A new video installation at the National Portrait Gallery has sparked controversy by accusing Winston Churchill of deliberately causing the deaths of millions of Indians through starvation during World War II. The 40-minute film, created by artist Helen Cammock and titled *Persistence*, highlights the Bengal famine of 1943, which resulted in an estimated three million deaths from hunger and disease amid a backdrop of natural disasters and wartime shortages.

Cammock’s installation contends that Churchill “wilfully” employed mass starvation as a weapon of war, drawing a parallel between his actions and Oliver Cromwell’s military campaigns in Ireland. The film includes narration that critically examines British historical figures, using irony to question the veneration of prominent cultural icons.

The Bengal famine was precipitated by a complex mix of factors, including natural calamities and the British colonial administration’s wartime policies. The famine occurred during a period when food supplies in the region were severely constrained. According to the Churchill Project, which promotes the former prime minister’s legacy and is based at Hillsdale College in Michigan, the British government was aware of food shortages in Bengal but initially underestimated their severity. When Churchill became fully informed of the crisis in August 1943, he authorized the diversion of 150,000 tonnes of barley and wheat to the affected area, emphasizing the urgency of relief efforts despite competing war demands.

Churchill’s letter to Viscount Wavell, then Viceroy of India, expressed the need to prioritize food shipments, stating that every effort should be made to alleviate the famine including the "diversion of shipping urgently needed for war purposes."

The installation has drawn sharp criticism from some quarters. A letter signed by over 50 peers, including Lord Soames of Fletching—Churchill’s grandson—accused the National Portrait Gallery of disseminating a “barefaced lie” about Churchill’s role in the famine. The letter condemned the portrayal as a distortion of historical facts.

In response, the National Portrait Gallery defended the work, saying that Cammock’s film was intended to engage with themes of absence, presence, and power rather than to present a straightforward historical account.

The debate underscores ongoing tensions surrounding the interpretation of British colonial history, particularly regarding Churchill’s legacy and responsibility for wartime events outside Europe.