Developer Diary | Historical Raj

[pdx_lily]

Two things:

1) It seems like Manipur doesn't have their own state but instead is grouped in with Assam, but the country itself is in Nagaland? I'm a but confused here.
2) I'd like for there to be a seperate state for Sylhet so that we can get modern Bangladesh borders (even if that's anachronistic).

Manipur has its own state, and not grouped in with Assam.

 

[Horlicks]

Manipur has its own state, and not grouped in with Assam.

It's actually not in the correct location, it should ideally be the province just south of it (the corner pushing into Burma).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Bengal_gazetteer_1907-9.jpg

Currently, its sitting on top of the Naga Hills and part of Assam (apart from being a bit disproportionately sized).

 

[Nozza]

An independent or dominion India should have a reduced magnitude or no famine. The british scorched earth policy and unwillingness to distribute food from Punjab was a major reason for the famine. [...] So the opinions that the famine occurred due to stopping of shipment of rice from Burma is hogwash. [...] It makes more sense to have a large scale famine if the east Bengal state becomes occupied in this case.

Aside from the correct comment about the scorched earth strategy, this is false information. The inability to import rice from Burma was a major factor in the exacerbation of the famine.

To start, under the 1935 Government of India Act, the diarchy system of shared British-Indian advisory government was replaced by a system of self-government for the non-Princely States Provinces, effectively granting most functions of provincial governance (excluding those that either pertained to matters of State and were thus reserved for the Viceroy e.g. foreign trade, or certain aspects of other national policies e.g. policing) to local, Indian responsible governments, with very little interference from Delhi or London. This included agricultural policy, of which famine relief and management of food supplies were obviously a part.

These provincial governments were still in power by the time of the Bengal Famine, though with the caveat that the Indian National Congress resigned their ministries in protest to Indian entry into the war, leaving only the Muslim League. The Muslim League's policy when the famine struck was to deny that there was a famine, not implement the famine codes (as it would negatively impact their political image), and instead impose price controls which led to hoarding of food, scarcity, and black markets. The Indian National Congress, for their part, used the famine to attack the Muslim League in elections in Bengal and restore their political legitimacy after resigning their ministries.

Per your first statement, an independent India may have avoided the famine if the Indian government did not involve itself in the war and found another way to supply food to Bengal that did not involve Burma, be it foreign exports or enforcing redistribution from other provinces. A dominion India would most likely still suffer the same problems as, as previously mentioned, provincial agricultural policy was already under the control of local governments, and as federalism was the main structure the British promoted in India on the road to self-government, a dominion federal government likely would have been in no better position to enforce agricultural policy in such a way to prevent or ease the effects of the famine.

Per your second statement, food could not be imported from the Punjab because the provincial government of the Punjab banned grain exports, as did several other provincial governments. The Punjab was not unable to be used to combat the famine due to "British unwillingness", it was due to the lack of support from the Punjabis themselves and their government. This is why the British, on learning of the famine and taking over the administration of Bengal, tried to secure food shipments from overseas - America, Australia, etc. - though the ability to do so was hampered by Axis naval efforts in the Atlantic and Bay of Bengal - widespread famine would cause mass unrest in India and hurt the war effort, hence the efforts to combat the famine, but the Viceroy's cabinet seizing control of agricultural policy from the other provinces would doubtlessly be seen as overreaching and thus not much better in terms of unrest.

Your last statement that it would be better for a famine to occur if the East Bengal state is occupied does not make sense because East Bengal was already not producing the food necessary to feed the population. To elaborate on both my comment about your last statement, and your own statement about how the lack of food imports from Burma had nothing to do with the famine, we have to consider how - bearing all the above in mind - Bengal was unable to produce enough food to feed its citizens. This is a simple fact - at the time of the Bengal Famine, for the purposes of feeding its people, Bengal was a net food importer.

Some sources may say that Bengali harvests in the years of the famine were "sufficient", yet Bengal was denied food. This is a misinterpretation of the truth. The harvests were only sufficient for the purposes of taxation. Harvests were important because they were the basis on which land revenue was calculate, and tax was paid on the basis of the produce. To maintain stability in revenue forecasting, the policy was to tax the land based on its potential rather than what it actually produced. If you're looking at whether a harvest was "sufficient" or not, the Famine Enquiry Commission, as well as Amartya Sen who based his data on said report, compared the potential harvests to the real harvests. As the argument goes, the average last three years of harvests in Bengal (1940-43) were high compared to the "potential" yield of the land and therefore there was no food crisis in Bengal. This is the view taken by the Bengali government as mentioned above, however it could not be further from the truth, because the potential yield is calculated with reference to taxation, not with reference to the food requirements of the population. Bengal had a bad crop due to natural disasters in 1941-42, and the province was thus not secure in its food despite the land meeting its "potential", because Bengal was highly industrialised with jute farming. Bengal was thus reliant on rice imports from Burma, which were lost due to the scorched earth strategy you mentioned (not that the Japanese would have continued the exports had they taken over an intact farming infrastructure, mind you).

With the loss of the Burmese rice imports, the onus now returns to the provincial government. As India did not have rationing or conscription during the war, a way was needed to keep civil servants and others stationed in Bengal to ensure the province could continue to be governed smoothly in the face of the Japanese advance, and fight against it if necessary - as a result, Bengali merchants - with the support of the local provincial government who as mentioned earlier refused to declare a famine - prioritsed food to certain sectors of the population, causing food demand to spike and prices to rise, meaning wages could not keep up and what food there now was left in Bengal became harder for the less fortunate to acquire - in effect, the provincial government made the crisis that already existed due to the poor harvest and lack of Burmese imports worse, which they would continue to do as mentioned previously with the establishment of price controls, hoarding, black markets, etc.

The situation in Bengal began to improve in 1943 after Bengal was taken over by the army, and when what food could be brought in via shipping was done so.

With all this in mind, I'm actually fine with the current implementation - the decisions to crack down on black markets show that (unlike with Burma and Aden) somebody has actually done their research for this.

To circle back to your points about famine in-game should India not be in its historical position, the suggestion of it occuring should East Bengal be occupied is still one I disagree with, East Bengal was not a breadbasket whose loss would in and of itself cause a famine, it was as previously mentioned a net food importer for the purposes of feeding its population during the famine years. Rather, I would limit it so that famine - in both historical and ahistorical paths - can only occur in the years in which Bengali harvests were devastated by natural disasters. For historical paths, this occurs if Burma is lost. For ahistorical paths, if we continue to factor in internal political issues, this could be if India's opponent has naval superiority in the Bay of Bengal, whilst if we ignore internal political issues and assume independent India would force food distribution from other provinces, we could have famine occur only if Bengal is cut off from the rest of India.

 

[lele48]

@HOI_DEV would the indian gentlemen officers national spirit and the red eagle division still be present in some form or capacity?

 

[HOI_DEV]

Does this mean you're including the Hunger Winter, or in fact any of the famines in Axis territory? Because right now you have a situation where the only man-made famine in the game is caused by the allies.

To be clear, my objection is not that you're including the Bengal Famine - sensitive depiction of the horrors of the period is responsible. And it's also right to show that the British bear responsibility for it.

But if that's the only event of its type you include, the effect is - by default - to whitewash Nazi and Japanese occupations because you're showing that the British starved civilians while apparently the Axis didn't.

As I said, we do it on a case by case basis. You might think we made the wrong choice, and that's fine, but at least know that we have given it ample thought.

I'm not here to cast blame and afaik there's no one stating it's the UKs fault in game. You get escalating events of the things that happen to explain what is happening.

What is not included is stealing fisherman's boats for example, because that is too close to an active thing the player does so aggregate it.

If we rerun the world where there was no Bengal famine already in the game maybe it wouldn't have been included, who knows

 

[HOI_DEV]

Will the famine have conditions to fire based on Britain's actions? As of right now (in game and in the dev diary), it appears as if Britain has no role in it.

Maybe a condition could be being a British puppet or having free trade or something? Or instead of having a "press to famine" button for Britain, you could have decisions that Britain could do to alleviate it that give them consumer goods/factory output debuffs (that they may or may not do).

I want to clarify that I think it is good to have a depiction of the famine in game as it was a significant historic event with real impacts and a real tragedy. But it seems ahistorical and could be insensitive to not have some sort of connection to British colonial policy.

No, that is a step too far and opens a can of worms I do not want to open.

The Raj can ask for aid from the commonwealth though

 

[lele48]

The Raj can ask for aid from the commonwealth though

Cool ^^
And thanks for giving all these infos

 

[General Tao]

Looking good, my only bit of feedback is that that it's a little counter-intuitive to me that picking the "independent rule" garrison law actually increases compliance gain with the overlord nation. Might want to reconsider how these laws are named.

 

[Me_]

No population reduction from famine?

 

[zhaidangv]

Manipur has its own state, and not grouped in with Assam.

View attachment 1253557

How is Kashmir looks like now? Any changes?

 

[Lord Sheogorath]

Aside from the correct comment about the scorched earth strategy, this is false information. The inability to import rice from Burma was a major factor in the exacerbation of the famine.

To start, under the 1935 Government of India Act, the diarchy system of shared British-Indian advisory government was replaced by a system of self-government for the non-Princely States Provinces, effectively granting most functions of provincial governance (excluding those that either pertained to matters of State and were thus reserved for the Viceroy e.g. foreign trade, or certain aspects of other national policies e.g. policing) to local, Indian responsible governments, with very little interference from Delhi or London. This included agricultural policy, of which famine relief and management of food supplies were obviously a part.

These provincial governments were still in power by the time of the Bengal Famine, though with the caveat that the Indian National Congress resigned their ministries in protest to Indian entry into the war, leaving only the Muslim League. The Muslim League's policy when the famine struck was to deny that there was a famine, not implement the famine codes (as it would negatively impact their political image), and instead impose price controls which led to hoarding of food, scarcity, and black markets. The Indian National Congress, for their part, used the famine to attack the Muslim League in elections in Bengal and restore their political legitimacy after resigning their ministries.

Per your first statement, an independent India may have avoided the famine if the Indian government did not involve itself in the war and found another way to supply food to Bengal that did not involve Burma, be it foreign exports or enforcing redistribution from other provinces. A dominion India would most likely still suffer the same problems as, as previously mentioned, provincial agricultural policy was already under the control of local governments, and as federalism was the main structure the British promoted in India on the road to self-government, a dominion federal government likely would have been in no better position to enforce agricultural policy in such a way to prevent or ease the effects of the famine.

Per your second statement, food could not be imported from the Punjab because the provincial government of the Punjab banned grain exports, as did several other provincial governments. The Punjab was not unable to be used to combat the famine due to "British unwillingness", it was due to the lack of support from the Punjabis themselves and their government. This is why the British, on learning of the famine and taking over the administration of Bengal, tried to secure food shipments from overseas - America, Australia, etc. - though the ability to do so was hampered by Axis naval efforts in the Atlantic and Bay of Bengal - widespread famine would cause mass unrest in India and hurt the war effort, hence the efforts to combat the famine, but the Viceroy's cabinet seizing control of agricultural policy from the other provinces would doubtlessly be seen as overreaching and thus not much better in terms of unrest.

Your last statement that it would be better for a famine to occur if the East Bengal state is occupied does not make sense because East Bengal was already not producing the food necessary to feed the population. To elaborate on both my comment about your last statement, and your own statement about how the lack of food imports from Burma had nothing to do with the famine, we have to consider how - bearing all the above in mind - Bengal was unable to produce enough food to feed its citizens. This is a simple fact - at the time of the Bengal Famine, for the purposes of feeding its people, Bengal was a net food importer.

Some sources may say that Bengali harvests in the years of the famine were "sufficient", yet Bengal was denied food. This is a misinterpretation of the truth. The harvests were only sufficient for the purposes of taxation. Harvests were important because they were the basis on which land revenue was calculate, and tax was paid on the basis of the produce. To maintain stability in revenue forecasting, the policy was to tax the land based on its potential rather than what it actually produced. If you're looking at whether a harvest was "sufficient" or not, the Famine Enquiry Commission, as well as Amartya Sen who based his data on said report, compared the potential harvests to the real harvests. As the argument goes, the average last three years of harvests in Bengal (1940-43) were high compared to the "potential" yield of the land and therefore there was no food crisis in Bengal. This is the view taken by the Bengali government as mentioned above, however it could not be further from the truth, because the potential yield is calculated with reference to taxation, not with reference to the food requirements of the population. Bengal had a bad crop due to natural disasters in 1941-42, and the province was thus not secure in its food despite the land meeting its "potential", because Bengal was highly industrialised with jute farming. Bengal was thus reliant on rice imports from Burma, which were lost due to the scorched earth strategy you mentioned (not that the Japanese would have continued the exports had they taken over an intact farming infrastructure, mind you).

With the loss of the Burmese rice imports, the onus now returns to the provincial government. As India did not have rationing or conscription during the war, a way was needed to keep civil servants and others stationed in Bengal to ensure the province could continue to be governed smoothly in the face of the Japanese advance, and fight against it if necessary - as a result, Bengali merchants - with the support of the local provincial government who as mentioned earlier refused to declare a famine - prioritsed food to certain sectors of the population, causing food demand to spike and prices to rise, meaning wages could not keep up and what food there now was left in Bengal became harder for the less fortunate to acquire - in effect, the provincial government made the crisis that already existed due to the poor harvest and lack of Burmese imports worse, which they would continue to do as mentioned previously with the establishment of price controls, hoarding, black markets, etc.

The situation in Bengal began to improve in 1943 after Bengal was taken over by the army, and when what food could be brought in via shipping was done so.

With all this in mind, I'm actually fine with the current implementation - the decisions to crack down on black markets show that (unlike with Burma and Aden) somebody has actually done their research for this.

To circle back to your points about famine in-game should India not be in its historical position, the suggestion of it occuring should East Bengal be occupied is still one I disagree with, East Bengal was not a breadbasket whose loss would in and of itself cause a famine, it was as previously mentioned a net food importer for the purposes of feeding its population during the famine years. Rather, I would limit it so that famine - in both historical and ahistorical paths - can only occur in the years in which Bengali harvests were devastated by natural disasters. For historical paths, this occurs if Burma is lost. For ahistorical paths, if we continue to factor in internal political issues, this could be if India's opponent has naval superiority in the Bay of Bengal, whilst if we ignore internal political issues and assume independent India would force food distribution from other provinces, we could have famine occur only if Bengal is cut off from the rest of India.

Can you explain the reason why there were frequent famines under the British, which suddenly stopped after India gained independence, the worst famine after independence resulting in about 2000 deaths?

Can you show me significant food imports towards independent India from Burma? What changed so quickly after independence that catastrophic famines stopped happening in India after India gained independence? Certainly not the green revolution, which started in 1968.

Per your second statement, food could not be imported from the Punjab because the provincial government of the Punjab banned grain exports, as did several other provincial governments. The Punjab was not unable to be used to combat the famine due to "British unwillingness", it was due to the lack of support from the Punjabis themselves and their government.

Is this a joke? In pre-independent India the "Punjabis" held political power enough to stop the flow of trade? Popular freedom fighters were mostly in jail due to the quit India movement. Punjab was ruled by a british governor and british loyalists.

federalism was the main structure the British promoted in India on the road to self-government

So much federal that the british dragged India into WW2 without consulting any elected leader?

with very little interference from Delhi or London.

"Supreme Commander of South-East Asia) began requesting food imports for India through government and military channels, but for months these requests were either rejected or reduced to a fraction of the original amount by Churchill's War Cabinet. The colony was also not permitted to spend its own sterling reserves, or even use its own ships, to import food. Although Viceroy Linlithgow appealed for imports from mid-December 1942, he did so on the understanding that the military would be given preference over civilians."

Bengal famine of 1943 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From the same article.

"A 2019 study by researchers in India and the US, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, was the first to use weather data to argue that wartime policies had exacerbated the Bengal famine. It concluded that British policies under Winston Churchill significantly contributed to the 1943 Bengal famine and the famine was "unique" as it did not primarily result from serious drought unlike previous famines in India. Data had showed rain levels in late 1943 had been "above average". Instead they concluded that factors such as wartime inflation, speculative buying, and panic hoarding had severely exacerbated food shortages while Churchill's government had continued exporting rice from India despite warnings of impending famine and denied emergency wheat supplies. In contrast, previous local government responses to famines, such as the 1873–74 Bihar famine, were more effective, highlighting the detrimental impact of colonial British policies to the Bengal famine."

 

[HOI_DEV]

No population reduction from famine?

No

 

[Blackleafx]

The changes to Aden and Burma are bizarre and historically inaccurate.

Whoever wrote the section about Burma clearly has no idea how legislation works. Just because an Act may be passed in one year, in this case 1935, does not mean it automatically goes into effect. Many laws, even today, do not go into effect the same day they are signed. The Government of India Act 1935 is another example, by the start of 1936 its administrative changes had not yet gone into effect. At the time this game starts, and until 1937 as mentioned, Burma was still governed as a subdivision of British India, this change serves no purpose but to make the game map less historically accurate.

Honestly in regards to Burma, yeah it is pretty inaccurate, but I think it works as a patchwork solution to letting Burma be playable at the start of the game, if you for some reason want to. I suppose the other alternative would be for them to start as a puppet of British India and then switch to becoming a puppet of the UK in 1937. I think this is just a necessary sacrifice you sometimes have to make due to the way the game abstracts some parts of governance, especially colonial governance.

 

[Kosaki MacTavish]

Honestly in regards to Burma, yeah it is pretty inaccurate, but I think it works as a patchwork solution to letting Burma be playable at the start of the game, if you for some reason want to. I suppose the other alternative would be for them to start as a puppet of British India and then switch to becoming a puppet of the UK in 1937. I think this is just a necessary sacrifice you sometimes have to make due to the way the game abstracts some parts of governance, especially colonial governance.

Or make it integrated puppet of UK, then elevated to colony in 1937.

Speaking about integrated puppets, could the devs change Dutch East Indies and British Malaya's ideologies to Non-Aligned instead of the current democratic one?

 

[Boobaka]

​

Princely States were historically local leaders of India that were a quasi-independent entity separated from direct British rule, but still under British control as a form of subsidiary alliance. As long as they supported the crown they could rule over their states.

In Hearts of Iron IV this is represented as high-compliance, non-core territory at the start of the game. Meaning that the Raj will now start with uncored territories, with ways to core it later.

View attachment 1251731​

Hello,
For those who do not have the DLC, will it be possible to reunite the princely states with the old priority tree?

 

[FORMICARIUS]

It would be super fun if the fascist and communist trees have something in common with the historical focustree toward independence. And then a super non-historical focus tree separated from the other three in which the Raj stay a colony and non aligned with many debuffs in the first years of the game and but big opportunities later on. Sadly it won't be the case.

 

[Anish Lahiri]

Something to point out,the post independent capital of Pakistan was Karachi in the beginning not Lahore

 

[Telenil]

Happy to see how this branch turned out. It's a touchy subject and it was handled rather tactfully. It's also consistent with the ways Dominions have been working since 2016, becoming independent is one of the goals even when you stay in the Allies.

 

[ArmedWombat]

Just to be clear: will Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Burma also get their own focus trees or will they use the generic one?

 

[pdx_lily]

Just to be clear: will Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Burma also get their own focus trees or will they use the generic one?

They will get gerneric focus trees. The DLC will not contain any focus trees other than the four advertised.