Churchill did not think high about Indians or India. He is considered to be one of the greatest war-time PM and brilliant; but his biases and prejudices did find avenues to leak out.
> Churchill did not think high about Indians or India. He is considered to be one of the greatest war-time PM and brilliant; but his biases and prejudices did find avenues to leak out.
Hi but they were not short term biases. churchill was firmly opposed to indian independence even as early as 1930. considered himself an expert since he had lived here. he firmly opposed the dismemberment of the empire. history notes that during a short tenure that he wasnt prime minister the british granted freedom to india. for soon after he became prime minsiter there was a lot of strife in other colonies like kenya and malaya. if he felt so much for a cause more than opposing indian independence it was his hatred for the nazis. that overshadows everything else when historians analyse him.
His biases and prejudices did not 'leak out' they were there for everyone to see, he was a shameless racist and a man of his times, a racist with a brain that is all. The man who called the Mahatm a 'half naked fakir' took a severe beating to his confidence after he won the war for his beloved England and lost the elections soon after. But undeniably a great writer and historian and very beloved to his countrymen. Churchill firmly believed indians were not capable of governing themselves and contrary to world perception that they invaded india, they came and taught us how to govern and be one country instead. And he also said that we would learn the hard way that we lack governing skills - ironically Rajaji remarked later that our corrupt politicans and ignorant people proved him right.
churchill openly opposed indian independence on 2 counts. it would increase un employment in britian and it would cause civil strife in india. the latter was proved right
Actually there are lots of arguments for and against that.. we were a collection of disjoined states when British occupied...we were not people of one country and we did not have much in common including culture, language, food anything...The 200 years of British occupation brought us together and created a commonness in spirt, but that commoness was not strong enough to sustain us as one country through conflict..One is compelled to think what if they didnt' come and what if each state was on its own..perhaps more of culture would have been retained but a national identity lost..who knows really..
One is compelled to think what if they didnt' come and what if each state was on its own..perhaps more of culture would have been retained but a national identity lost..who knows really..
Hi Maloo very true.
HISTORY SHOULD HAVE BEEN NAMED AMBIGUITY IF IT HAD BEENS.. OUT NUMBER THE IT WAS SO'S
Churchill spewed vitriolic diatribe on India and Indians calling us beastly people with a beastly religion. He believed that if British left India the country will fall back to barbarism and ‘privations of the middle ages’. Such remarks were uncivilized, unbecoming of a person in nation’s highest office that only suited the British chauvinism at the height of its colonial glory. He stoked the fear of economic ruins as he supported the voices within Britain against Indian self-rule, a parallel that was seen in the US against the war on terror during the invasion of Iraq during the presidency of George Bush Jr. Thank God, he loathed the Nazis and Hitler more, some of his perversions found a new common enemy. A great orator, writer, war hero, statesman and a noble laureate he was, Churchill lacked sanity and balance when it came to addressing issues of the sub-continent. His successor didn’t have such laudable attributes and recognition but was civil and pragmatic. Decency is better than exotic brilliance.
when you dismiss churchill with these remarks - what is your stand on Mahatma during his years in South africa - especially on his views on Indians living alongside the blacks!!
" None of these should be surprising, except for the tendency to wish that our heroes would have been consistently heroic throughout their lives. Gandhi began as a perfectly ordinary intelligent lawyer trying to establish a career. In time he transformed himself into something else. It is that transformation which should interest us. He did fail to change South Africa very much, but in the attempt he learned a great deal, grew in personal stature, and left behind a legacy of resistance to injustice."
Of course Gandhi was influenced heavily by colonial ideas before he started thinking on his own.. who wasn't really..Gandhi wanted to raise his kids as 'loyal sons of the empire' not as Indians. But he grew up, he understood and developed his own ideas later..as for Gandhi not speaking up for blacks..for one thing, one person cannot fight for everyone..blacks did not elect Gandhi to be their leader or ask for his help..he fought for himself and others like him and secondly as the article eloquently says it was Gandhi who inspired Martin Luther King and Mandela many years later.
It is funny..we talked Enid Blyton first and Churchill now..If you talk to an educated black person on Charles Lindbergh or a Jewish person on Henry Ford you can see the visceral angry reaction.....even after 60 years of freedom many people dont have strong feelings on british racists..perhaps the color?? (I dont mean anyone on this group but generally - my own father can wax eloquent on Churchill for hours without caring a hoot on what he thought of indians).
-Hi Vj the inherent superiority feeling comes to most races. and we were a conquered race. our capitals leveled our kings exiled. what more could you expect
doesnt our own caste system endorse that. it may be contreversial but certainly the british treated us well for a conquered people. the germans and japenese were much worse. the hyderabad nizam was several times richer than the british monarch at one point of time if you did not count the colonies. the british allowed it. and to compare systems british versus indian equation was much better than indian treatment of the lowest classes in their varna system
Well Gandhi started out as a pure bred racist/colonial supporter only. Nobody denies that.
Venkat what you are talking of is what is called on a lighter vein as decent and indecent superiority. You are absolutely right that the British sense of decency far surpassed so many other countries..and even our own casteism and treatment of women in those days. Without the british we may still be burning our brides, have no vaccinations or health immunity system and in short be a very backward nation in more ways than one..
On the other hand..let us not let our overwhelming love of decency overshadow racism and underlying contempt of our culture and values. In othe words we have lot of people who write very eloquently - Dr Radhakrishnan, Nehru, even Mahakavi Bharati's English is a flawless match to any englishman including Churchill..we had our share of statesmen too in people like Rajaji just that our own problems did not let them get centre stage on a global level.
Churchill 'hated' the nazis?? Questionable to me..would he have 'hated' them if they left his beloved England alone? Can't really say. A politician and a humanitarian are very different in that regard..Churchill was a politican and a patriot as far as his country goes - i doubt if he was humanitarian strong enough to do something for the world if his own country was not affected.
The fact that we are googling Gandhi's flaws and trying to see British decency somewhat simultaneously (I mean everyone including me) speaks for itself that we have a long way to go in developing our own backbone without condemning others in the process :))
> On the other hand..let us not let our overwhelming love of decency overshadow racism and underlying contempt of our culture and values. In othe words we have lot of people who write very eloquently - Dr Radhakrishnan, Nehru, even Mahakavi Bharati's English is a flawless match to any englishman including Churchill..we had our share of statesmen too in people like Rajaji just that our own problems did not let them get centre stage on a global level.
maloo we still talk about the top .01 percent of intelectuals to justify the quality of the nation
the british holding onto india inspite of all unification education and railways installation was a wrong. a crime against humanity. cant be justified, there is no ambiguity on that
how right would it be to compare a conqueror and a conquered? we need to analyse the british on par with italians in abysinnia and germans in poland and japanese in indo china. and of recent americans in iraq.
and another important aspect is comparison of the conquered territories. india versus uganda versus jamica versus malaya in that scale i feel we were always the pet territory of british empire. as they said the jewel in the crown.
venketesh
> > Churchill 'hated' the nazis?? Questionable to me..would he have 'hated' them if they left his beloved England alone? Can't really say. A politician and a humanitarian are very different in that regard..Churchill was a politican and a patriot as far as his country goes - i doubt if he was humanitarian strong enough to do something for the world if his own country was not affected. > > The fact that we are googling Gandhi's flaws and trying to see British decency somewhat simultaneously (I mean everyone including me) speaks for itself that we have a long way to go in developing our own backbone without condemning others in the process :)) > > Malathi >
Hm..Jewel in the crown..yeah i get what you are saying on comparisons..But there was enough they did too don't you think..the Bengal famine..the overwhelming divisiveness among people and divide and rule strategy..and above all the stripping of self esteem among so many people. My dad used to say, there is a silent click in every indian's brain when he sees the white guy that says 'salaam sahib'..the 'click' was put in place 300 years ago and still works :)
Granted as you said partly put in place by our own casteist biases and culture that preaches might as right.. but partly definitely colonialism. Hard to say if one time cruelty as some nations experienced is better or worse than a slow erosion of self esteem that is still so apparent in our country.
there are many theories towards it. the latest one by nobel laureate amartya sen but let me tell you theories are rubbish when it involved the death of 3 million people. it was a disaster. a blot in the pages of history
first burma had fallen to the japenese. burma was at that time the largest exporter of rice to india. bengal being closer must have had a larger share of burmese rice than national average. 2 all forms of transport like boats and tracks were destroyed by the british around chittagong as a form of scorched earth policy. so distribution was a problem of recent amartya sen produced documents to prove ther was more rice in bengal in 1942 than in 1941.it was just the wartime speculation and hoarding as well as poor buying capacity of people that caused it.
venketesh
the overwhelming divisiveness among people and divide and rule strategy..and above all the stripping of self esteem among so many people. My dad used to say, there is a silent click in every indian's brain when he sees the white guy that says 'salaam sahib'..the 'click' was put in place 300 years ago and still works :) > > Granted as you said partly put in place by our own casteist biases and culture that preaches might as right.. but partly definitely colonialism. Hard to say if one time cruelty as some nations experienced is better or worse than a slow erosion of self esteem that is still so apparent in our country. > > > >
There are 2 thoughts that arises reading this thread 1. Indians are professional hoarders, one need not look any further than their own homes to understand this. I am sure we carry a famine memory in our genes. 2. Monarchs were duty bound to extend their territory and hence we praise them for their conquests, the same does not hold good for other forms of government, even the republic of Rome was mostly governed by Monarchs. As our human social values evolves, we have suddenly changed our moral standing on conquest and annexations. Our judgement on what is correct and not, when retrofit gives us different answers now, possibly would completely different answers in future.
Hi today a ruler with eyes on another man's territory would be abhorred and seen with utter distaste. mores have changed. even a man with the ambitions of RRC cannot be viewed as great if he lived today.
Between rrc and rjc, rrc did more to expand chola rule and add actual territories. If you notice his annexation of lanka ( atleast major parts of north) was planned well, with systemised revenue / tax etc. Compared to this Rjc seems to be thrusts aimed at establishing his over lordship over all. While there are much doubts about his ganges campaign, his south east asia / kadaram campaign was more a clinical strike. However vengi n pandya land rjc did try diff things. Vengi : him his tactics or seed lead to vengi chola clan coming in, pandya he tried similar with chola pandya clan _ which didn't succeed
Going back even further the people who performed Ashwamedha had similar goals - if the king surrenders and accepts supremacy of the kingn with the horse then there is no war otherwise it is annexation by force. One has to remember though in those days might was right and a person's glory estimated in terms of victories in war. Noone got elected to office or promoted as CEO. The human soul at all times craves for respect and recognition. People got it in different ways at different ways.
Difference between drought & Famine, recollecting from memory based on a newspaper article read a long time ago:
Drought conditions set in with a lack or substantial reduction of rainfall, resulting in a loss of agricultural output. People may still have buying power to pull through a drought.
Famine conditions set in with the fall in economic buying power of the people. Famine follows a drought, basically after a couple of years of drought.
Actually the Bengal famine was due to reckless export of rice to british (and indian) armies stationed in various parts of the world without considering local need. The famous unforgettable telegram from General Wavell asking Churchill for help...and Churchills' response 'If food was so scarce why is Gandhi not dead yet'....
Unfortuantely it was because once we won our freedom, the Elite decided to throw away our past traditions to set out a path totally set by the West. Our nation hence with one swoop was left without a national character or vision. Nehru actually tried to distance the country as much as possible from any past. Without national vision, there was a vacuum and corruption just filled in the vacuum.
I disagree. Yes we were not a country on the lines of Westphalian Sovereignty - the current system of states and governments are considered to be modeled after that. But none of the European countries were on those lines until the Westphalian Peace treaty.
What one would call as nothing in common would be termed as merely nuances or diversity. We were united by the framework of Dharma - at a hhigher level. The system that existed in the various kingdoms was similar and quite different than say what existed in the Chinese regions, or regions past Bactria or the current Middle-East.
To begin with, i.e. at the time of independence from British, Jammu & Kashmir was never part of the Union. So one could have not booted it out.
Pakistan and other powers would never have kept quiet even if there was no Jammu & Kashmir. It is all part of the Great Game - keep India walking on glass pieces.
Obviously in any large population one would find a variety of people. Looking at history one can assume that the virulent would be in a minority. The mass would be either scared of the virulent few or would have been tamed by the virulent using propaganda. Just like Nazis had their propaganda, the British had a massive propaganda arm that they used on the Britishers on the island. Copious literature and writings were written to influence the children - catch them young as they say - was the trick. The Britishers worked their magic in creating identities. People were fed messages on why it was important to keep India as a colony.
Kathryn Castle has extensively written on this subject - no doubt fascinating.