Monopoly of Grain during the Bengal & Bihar Famine of 1770
Summary
The article investigates whether grain monopolies exacerbated the Bengal and Bihar famine of 1770. It reviews letters, pamphlets and official proceedings that accused English supervisors and Indian officials of cornering rice. Pamphlets like "A Short Account of a late Short‑lived Monopoly" attacked Muhammad Reza Khan, while others defended him. The author argues that the term ‘monopoly’ was loosely used: although local hoarding occurred, there was no organised all‑Bengal grain monopoly. Crop failure and two successive droughts were the primary causes. Muhammad Reza Khan’s purchases were for official granaries, not private speculation. Some English supervisors speculated, but their impact on prices was limited. The Council at Calcutta failed to investigate properly perhaps due to complicity. The article concludes that blaming monopoly distracts from ecological and administrative failures.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
The enquiry concludes that the famine of 1770 was mainly caused by crop failures and inadequate relief, not by a systematic grain monopoly. While pamphlets accused officials of hoarding, evidence shows only local profiteering. Muhammad Reza Khan’s grain purchases were for state granaries. The article criticises the Calcutta Council for failing to investigate and argues that attributing the famine to monopoly diverts attention from ecological and administrative causes.