This article looks at the two massive famines that broke out in India at the end of the nineteenth century: in 1896-7 and again in 1899. However, instead of looking at the human cost of famines, which has been the subject of most studies till now, it examines the question of cattle mortality during these disasters. The huge numbers of cattle that perished during famines not only created an ecological imbal- ance, but also had a massive impact on the livelihood of peasants, on agrarian structures, on agricultural productivity, and on cropping patterns. This is one of the issues that we will highlight throughout this article. Besides this, we will also discuss colonial famine policies and examine the various ideological motivations that lay behind the relief measures that were implemented by the state. We will look, in particular, at the ideologies of Malthusianism and free trade and argue that, together with the avowed need to maintain fiscal prudence, they were used by the colonial state to justify minimal famine relief. Famines became a distressingly familiar occurrence in late nineteenth century India. Their frequency was such that during the half-century between 1860 and 1910 there were as many as twenty cases of major famines, apart from several minor ones. 1 As news of these terrible visitations spread, there was strong criticism from several quarters, and government measures began to be seen as not only inadequate but also, to a large extent, responsible for creating famine conditions. 2 However, despite these criticisms the state remained resolute in its decision to sidestep responsibility and reduce relief expenses. In doing so, it received strong ideological support from the reigning doctrines of free trade and Malthusianism, both of which combined to justify minimal state relief and interference. This essay will examine the role of these ideologies in fashioning relief policies and in justifying the inadequate expenditure on famine relief. More important, this study will shift the focus away from the human cost of famines and bring it to bear on the impact of scarcity on the livestock economy of rural India. 3 This is not to belittle the human cost of famines, but an attempt to add another dimension to our understanding of them. Cattle was absolutely inte- gral to the rural economy—it was an essential cultivation tool, an extremely important source of food and manure, and one of the most significant markers of