A significant controversy has erupted following the display of a video installation at the National Portrait Gallery that alleges Sir Winston Churchill was responsible for the mass starvation of the Indian population during the 1943 Bengal famine. The 40-minute video, titled 'Persistence' by Turner Prize-winning artist Helen Cammock, claims Churchill used 'wilful' mass starvation as a deliberate policy.
The accusation has been vehemently challenged by historian and former gallery trustee, Lord Roberts, who described the claims as a 'barefaced lie' and 'foul and vile'. In a letter sent to Professor Shearer West, interim chair of the board of trustees, Lord Roberts argued that the famine was primarily caused by a devastating typhoon in October 1942, which destroyed both rice crops and crucial transport links. He highlighted Churchill's efforts at the time to secure food aid for India, including appeals to US President Roosevelt and the prime ministers of Canada and Australia for grain shipments.
Lord Roberts' letter was co-signed by more than 50 members of the House of Lords, including Sir Winston's grandson, Nicholas Soames, and Michael Hintze, a former trustee of the National Portrait Gallery. They contend that Ms Cammock's work is an 'ideologically motivated rant' that deviates from the gallery's core mission of artistic endeavour. The Churchill Project, dedicated to preserving Churchill's legacy, has also noted that the Bengal famine has become a focal point for revisionist attacks on the wartime leader.
While Churchill remains a revered figure in Britain, his policies during the Bengal famine and his views on race and empire have drawn criticism in recent years. Research from 2019, conducted by academics in India and the US, concluded that the Bengal famine, which caused an estimated 3 million deaths, was not primarily due to drought but rather a 'complete policy failure during the British era'. This study used weather data to analyse soil moisture during multiple famines, finding the 1943 event to be unique in its cause.
In response to the growing criticism, a spokesperson for the National Portrait Gallery stated that it supports freedom of artistic expression and provides opportunities for artists to create works in response to its collection. However, the gallery clarified that it does not necessarily endorse all the opinions expressed by the artists whose work is on display. Ms Cammock has reportedly been contacted for comment regarding the controversy.