I would certainly agree that there seems to a layer of bias in the review by Tabarrok that is not present in Dalrymple’s approach. But equally, I would wish to hold back from any simplistic analysis of - say - the 1770 Bengal famine.
I say this because I have failed, for more than 30 years, to get an adequate, consistent and objective account of even the 1943 Bengal famine.
As far as I can tell Bowbrick has led the criticism of Sen’s account of that more recent matter.
http://bowbrick.org.uk/key_documents_on_the_bengal_fami.htm
However, even Bowbrick seems to have missed evidence that I judge crucially supports his case.
This that the Indian Chamber of Princes (8th November 1943) concluded the famine was primarily driven by a monetary matter, the shortage of small change.
Physical evidence - for the efforts to correct that at the time - are carefully sort out by amateur enthusiasts today:
http://www.banknote.ws/COLLECTION/countries/ASI/IND/IND-PRC.htm
But, as far as I can tell, that evidence seems to have accumulated in an intellectual habitat never visited by any academic economist.
Rob Tye