The ECU did not agree that the report was unduly personalised in relation to Churchill.  It did not give the impression that any of the many parties concerned had sole responsibility for the alleviation of the famine, attributing decision-making power to Churchill and his Cabinet, not Churchill alone, and the ECU noted significant documentary evidence that he was aware of the famine and intervened personally on a number of occasions, for example by writing to the Viceroy of India and President Roosevelt.  As to the wartime context, the studio introduction to the item referred to decisions made “in the turmoil of wartime” and the report itself referred on two occasions to the constraints arising from the war.  As the programme appeared to the ECU to have presented a duly balanced picture in both respects, these points of complaint were not upheld. 

In relation to the third point of complaint, a number of the interviewees in the report, suggested Churchill regarded Indians with a degree of disdain if not outright hostility, and the impression that this explained his behaviour was reinforced by the citation of a contemporary account reporting Churchill as having said Indians “breed like rabbits”.  It is hardly controversial to say Churchill on occasion expressed attitudes which many would now regard as evidence of racism, and the ECU thought it editorially justifiable to refer to the issue of racism in the context of a report focusing on Indian attitudes which run counter to the received view of Churchill.  In the ECU’s judgement, however, more exploration of alternative views of Churchill’s actions and motives in relation to the Bengal famine was required to meet the standard of impartiality appropriate to a report in a news bulletin of this kind.  This aspect of the complaint was upheld.

Partly upheld