Churchill was NOT responsible for 1943 Bengal famine. Video maligns him unfairly.

Rees Mogg blames people who hate Great Britain for the 40 minute video at the National Portrait Gallery which besmirches Churchill. It is an extreme left-wing conspiracy driven by a hatred of Britain in colonial times it seems. Whatever you think about those colonial times, it also seems that the said video is historically inaccurate and highly unfair on perhaps the greatest figure in British history: Winston Churchill.

There is a movement in the UK against historical figures like Churchill and it is centred around the alleged exploitative behaviour of the British government during the British Empire.

It is a branch of the woke movement. Rees Mogg - someone the woke movement probably hates as well - explains why it is grossly wrong to malign Churchill in the video.

Here is some more on the video and the backlash:

The video installation titled Persistence was created and narrated by Helen Cammock, a prominent British contemporary artist. 

Biography and Background

• Professional Profile: Born in Staffordshire, Helen Cammock is an artist who works across film, photography, poetry, and installation art. She formerly worked as a social worker for ten years before transitioning into a career in contemporary art. 
• Major Accolades: She was famously one of the joint winners of the prestigious Turner Prize in 2019, after she and her three fellow nominees requested to win the award collectively as a statement against political division. 
• The Installation: Her 40-minute film Persistence was commissioned in 2023 and went on temporary display at London's National Portrait Gallery in September 2025. Funded partly by the Chanel Culture Fund, the video critiques the gallery’s collection and elite "privileged" British figures like John Constable and Dante Gabriel Rossetti. 

The Churchill Claim and Backlash

In the video’s narration, Cammock compares Civil War leader Oliver Cromwell's actions in Ireland to Winston Churchill's actions during the 1943 Bengal famine, stating that Cromwell "starved people, en masse, a little like the wilful starvation of the Indian population by Winston Churchill". 

The film has sparked a massive political and historical row in Britain: 

• Historian Backlash: Prominent Churchill biographer Lord Andrew Roberts condemned the film's assertion as a "barefaced lie" and an "ideologically-motivated rant". Over 50 members of the House of Lords, including Churchill's grandson, signed a letter of complaint to the gallery. They point out that the 1943 famine was caused by a devastating typhoon and exacerbated by wartime shipping shortages, and that Churchill's cabinet explicitly sent food aid to alleviate the crisis. [2, 6, 7, 8]
• Gallery Response: The National Portrait Gallery has defended keeping the film on display (which is scheduled to run until August), stating that they support "freedom of artistic expression" and that the work represents the artist’s personal historical reflections rather than the gallery's official endorsement. [2, 4]

Wider Political Context

Cammock's work frequently engages with intense political and post-colonial critiques. Beyond her claims regarding Churchill, the video also criticises Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Additionally, Cammock has been vocal in broader cultural-political spheres, notably signing petitions to ban Israel from the Venice Biennale over the conflict in Gaza.

Note: it is pretty clear to me that Cammock cynically created a provocative video and an inaccurate one for personal gain. An act of publicity in reality. She needed to attract debate and she got it in order to publicise her damned video. Bad behaviour from her not Churchill it seems to me.

And the National Gallery should be ashamed as well. As Rees Mogg states £10 million of taxpayers money goes into this organisation annually. If taxpayers only knew how their money was being badly used in supporting this video.

High-profile controversy is a deliberate currency in the modern art world:

The Economy of Attention: 

• Contemporary art installations, especially avant-garde video pieces, rarely capture mainstream public attention. Attaching a highly provocative claim to a universally recognized national figure like Winston Churchill virtually guarantees national press coverage.
• The "Turner Prize" Playbook: The British contemporary art scene has a long history of rewarding shock value and political provocation. For an artist, being at the center of a national media storm can elevate their profile, increase the market value of their work, and secure future commissions from major institutions like the Chanel Culture Fund.
• The Critics' View: Detractors argue that rewriting complex history into a single, shocking soundbite ("wilful starvation") is less about nuanced historical exploration and more about generating headlines.

--------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are often written at breakneck speed, sometimes using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.