When people experience malnutrition for a long period of time, they adapt to their conditions to survive but consequently lose some of the political will to change those conditions. The media is also much less likely to cover prolonged crises like malnutrition, so groups that experience it also lose power in the public sphere. Famines, on the other hand, occur with a sudden loss of rights. This immediately captures media attention and is likely to be heavily talked about. People who experience sudden failures of rights feel the pain of that loss acutely and suddenly and have not adapted to living without that right. People suffering from malnutrition, on the other hand, must adapt to long-term starvation conditions to survive and are therefore less likely to fight so desperately for government protection. Because malnutrition is a long-term problem, people lose the political will to change the conditions that allow the problem to continue 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 does not claim that democracy solves a prolonged problem of hunger. It is also important to note that in India, widespread corruption has impacted ration shops and other government institutions to combat hunger. Corruption