month?
Dad – It is a practice in the Communist Party. We workers will have to sacrifice a part of our wages so that the party survives.
Me – So you mean your party is poor ?
Dad – Yes.
Me – Why do you have to belong to a party that is poor ? Why don’t you join a rich party ?
Dad – I am a Unionist. My Union is affiliated to the Communist party. Communist Unions are the only ones which work for the poor and the oppressed. Rich parties do not work for the poor.
Me – Why don’t they work for the poor ?
Dad – Rich parties are rich because they are funded by rich people. Rich people, more often than not want only to become richer. They sponsor political parties and make them rich. Once the party becomes rich and capture power it will start working for them. The sponsors in turn get richer and they fund the rich party more. The cycle continues. All parties in India are rich parties. Only the Communist Party is funded by me, Clerk Varada Uncle, Auto Driver Govindan Uncle, Maran Master, Plumber Udhayakumar Uncle and so on. Poor and middle class people like us are the only ones who fund this party. Even Kerala CM is poor.
2008
Me – Dad, people say the whole world is caught in a recession, all of a sudden one fine morning. Wasn’t there anyone who could predict all this and stop before it got worse ?
Dad – Only one person so far has predicted this and he is no longer alive.
Me – Oh great, Who ?
Dad – Karl Marx, he predicted how capitalism shall behave. Do you know there is a massive demand for Das Capital written by him now in Germany, nearly 150 years after it was published.
Me – So you say Marxism shall cure the world of all its problems ?
Dad – Definitely.
Me – Why did Russia relinquish Communism then ?
Dad – A lot of reasons. People were selfish and wanted to earn quickly.
Me – Oh ok. Why are you coming home early nowadays after office ? All these days you always used to come not before 9 pm.
Dad – I am no longer actively in the Union. I was replaced in the party by Suresh Uncle.
Me – Oh. Why ?
Dad – Lot of infighting. I also raised questions on the Communist Party’s approach towards industrialisation in West Bengal. You heard about firings on locals in Singur and Nandigram ? I told them that we will lose West Bengal if we continue like this. The Unit leadership was not happy that I spoke like this. They decided to replace me. So I stopped being active in the Union and the Party.
2018
Me – Dad did you look at the news that only 1 percent of the population in India owns more than 60 percent of India’s wealth ?
Dad – Yes. Laissez Faire Capitalism works like that.
Me – Wasn’t India unequal like this before ?
Dad – It wasn’t this unequal. We embraced economic reforms in 1991. So our wealth distribution started to skew. We have more than half a million farmers dead due to State Negligence. Our State no longer is a Welfare State.
Me – I read somewhere that the concept of Welfare State arose in the West. So did India copy that ?
Dad – Yes, the USSR seized all means of production from landowners and industrialists. The state controlled everything. Rich people in the West were afraid that if Communism spreads to their country, they may have to lose everything. So they combined elements of Soviet Communism with Capitalism and evolved something called Welfare State. It is also called a Mixed Economy. Nehru wanted to emulate that in India. He did with only moderate success.
Me – So you mean to say that the collapse of USSR went hand in hand with the world going back to Laissez Faire Capitalism ?
Dad – Yes. That was one of the key reasons. Once there was no counterweight to the Free Market West in the form of USSR, the West started spreading free market ideas to the Third World, like India. India wouldn’t have probably embraced the Free Market had the USSR managed to live beyond 1991.
2019
Me – Dad, I am halfway through Pin Thodarum Nizhalin Kural by Jeyamohan. He has accused Stalin of killing millions of Russians. Why did Stalin do that ? Isn’t the idea of Marxism built on the idea of love, like how Kamal Haasan emphasised in Anbe Sivam ?
Dad – Don’t believe what the bourgeoisie writers say. They know nothing.
Me – Dad, he isn’t a bourgeoisie. He was once a part of the Communist Party himself. You have told me many a time that Communists are honest people. Why does he have to lie ?
Dad – You never know in the Communist Party. There may be bad people as well.
Me – And they may be killed as well by the Party itself ?
Dad – I am going for a walk. We will talk later.
Me – Dad, I want to know what really happened in the USSR. Why was Trotsky killed ? Wasn’t he one of the founders of USSR? How could he be a bad person? Why was Bukharin killed?
Dad- You read too much of George Orwell I guess. This isn’t good for you. Orwell was a traitor.
Me – Orwell joined the Communist Party but was expelled. He lived as a Communist throughout his life.
Dad – People leave the party and pretend they are ideologically committed.
Me – Who was Pol Pot ?
Dad – He was a Cambodian dictator. He killed millions.
Me – He was a Communist. Why don’t you mention that ?
Dad – He misused the name of Communism. But he was originally a dictator.
Me – If he was not a Communist, why did Communist China support him in his fight against Communist Vietnam?
Dad – You have grown up. I don’t have anything to tell you.
Me – You gotta defend your Party. Come on, dad. We’re just having a conversation.
Dad – I am no longer part of the Party. I quit as soon as I retired from service.
Me – Why ?
Dad – The Communist Party cannot be reformed. They are going to doom.
Me – I don’t understand. On one issue, you speak as though the Party is infallible and anyone who talks against the Party is a traitor. On another, you say the Party is incorrigible. Why there is so much contradiction ?
Dad – I will leave it to you to find that.
CHAPTER 1 – Lenin saves Russia
Background :
Contrary to what is generally assumed, Russia on the eve of the October Revolution was not a well developed industrial country. It was not even imperialist, in the Western sense of the word and had no colonies in Africa or Asia or Latin America. Russia’s impending defeat in the First World War towards the end of 1917, had squelched all national spirit, and a growing number of deserters in the army hampered even the slightest chance of a military recovery. The Tsars were bent on prolonging the war for their own survival reasons, but were shocked to witness mutinies, unrest and anarchy everywhere which to a substantial degree was the natural response to the centuries- old harsh and repressive regime that they had imposed upon their people. Russia, primarily an agricultural country had millions of poor peasants and a small, growing industrial proletariat. The despotic Tsar regime subjected the peasants to massive taxation which increased exponentially with the coming of the World War. Peasants desperately waited for a saviour to emancipate them from all insufferable hardships and implicitly pinned their hopes on a lot of anti monarchist movements that were growing here and there in Russia.
Revolution Underway:
One such movement was headed by the Russian Social Democratic Party (RSDLP) which was nothing but a group of left wing radicals united by a broad range of 19th century socialist ideals. The party had two prominent factions which nurtured divergent ideological visions of a future utopian society but had, fortunately decided to resolve their differences at a later point of time – after the overthrow of the implacable Tsarist monarchy.
One of the factions, the Bolsheviks was headed by Vladimir Lenin, a pragmatic Marxist, as he liked to call himself. The other, the Mensheviks, was headed by Alexander Kerensky a socialist radical who didn’t approve of Marxism but was, nevertheless a very progressive revolutionary. The Bolsheviks promised ‘ Land, Peace and Bread’ to the people and hence were able to command a wide and a lasting appeal among the masses. By early 1917 as the World War was drawing to a close, the Tsar, sensing popular unrest, abdicated the throne which gave way to the installation of a provisional Government led by Kerensky. People voted for the RSDLP as a whole but it was Kerensky who seized power as soon as he divined its redolent nearness.
Kerensky, the politically shrewd ruler as he was, expecting a backlash from Lenin in the immediate future, ordered for the elimination of the Bolsheviks through legal as well extra-legal measures. The power struggle ensued for several months but it was only on November 7 the same year that the Bolsheviks seized power under the leadership of the indefatigable Lenin.
Repercussions:
This takeover of power by Lenin, also called the Russian Revolution of 1917 marked a watershed moment in the global history of the 19th century. This was the first time ever that a government openly espousing Marxist ideals was formed in any country and the shudders it sent through the rest of the world cannot be underestimated. The Imperialist Western Europe was alarmed at the ascent of the Communists in the largest country of the world and for the first time in history the ruling classes increasingly felt that they had to confront something ‘sceptral’ in order to survive the near future. On the other hand, the victory of the Russian Revolution gave hope to millions of oppressed, poor and enslaved people in countries world over including colonies such as those of India. In every colony in Asia and Africa, local communists began to play the leading role in the national liberation struggle against the West European Imperialists. A lot of European countries along with the US failed to recognise the Government of the Soviet Union led by Lenin which began to grow in size as other adjoining countries such as Kazakhstan, Armenia, Ukraine, etc also started acceding to the Communist Union. Most importantly the victory of the Bolsheviks inspired liberation struggle in the neighbouring China as well, which was also to become Communist in the next 30 years.
Intellectuals all over the world especially in Great Britain and even in the US felt that Russia had turned a new leaf over and expected their own countries to follow suit in order to attain a society devoid of exploitation, racism and religious fanaticism. The British Raj in India passed the Rowlatt Act of 1919 outlawing any form of protest against the Government so as to clampdown on the Indian Communists and its sympathisers. In various colonies, their respective governments banned their local Communist parties and a massive witch-hunting of communist radicals followed.
The massive land reform that the Bolshevik government had undertaken in Russia soon after its formation stripped the nobles and princes and landlords of their possessions and left them ‘cold and hostile’ to the proletarian establishment. They were waiting for an opportunity to pay back Lenin and his coterie, all the while despairing strongly for a restoration of the monarchy. For the dislodged Russian ruling classes, soon help was to arrive in the form of Western aid.
The Russian Civil War and its impact:
It was 1921 when Lenin’s plans to revive a war ravaged country were slowly bearing fruit, though shortages and occasional famines occurred in the rural areas. In many ways, the effort was humongous and Lenin’s leadership used both coercive as well as democratic means to involve people in this historic endeavour. People did find enormous reserves of patriotism and revolutionary spirit within themselves that they were ready to serve the Bolshevik government in any capacity as was required.
However, the dethroned ruling classes on the other hand, with substantial help from the Western powers were meticulously plotting for a counter revolution hell-bent on restoring Russia to its Tsarist days. Civil war broke out in 1918 which took Lenin by surprise and the bloody conflict between the Red Army and the counter revolutionaries began to hamper the rebuilding effort. The Bolsheviks managed to defeat the counter-revolutionaries after a prolonged battle which unwittingly ended up altering Lenin’s attitude towards his people remarkably.
Lenin on no account, was willing to allow Russia tailspin into its pre-1917 era of darkness, as a result of which his revolutionary optimism started giving way to an over-cautiousness that was soon to transmogrify into a terrible paranoia. Lenin evolved something that was to be called ‘War Communism’ which meant a lot of things including elimination of inner party democracy and ruthless suppression of dissent. Freedom of speech and other basic freedoms were to be suspended ‘for a while’, during which the revolutionary government will succeed in obliterating any surviving relic of ‘counter- revolution and reaction’ that might potentially harm the country’s ‘historic march into socialism’. Trade unions were effectively weakened and the State decided to intrude into every aspect of its citizen’s life so as to purge any reactionary tendencies or urges that were left inside him. Workers and peasants were mandated to stretch beyond their healthy limits and any attempt to stray out of the line was repulsed ruthlessly. Concentration camps which were initially set up to punish the erstwhile royalists and landlords for their past excesses, began to swell in size feeding upon innocent citizens and Communist dissidents as well. The party branched out into all the departments of governmental administration and the Soviet Union was slowly beginning to resemble a ‘Police State,’ perennially vigilant and incurably paranoid about its security and existence.
The Soviet Union after surviving its first threat to life with a fair amount of success was to wake up to another one very shortly. Vladimir Lenin, the peerless revolutionary who united the whole of backward Russia under one banner, died prematurely in 1922 at the age of 54.
Leander
September 24, 2019
Fantastic story..History has more twists than a fictional movie
LikeLike
meera
September 24, 2019
Waiting for the next chapter.. keep it coming 👍
LikeLike
krishikari
September 24, 2019
Me – So you mean to say that the collapse of USSR went hand in hand with the world going back to Laissez Faire Capitalism ?
Dad – Yes. That was one of the key reasons.
Interesting, this never occured to me. I’ve been wondering what was behind this worldwide swing to the right we are currently experiencing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sanjay
September 24, 2019
Me – So you mean to say that the collapse of USSR went hand in hand with the world going back to Laissez Faire Capitalism ?
Dad – Yes. That was one of the key reasons. Once there was no counterweight to the Free Market West in the form of USSR, the West started spreading free market ideas to the Third World, like India. India wouldn’t have probably embraced the Free Market had the USSR managed to live beyond 1991.
The missing link in all this seems diverting and occupying the human mind to fear psychosis.
Swing to Right immediately at the fall of Communism in late 80s is when the hobgoblin of the Islamic terror is designed and funded worldwide to make it into a global phenomena and engage the world for the next 35 to 40 years and still counting. Though now it seems lslamic terror has run the course so Al Qaida ISIS are going out of fashion and globe is getting geared towards the Phantom of the Chinese invasion. This circle will continue till humans self destruct themselves.That destruction unfortunately been advanced by Albert Einstein, who although played almost no role in the development of the atomic bomb but whose discoveries led to it.
LikeLike
Srinivas R
September 24, 2019
I am looking for forward to the subsequent chapters. One thing though, but India is better off for moving in the direction of free markets. Economic liberalization has moved a lot a lot of people out of poverty. I don’t discount the problems with it, but what we had prior wasn’t good at all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Madan
September 24, 2019
Nice, well written and looking forward to the next parts. But one disagreement…
“Me – So you mean to say that the collapse of USSR went hand in hand with the world going back to Laissez Faire Capitalism ?
Dad – Yes. That was one of the key reasons.”
I don’t quite agree there. The return to unfettered capitalism had already begun in the US and UK in the early 80s with the ascendancy of Reagan and Thatcher. Canada followed suit via Brian Mulroney and so too did NZ via David Lange. Germany was more modest but nevertheless tightened the belt via privatisation under Helmut Kohl.
Likewise, first of all, I wouldn’t characterise the 1991 reforms of India as a move to laissez faire capitalism. It was, as Rao called it, a middle path, retaining a very substantial role for the public sector as also welfare payouts while also opening up the economy for investment. Delivery of service by the Indian Govt was and still is poor, so in that sense, the welfare state never took off. Providing employment for a large population via public sector enterprises has proven increasingly expensive for the govt. I also don’t know that India wouldn’t have embraced liberalisation without the collapse of the USSR because it was occasioned by repeated foreign exchange crises. The situation had become unsustainable and this time, govt decided to follow rupee devaluation with an opening up of the market.
I do, however, think that India could have retained a socialist state and still avoided such crises had the orientation been towards exports as it was in the East Asian economies. Unfortunately, then as now, India was obsessed instead with import substitution. For an economy of its size, India’s share of world trade is still terribly low. China, meanwhile, is able to retain totalitarian control with a CINO govt because it is so successful in exports. This import substitution obsession is also what makes people clamour for a strong rupee which is a disaster in an economy that, again, produces very little world class product and littler still that is at the higher end of the value chain.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Srinivas R
September 25, 2019
“I do, however, think that India could have retained a socialist state and still avoided such crises had the orientation been towards exports as it was in the East Asian economies” – Well said, unfortunately import substitution is deeply woven in our public policy and is showing no signs of going away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sudharshan
September 25, 2019
What a terribly misinformed, propaganda pushing post!
You say and I quote,
“. A lot of European countries along with the US failed to recognise the Government of the Soviet Union led by Lenin which began to grow in size as other adjoining countries such as Kazakhstan, Armenia, Ukraine, etc also started acceding to the Communist Union.”
No they didn’t. They were brutally annexed, in many cases after brutal wars. The Soviet Ukrainian war of 1917-1919 saw some half a million deaths and millions displaced. One of the leaders of the Bolshevik invasion was none other than Joseph Dugashvili aka Stalin. Paul Robert in his history of the Ukraine writes explicitly that the Ukrainian peasantry and nobility both hated the Soviets with a passion. This would come to haunt them soon.
Ditto Armenia, which was brutally invaded by the Red Army.
Most other Soviets were similarly annexed, they didn’t just “peacefully” integrate with the USSR as you allege.
You then talk about the Land reforms lead by Lenin and herald it as some magical thing. In reality and i can refer you to multiple works on land reforms carried out by the Bolsheviks, these were disastrous and poorly planned out and lead to wave after wave of Famines till Lenin’s protege Stalin simply collectvised all the land.
I see you fail to even mention the terror unleashed by Lenin called “the Red Terror”. Ofc Lenin and the Soviets allowed no accounting but the lowest estimates of civilians butchered is 100,000 in 3 years. The ideal estimates Historians tend to fix on is 300,000 with the upper end running into a million!
You forget to mention the Cheka under Dzherinsky that loved torturing it’s victims, like boiling them alive slowly, flaying (yeah that’s right, a few were even public) are the most humane of the lot. They got very creative, like pouring water on humans and putting them put in subzero weather so they turned into “glorious” human statues. Or they put rats in tubes, tied them to their victims chest and heated the other end of the tubes. The rats would slowly eat the heart of their victim, one fastidious Cheka inspector noted that this was a very cumbersome process because this took upto 8 hours and the victim kept screaming all the time! How inconvenient.
This was a literal genocide.
Dear Lenin the great freedom loving revolutionary (not) never allowed freedom of the press or speech, things even the Tsars allowed. He also passed the draconian Art 58, which basically allowed the Cheka to arrest anyone and execute them. Habeas corpus that was around since Tsar Alexander the 3rd was removed and came back only in 1991.
Within this law this dear fun loving freedom worshiping Lenin (not) wrote in a super draconian sub clause,
Traitor of the Motherland family members’
Basically infants were found guilty of sedition and executed, INFANTS!
His rein was so despised that mass rebellions broke out all over, the Tambov rebellion (250,000 murdered), Krondstat Rebellion, rebellions in Ukraine, Armenia and many more. Uncle Lenin suppressed them all worse than the Tsar ever did and then for funskies executed ALL leaders, suspected leaders and their families. It was only in 1928 (a full 9 years after the fact) that Leninji managed to restore 1912 levels of production!
I could go on and on but the point is simple, you can have your own ideological underpinnings, your idols but please don’t push such one sided and misleading propaganda in a public forum. I do hope you aren’t teaching your child so much false history though.
LikeLike
Eswar
September 26, 2019
👋 G Waugh.
I am not so sure about the content of this article. But you have a great narration – simple, focussed, and succinct. This is a power in itself. A power that can attract readers irrespective of the content’s accuracy. A power to write, rewrite, reimagine and reinterpret history.
It would have been great to have few references cited in the article. And qualify the views with these resources to separate your views from that of the resources. Lacking these, the article is more of a Historical Fiction rather than a work of History. Historical fictions are great. Though, as a reader, it is important to understand the distinction between a historical fiction and a work of history. While History can be used as a reference, historical fiction can only be used as a pointer to a reference. Ponniyin Selvan, Agnaadi, Vellai Yaanai, Rubber are all great works of historical fiction but they are also only mere pointers to the historical events described in the book. They can never be used as a source in itself. For, they are more about the author’s imagination and reinterpretation of History rather than the History.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sanjay2706
September 27, 2019
Very Interesting piece. You might have heard of Richard Wolff.If you haven’t, I highly recommend his YouTube Channel. Prof Wolff makes sense of this modern day madness and comes up with interesting solutions. Worker Co-ops are a great alternative IMO and will help mitigate all the risks that Capitalism brings.
He also talks about how Soviet/PRC and other communist countries misinterpreted what Marxism was and twisted Marxism for their selfish needs. Marx was an academic and a critic of Capitalism, as simple as that.
Also, I always wanted to write an essay about “Rocket Singh…Salesman of the year” movie. It is IMO not only one of the greatest movies made in India, but also a great case study in how a Worker Co-op defeats a capitalist company, although it is Fiction. Sometimes, there is more truth in the works of Art than actual Thesis papers.
Maybe one day Readers Write in will see that essay. 🙂
Thanks for writing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
gnanaozhi
September 28, 2019
@eswar it is not even fiction, it is 90% propaganda at this point.
I understand that the writer likes Lenin and Communism that’s his prerogative but he just glosses over (maybe he doesn’t know?) Things like entire wars where millions died.
Reality – The pre USSR Russia under Lenin invaded many states and forcibly integrated them this lead to some 1.5mn lives being lost in total. In reality it was a bloody invasion, brutal occupation and forced integration.
So fiction is –
“After a brief patriotic war, Ukraine was absorbed into the USSR”
It mentions a war, it disingenuously does not mention anything more but that’s for the reader to research.
This writer though is 100% propaganda when he says
” many states came into the USSR”
This is outright dishonest! No the states didn’t come into the USSR they were invaded by Lenin. He even alludes to it being very voluntary and peaceful.
Like that this polemical piece is filled with propaganda.
In my opinion BR should not allow such controversial, misleading pieces on his forum.
LikeLike
brangan
September 28, 2019
gnanaozhi: In my opinion BR should not allow such controversial, misleading pieces on his forum.
The way I see it, this is as much a POV as someone’s opinion on GANG LEADER or MS MONOPOLY. The engagement in the comments section will determine the reception to the piece. I am just giving it a platform, so the discussion can begin.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Madan
September 28, 2019
@gnanaozhi: It’s possible that he has misrepresented some aspects of communism. But I guess it’s far for the course given how much capitalism is misrepresented? How do we really know how well capitalism would have fared without imperialism or slavery? And even after slavery was abolished, there was extreme inequality in USA as well as terrible and oppressive labour laws. The progressive movement, via both Roosevelts, essentially acknowledged the Marxist critique of capitalism and saved it from itself. Today, capitalism is once again set to destroy the world. Having screwed up in 2008, the rich are using fascists to retain control (blaming immigrants and poor people as Mark Baum puts it in The Big Short). Discussing communism is good pushback against the evangelical capitalists. I have a different view when it comes to the Indian context but the author was discussing communism per se and not the history of the movement in India.
LikeLike
gnanaozhi
September 28, 2019
@madan, oh make no mistake about it sir, I am no fan of unbridled capitalism. The British rule in India alone saw more than 55mn -80mn (lower estimates) die in engineered Famines caused primarily because of unchecked free market economics coupled with British utilitarianism and a large dollop of Malthusian nonsense. In fact I have even proposed to Mr Rangan a series just on this (side note – I believe our history books don’t even cover 1% of the true horrors of British occupation and this is a grave wrong) and the horrors of capitalism.
I also am a Rankean and believe history has to be factual and misrepresentation of actual facts tends to get my goat a bit 😉
So here is a “fun fact” on what Capitalism does to a nation. During the great Madras famine of 1876-78 (death toll 11mn) the British alloted calories that were lower than what the Nazis gave the death camp inmates in Auschwitz!
Watch this space for more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
September 28, 2019
“During the great Madras famine of 1876-78 (death toll 11mn) the British alloted calories that were lower than what the Nazis gave the death camp inmates in Auschwitz!”
Deadly! Waiting for more such damning facts indeed.
LikeLike
Eswar
September 28, 2019
@gnanaozhi: Even if it is a propaganda, it makes sense to talk about it openly rather than in a clandestine fashion, especially qualifying it with something like, our voice is suppressed.
And regarding the British engineered famine in Madras, was it because of capitalism or was it Imperialism?
LikeLike
Honest Raj
September 28, 2019
@Madan & gnanaozhi: I believe it’s a factoid. Anyway, shouldn’t the claim be: the Nazis allotted more calories to the Auschwitz death camp inmates than what was allotted by the British to the ‘relief’ camps during the Madras famine?
@Eswar: Are you sure the famine was ‘engineered’? 🙂
LikeLike
Eswar
September 28, 2019
@Honest Raj: Hee Hee 🙂. I just reused the word from @gnanaozhi’s comment to avoid digression over the choice of words.
Btw, are you saying the famine is a by product or it is just a natural calamity that’s being attributed to the British? I don’t know much about that period.
LikeLike
gnanaozhi
September 28, 2019
@eswar Imperialism enabled it but the policies were all free market systems at play. One simple example
Previously under the Mughals or Vijayanagara (we know their famine responses in some detail) grains from famine struck areas were kept there, Aurangazeb during a famine made it a crime punishable by death to sell grains outside the berar region. Grain was Imported from grain surplus areas. Taxes waived in part or full.
This was textbook famine relief. The British though believed in free markets they believed that supply and demand equilibrium will determine it’s own pricing and intervention was not at all allowed. They believed that if grain merchants saw profits in hoarding (crime again punishable by death in Indian regimes during famine) then that is their prerogative. Laissez faire ideology was at play everywhere.
So much so that mortality rates in districts served by railways was 5-15% higher than districts without railways. Why? Because the rail was used to ship out grain from starved regions into central godowns and then on for export. Why? Because profit motive.
LikeLike
Thupparivaalan
September 29, 2019
Madan: “I do, however, think that India could have retained a socialist state and still avoided such crises had the orientation been towards exports as it was in the East Asian economies. ”
Most east Asian economies that flourished like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea had very good levels of economic freedom and ease of doing business index, so I’m not sure how you call them socialist in the economic sense.
LikeLike
Madan
September 29, 2019
“Most east Asian economies that flourished like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea had very good levels of economic freedom and ease of doing business index, so I’m not sure how you call them socialist in the economic sense.” – I did not call THEM socialist, I referred to their export oriented strategy which India could have emulated. China was able to do that while also retaining heavy state control, for instance.
LikeLike
Eswar
September 29, 2019
@gnanaozhi: The kingdoms that your have mentioned, how did they have say over the distribution of grains? Did they own the production itself, or just controlled the producers ? Was there a name for their system or is it comparable to any of the modern day -isms.
When you say “the intervention was not at all allowed”. Do you mean that there were groups ready to intervene and the British prevented them? Also who did these merchants, who were hoarding and exporting, worked for? Are they independent traders or were working for the Company ?
LikeLike
Honest Raj
September 29, 2019
@Eswar: Ah, okay. 🙂
Btw, are you saying the famine is a by product or it is just a natural calamity that’s being attributed to the British? I don’t know much about that period.
It was essentially a natural calamity and was a bit of by product as well (as with the case of most famines). But ‘engineer’ is too strong a word.
About the famine I too, am not much aware of it. But it seems it was much worse than the Bengal famine – to an extent that it also hit parts of the Central and North-Western provinces.
LikeLiked by 1 person
gnanaozhi
September 30, 2019
@eswar, systems pre British usually had the following tax / collection rates.
1/3rd went to the state, 1/3rd was retained at a local village level, 1/3rd was for personal sale / consumption. Broadly speaking the state revenues were partly in cash and partly in kind.
Whenever a famine hit, the 1/3rd that went into the local reserves were first utilised. The state (Mughals and Vijayanagara is whom I am referring to) also moved grains from grain surplus regions to grain deficit regions.
Taxes were entirely or partially waived in all famine hit regions as well.
@honestraj (lmao man, really? It is a Gaptun movie right?) These were absolutely engineered. It was sequential,
1 – A massive push towards cash crops, either using financial incentives (cash crop exports gained much higher revenues) or in many cases like Indigo and Opium farming in Bihar and Bengal, outright force.
2 – removing the traditional taxation methods that allowed fully a 3rd of the produce to be used as a buffer (and also to feed the local poor)
3 – taxes were made mandatory even during the worst Famines.
What these 3 things meant was in a famine (British India had 12 of them) peasants had no buffer so they starved and then had to pay taxes which they did only by selling their lands and houses.
This then meant lands were being consolidated away from now landless peasants and in the hands of rent seeking landlords. When the next wave of Famines hit, these now marginalised peasants simply died where they lived.
This is a very high level overview but this is a highly complex topic.
@brangan if you will, i think given the interest this topic is generating you could put up the first part.
Also Honest Raj the Bengal Famine of 43 was actually one of the Famines with the lowest mortality rate. The Doji Bara, Great Madras famine for instance saw death tolls of 10-12 mn each, that’s 20-24 mn dead in 3 years. Even the Germans didn’t achieve these kind of death rates in such a short time and with ZER9 expenses.
LikeLike
gnanaozhi
September 30, 2019
@madan, on intervention, true they literally didn’t allow intervention.
Some examples. During the Western Famine and plague of 1898 (5mn dead in 1.5 years) some churches from Kansas sent grain as charity. At first the British refused to allow these to be distributed as they felt this would affect Natural demand and supply equilibrium. The US govt strongly protested so the Brits slapped gross duties and literally made income on starving peasants.
There are documented cases of even white foreigners being arrested for doling out Charity grain!
LikeLike
Eswar
October 2, 2019
@gnanaozhi. Thanks for responding. Though, I am still not convinced that Capitalism is the reason for these famines. The sweeping claims against Capitalism isn’t very different from G Waugh’s article. The reason I see this way could probably be attributed to my lack of exposure in this area. Said that, if I had dipped enough, I am hoping, I would have realised that History is lot more nuanced than this.
LikeLike
Madan
October 2, 2019
Eswar: Think of it as something like the debate over surge pricing. According to Uber evangelists, if the surge algorithm throws up some crazy fare like $10000 for a short ride (happens as this link documents:https://www.ranker.com/list/uber-surge-pricing-screenshots/jacob-shelton), it’s fine because it’s market forces in operation. The fact that such pricing may not be reasonable is to be ignored in their worldview because something like reasonableness is too subjective and pricing should be a product of pure demand and supply.
Similarly, the logic is if there is a massive shortage of food due to famine, it is ok because market forces will work it out over a period of time. For one thing, such an argument takes the position that death by starvation is alright, which most of us today would consider an inhuman view, and secondly, it does not recognise the role of stability and reasonable certainty in promoting growth. If demand doesn’t fluctuate too wildly, it’s easier for businesses to plan well ahead and procure and produce in an orderly way.
Now, is the Great Famine absolutely a product of capitalism? I cannot say for sure but the wiki article does have pointers that suggest that a doctrinaire belief in laissez faire capitalism contributed to the problem and heavily.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%931878
“Sensitive to any renewed accusations of excess in 1876, Temple, who was now Famine Commissioner for the Government of India,[2] insisted not only on a policy of laissez faire with respect to the trade in grain,[8] but also on stricter standards of qualification for relief and on more meagre relief rations.[2]”
“In January 1877, Temple reduced the wage for a day’s hard work in the relief camps in Madras and Bombay[10]—this ‘Temple wage’ consisted of 450 grams (1 lb) of grain plus one anna for a man, and a slightly reduced amount for a woman or working child,[11] for a “long day of hard labour without shade or rest.”[12] The rationale behind the reduced wage, which was in keeping with a prevailing belief of the time, was that any excessive payment might create ‘dependency’ (or “demoralisation” in contemporaneous usage) among the famine-afflicted population.[1]”
You can see echoes here of the motivation behind the American right’s insistence on removing welfare expenditure.
We don’t see this wild west capitalism in the developed world anymore. They learned their lesson with the Great Depression though the right, since Reagan, has been unrepentant in a pursuit of a return to laissez faire economics with partial success. Just as an example, had the US Federal Govt and Federal Reserve stuck to laissez faire during the meltdown instead of a bailout, the world economy would have gone kaput.
LikeLiked by 1 person