Odisha Famine of 1866: causes and consequences – OPSC OAS Mains GS Paper I PYQ

📝Model Answer

Introduction

The Odisha Famine of 1866, or "Na’anka Durbhikshya," killed nearly a third of Odisha’s population after the failure of the autumn rice crop. Its scale reflected both colonial revenue rigidity and the region’s total dependence on the monsoon.

Body

(a) British policy of forcibly extracting agricultural revenue

1. Fixed land revenue demand was collected even after crop failure was evident, leaving cultivators with no reserves.
2. The revenue system prioritized treasury income over peasant welfare, reflecting the colonial administration’s fiscal-first approach to agrarian policy.
3. Zamindars and revenue farmers, under pressure to remit fixed dues to the state, extracted payment from tenants regardless of harvest conditions.
4. Continuous revenue extraction in preceding years had already depleted village grain reserves and cultivators’ savings.
5. Commercialization of agriculture pushed cultivators toward cash crops and cash revenue payment, reducing food-grain self-sufficiency.
6. Rigid adherence to laissez-faire doctrine made the government reluctant to interfere with grain markets or suspend revenue collection during distress.
7. Merchants exported rice from Odisha’s ports even as famine loomed, since policy did not restrict grain movement out of a deficit region.
8. No institutionalized famine relief code existed; relief was left to ad hoc discretion of officials focused on revenue targets.
9. Absence of revenue remission or taccavi loans in the critical early months delayed any cushioning of the shock.
10. Odisha’s political fragmentation across Bengal Presidency and tributary states disjointed revenue and relief administration, compounding delays.

(b) Heavy dependence of agriculture in India on forces of nature

1. Odisha’s agriculture was almost entirely rain-fed, with paddy cultivation dependent on timely, adequate monsoon.
2. Failure of the 1865 rains led to complete loss of the kharif crop, the principal subsistence crop.
3. The region lacked significant irrigation infrastructure, canals, or tanks to buffer monsoon failure.
4. The deltaic geography made it prone to both drought and flood; destructive flooding in 1866 compounded the preceding drought.
5. Poor transport and communication meant grain from surplus regions could not reach Odisha in time, turning crop failure into mass starvation.
6. Subsistence farming left cultivators with little practice of storage or crop diversification.
7. The famine exposed the vulnerability of a monsoon-dependent, single-crop economy to one season’s climatic failure.
8. Natural isolation of Odisha, bounded by hills and forests with poor connectivity, delayed both news of the famine and arrival of relief.
9. Recurrent flood-drought cycles in the Mahanadi delta made famine a structural risk, not an aberration.
10. The disaster showed the limits of nature-dependent agriculture absent scientific water management or irrigation works.

Conclusion

Introduction

Slum inclusive development refers to an urban planning approach that integrates slum settlements into the formal city fabric — through provision of secure tenure, basic services, housing upgradation, and livelihood support — rather than treating slums as illegal encroachments to be removed or ignored.

Components of Slum Inclusive Development

1. Security of tenure – Granting legal recognition or occupancy rights to slum dwellers to prevent arbitrary eviction.
2. In-situ slum upgradation – Improving existing settlements with better housing, drainage, and sanitation rather than relocation.
3. Provision of basic services – Ensuring access to water supply, electricity, sewerage, and solid waste management.
4. Access to social infrastructure – Integrating slums with nearby schools, health centres, and public transport.
5. Livelihood and skill support – Linking residents to employment, credit, and skill development schemes (e.g., DAY-NULM).
6. Participatory planning – Involving slum communities and community-based organizations in decision-making.
7. Affordable housing finance – Enabling access to subsidized credit and housing schemes like PMAY-Urban.

How It Leads to Sustainable Urban Development

1. Reduces spatial and social exclusion, integrating marginalized populations into mainstream urban economy and governance.
2. Improves public health outcomes through better sanitation and reduced disease transmission in dense settlements.
3. Enhances environmental sustainability by formalizing waste management and reducing unregulated pollution.
4. Strengthens urban economic productivity, as slum dwellers form a significant part of the informal workforce.
5. Promotes social equity and inclusion, aligning with SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).
6. Reduces disaster vulnerability, as upgraded infrastructure withstands floods and other hazards better than informal structures.
7. Curbs unplanned horizontal expansion, supporting more compact and resource-efficient city growth.

Challenges in Achieving This

1. Land tenure complexities and legal disputes over slum land ownership.
2. Financial constraints in scaling up upgradation projects across large slum populations.
3. Resistance from vested interests, including builders favoring redevelopment over in-situ upgradation.
4. Fragmented institutional responsibility among municipal bodies, state housing boards, and parastatals.
5. Risk of gentrification, displacing original residents post-upgradation due to rising land values.

Way Forward

1. Strengthen tenure security frameworks with simplified legal recognition processes.
2. Adopt participatory, community-driven upgradation models rather than top-down redevelopment.
3. Ensure convergence between housing, livelihood, and social sector schemes.
4. Mobilize dedicated municipal finance and public-private partnerships for slum infrastructure.
5. Build robust monitoring mechanisms to prevent post-upgradation displacement.

Conclusion