When people suffer from malnutrition over a long period of time, they adapt to their conditions in order to survive but as a result lose some of their political will to change those conditions. The media is also much less likely to cover protracted crises such as malnutrition, so groups that experience them also lose power in the public sphere. Famines, on the other hand, occur with a sudden loss of rights. This immediately attracts media attention and is likely to be the subject of numerous reports. People who experience a sudden loss of their rights feel the pain of this loss acutely and suddenly and have not adapted to living without this right. People facing malnutrition, on the other hand, must adapt to such long-term hungry conditions to survive and are therefore less likely to fight as desperately for government protections. Because malnutrition is a long-term problem, people lose the political will to change the conditions that allow this situation to persist and the media loses interest in the issue. Sen's argument is not weakened because the problems of famine and malnutrition are inherently different and Sen is not claiming that democracy solves a persistent problem of hunger. It is also important to note that in India, widespread corruption has impacted ration shops and other government institutions responsible for fighting hunger. Corruption