Saumik Paul vs Wallace Aykroyd

In a paper titled '1930-1943: Agrarian Transformation and the Famine in Bengal' Saumik Paul writes

Since the advent of British rule in 1765,

That's the year the East India Company got the revenue collection rights (Diwani). The administration (Nizami) remained in Benagli hands 

the colony of Bengal, once hailed as the most fertile and prosperous region of India,

It was so badly administered that a handful of foreign merchants had taken power in all but name. (Though, in formal terms, the last Nawab Nazim was Mansur Ali Khan who died in 1880)

witnessed numerous incidents of food shortages.

there was a bad drought which led to famine. Perhaps local ponds & irrigation channels had not been maintained. Buffer stocks may also have disappeared. The London HQ of John Company was worried that its men in Bengal had monopolised the sale of food so as to line their own pockets (and cheat the shareholders). In other words, the Brits wanted to improve the administration to reduce opportunities for their own people to get rich by repugnant means- viz. turning starvation deaths into illicit wealth. 

Wallace R. Aykroyd, a prominent nutritionist and a member of the official Famine Inquiry Commission, estimated that hoarders and profiteers made an excess profit equivalent to ~$200 for every single life lost during the devastating Bengal Famine. Since Bengalis linked to the ruling party made the money and since only Bengalis lost their lives, this was just Democracy in action- in 1943 just as much as in 1974. 

Apart from the supply and demand side factors are typically associated with a food shortage at an escalated or disastrous level (famine), the role of persistent and long-term factors is also critical. This paper, both qualitatively and quantitatively, provides a deeper understanding of the process of agrarian transformation in Bengal. It argues that the 1943 Bengal famine could have been less likely had there been a buoyant agricultural credit market and a better patronage system with less exploitative farming practices.

Nope. Because of the War, the Government had a lot of power. This wasn't a laissez faire Famine. It was one designed to enrich the ruling party which then went on to win the 1946 election.  

Quantitatively, I find that frequency of distress sale of occupancy holdings in the 1930s is positively associated with the famine intensity throughout many districts, and this relationship increases in the presence of sharecroppers’ struggles.

Creating distress leads to distress sales which enrich those with political power. Aykroyd could say it.  Paul can't.