A video installation by artist Helen Cammock at the National Portrait Gallery that accused Winston Churchill of deliberately causing the Bengal famine of 1943 has been withdrawn by the artist after nearly ten months on display. The installation, titled Persistence, included a narration suggesting Churchill used mass starvation as a weapon of war, linking his actions during the Bengal famine to earlier historical episodes of deliberate starvation, including those by Oliver Cromwell.
Cammock, a joint Turner Prize winner, described the work as a creative exploration of history based on her research and personal experiences, asserting that challenging established narratives through art is vital for society. She emphasized that her decision to remove the piece was not made lightly and denounced pressures on artists and institutions to conform or remain silent under external criticism.
The installation sparked significant controversy, with an open letter from Lord Roberts of Belgravia, a Churchill biographer, condemning the work’s portrayal of Churchill as “foul and vile” and historically inaccurate. More than 50 peers, including Sir Nicholas Soames, Churchill’s grandson, signed the letter, asserting that Churchill was wrongly accused of wilfully inflicting starvation on Bengalis. Roberts described the installation’s depiction as an “ideologically motivated rant” rather than a factual account.
The National Portrait Gallery initially defended the installation under the principle of artistic freedom, stating that the work represented the artist’s personal perspective and was not presented as a documentary. Following the withdrawal, the gallery acknowledged the artist’s decision and also recognized the concerns of those who found the content offensive.
Historical debate surrounds the causes of the Bengal famine, which resulted in the deaths of an estimated three million people amid food shortages during British rule in India. Factors such as natural disasters, inflation, hoarding, and wartime policies contributed to the crisis. Some scholars have criticized the British government’s response and hold Churchill and the wartime cabinet partly responsible for the scale of the famine, with some describing the policies as genocidal. Others argue Churchill was not culpable, highlighting that he took steps to alleviate suffering once the gravity of the famine became apparent. According to statements from the Churchill Project, a group dedicated to preserving Churchill’s legacy, the prime minister and British authorities were initially unaware of the famine's severity but diverted substantial food supplies once informed.
Critics of the installation maintain that Churchill’s legacy in relation to the Bengal famine is often misrepresented, asserting that portraying him as deliberately causing mass starvation unfairly distorts historical evidence. Supporters of the installation argue that artistic works can challenge dominant historical narratives and provoke important discussions about colonial history and accountability.
The debate surrounding the withdrawal of Persistence underscores ongoing tensions over how history is interpreted and represented in public and cultural institutions.