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