I am saying there is no consensus because there are different conclusions about the situation drawn by different scholars. You are saying that's not a convincing approach to take, that you could do the same about tobacco, which I don't believe, actually. You then proceed to state your opinion as fact despite it being most likely the result of a, relatively speaking, cursory reading of others' writings on the topic. What leads you to dismiss the views of other scholars who happen to have come to a different conclusion on the Bengal famine?