Churchill: Let the fakir die
Winston Churchill. The man millions of Britons voted ‘The Greatest Briton of All Time’ at the turn of the millennium, ahead of Newton, Shakespeare, Darwin and Brunel. The man who advocated gassing “recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment”.
The man who described Mahatma Gandhi as “a half-naked fakir” who “ought to be laid, bound hand and foot, at the gates of Delhi and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new viceroy seated on its back” [Link]. The man who is in the news again - although there isn’t too much coverage.
Hitherto unseen government documents have been released, which detail Churchill’s stance on several issues. The notes were recorded by deputy Cabinet secretary, Sir Norman Brook, and give the first detailed glimpse into what was discussed at the War Cabinet between 1942 and 1945. They’re open to the public just down the road from me at the Public Records Office in Kew, so I took a look. The rather difficult to read shorthand revealed some fascinating facts.
He wanted to send Nazis to the electric chair, without trial. He wanted Hitler executed “like a gangster”. Hey, I’m not going to make a fuss about these two.
He thought Gen. Charles de Gaulle was a barrier to a “trustworthy” relationship with France. When de Gaulle fled to Britain, he subsequently asked if he was free to leave in order to visit French troops (de Gaulle remained a popular figure amongst the Resistance) and Churchill said “arrest him if he tries to leave.”
Whilst the British Army prided itself on treating black and Asian soldiers with respect (at least in comparison to the Americans), Churchill insisted, “the views of the US must be considered.” Black soldiers were told to show respect for the American army’s segregation policies.
Churchill went on, expressing a desire to wipe out German villages as revenge for the Ludice massacre.
Perhaps least surprisingly, given Churchill’s intense hatred of Gandhi (which is largely ignored by Western historians), is the fact that Churchill was willing to let Gandhi die. Whatever criticisms Gandhi has attracted, his devotion to pacifism stands out dramatically from the history of the world. It was this commitment to non-violence that inspired Martin Luther King to adopt the same approach.
Churchill said he was prepared to let him die if he went on hunger strike whilst imprisoned at the Aga Khan prison in Puné. Gandhi was interned during WWII as a result of the Quit India movement. He denounced Indian soldiers fighting in the war and his called for civil disobedience. At this time his wife and his secretary and close friend, Mahadev Desai, both died. Churchill was also keen to make sure Gandhi was treated “like any other prisoner”.
India’s viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, had recently sent a telegram claiming he was “strongly in favour of letting Gandhi starve to death” but it has become clear that the British Cabinet were the ones who decided that allowing Gandhi to continue on a strike would simply cause too big a backlash in India, as former viceroy Lord Halifax (then ambassador to America) explained, “Whatever the disadvantages of letting him out, his death in detention would be worse.”
But hey, things change. Current Tory leader Dave Cameron quoted Bapu in his new year message:
“As Gandhi said, ‘we must be the change we want to see in the world.” [Link]
“A lot of people are waiting for Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi to come back — but they are gone. We are it. It is up to us. It is up to you.”
Meh! We cant all be perfect.
Pickled Punks,
“Whatever criticisms Gandhi has attracted, his devotion to pacifism stands out dramatically from the history of the world. It was this commitment to non-violence that inspired Martin Luther King to adopt the same approach.”
You ever notice how pacifism is only fitting for the brownies?
Churchill exposed as racist scumbag?? That isn’t new! Though these revelations simply confirm my previous view, I’ve always been annoyed at how the British idolise this guy just because he was stubborn against the Nazis, and ignore pretty much everything else.
He also thought all brown people were “uncivilised savages” (can’t remember where I saw that now). Imperialism at its best. Grrrrr.
“the British idolise this guy”
Not all of us. Me, I voted for Darwin.
Winston Churchill has a whole long list of crimes to his names; he is admired mostly by people who know that “he won the war” and know nothing about his colonial record (and even aspects of his war record, like his sell-out of eastern Europe to Russia). Actually, he didn’t win the war; the whole country - indeed, the whole empire - won it.
His fame, in my opinion, is due to the tireless repetition of the anti-appeasement rhetoric during the Cold War which has come back with a vengeance since 9/11. Churchill always said war would be necessary, while others wanted to avoid a war at all costs. The problem comes when people try and apply this to every other situation by using “appeasement” as some sort of general knock-down.
I beg to differ.
When evaluating a historical personality, we have to take time, and circumstances into account. Prophet Mohd. is said to have had sex with a nine year old girl! surely that doesnt stop 1.6 billion people from idolising him… Even good ole Gandhi had kind things to say about Hitler.
I’m ready to forgive him all the unkind things he said about Gandhi and Indians in general. Without him Britain didnt stand a chance.
“We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.” The other included the equally famous “Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour.’ ”
Yes that was our finest hour.
You’re an uncivilised brown savage Vikrant, what would you know?
Pah… Sunny i know you’d rather prefer vitriolic Bikhair or even virulently anti-Indian Raz, to a “communal” guy like me….
Seriously you call yourself a Liberal Democrat but cant take others opinions!
You clearly did not get the irony in my last post Vikrant.
i do get the point.
I voted for Churchill and I knew about some of his past.
He was undoubtedly a great, if racist, man. I think it’s difficult to judge the past by today’s standards. They way we think, what we have, are things that we take for granted. The fact of the matter is that he kept his head while all around were losing there’s at a critical juncture in human history (yes, Rudyard Kipling was another racist) and for that we should all be eternally grateful. I certainly am.
If you really dig deep I’m sure we can find plenty of scientists/philosophers/prophets etc who could also be berks.
Churchill certainly isn’t worshipped in my neck of the woods. In northern mining communities (when such things still existed) he was seen as an enemy of the workers, although most would concede that he had done a good job in standing up to Hitler.
That ‘Very well, then, alone.’ attitude made Churchill into an icon of a particular time and place but icons are meant to be two dimensional (some iconographer will probably show up my ignorance about that.)
As an icon Churchill bears the same significance as Drake, Alfred the Great and Good Queen Bess; an emotively charged symbol of a perceived aspect of Britishness (Englishness?) As a politician the country
voted him out very promptly once we no longer needed a symbol of defiance but rather practical politicians who recognised that the world had changed.
Those who know anything about history are well aware of Churchill’s flaws and his unpleasant side, but his role as symbol of war time tenacity is a construct quite divorced from the real individual.
Came in and pushed out at the right time. The NHS, welfare state, peaceful relinquishing of Empire followed Churchill’s eviction. His contempt for us brown savages was variable; he showed considerable admiration towards Indian workers in Africa on his travels, although this was at the expense of the native inhabitants.
Very well put Don, Bevankieron
Yes but at the time Britain didn’t need a politically correct softie. Ghandi would have been as much use against the Nazis as a chocolate teapot.
He thought Gen. Charles de Gaulle was a barrier to a “trustworthy” relationship with France
And? The French are a barrier to a trustworthy relationship with France. Always will be. And vice versa. And rightly so.
My great grandfather told me that the Sikh soldiers in World War 2 hated Churchill - because Churchill despised the closeness between the white British officers who had deep respect for Sikh and Indian soldiers, grew bounds of affection and treated them as equal, and Churchill gave some ordinance saying that Indian soldiers were not to be allowed to be drawn too close to their white captains and commanders.
Apparently whilst Churchill was shooting Afghans he formed a high opinion of Sikhs though, some of whome served beside him in the NWFP, but that was probably just due to the quirk that for historical reasons, Sikh soldiers probably enjoyed fighting with Afghans just as much as he did.
There are parts of Wales that despise Churchill too, because he sent troops in to break up a strike in the coal mines there, and they massacred some of the miners.
Did your great grandfather fight in Burma? I have a long-term book project and I need to do some research before his heroic generation dies off.
So I’d love to speak to him, and others like him, if possible.
Ghandi was even more racist than Churchill. He thought black people were subhuman:
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_23-3-2005_pg4_24
“I’ve always been annoyed at how the British idolise this guy just because he was stubborn against the Nazis, and ignore pretty much everything else.”
We could say the same about Ghandi, who’s idiotic resistance to partition nearly lead to the greatest bloodbath in history. And yet still he is revered. Only the wisdom of Jinnah and the British defeated the stupidity of Ghandi and saved hundreds of millions of Hindu, Sikh and Muslim lives. Ghandi’s opposition to Pakistan, which he described as evil, will always damn him in my eyes.
On a related note:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4100961.stm
Jinnah FTW!
Now watch Vikrant attack
raz
A while back a Bangladeshi made some very astute comments about you. In particular he said something about how your attitude makes plain what happened in the genocide of 1971, how that came about, and how narcisstic nationalism run rampant is such an ugly thing.
I think they were accurate comments about you.
Your holier than thou attitude and bigotry wears tiresome, Jay Singh. Even 20 years after Air India 182, some people don’t want to learn lessons.
What is your opinion of calling black people sub-human, Jay Singh? I notice you failed to comment on this, instead choosing to make absurd remarks against me? Are you an apologist for racism against Africans? Sickening display of bigotry, really. Par for the course for these kind of fundamentalists.
Yeh yeh, they were all racist.
What can ya do?
I would have to say the majority of humans living on this earth are still prejudice, racist, clueless the list goes on.
However lets not start arguing about who was more racist than the other.
Its kind of pointless.
It seems to me though a number of you have outlined criticisms of Churchill, you have forgotten the main one, the fact he was scum scum tory fuck’in scum. This surely deserves a mention.
To add to the accepted opinion on this thread about Churchill, it would not be revisionist to say that he was in full support of Fascism as late as 1937. He was considered to be a bluffer, a demagogue, an incompetent and an inebriate, and that’s just what his colleagues and subordinates thought of him - ambassadors, private secretaries, generals, air marshalls.
His language towards India and Indians in general was so viscerally racist that his own party reined him in and prevented him from the Tory Cabinets througout the 30s.
[...] Pickled Politics on the Gandhi-hating, racism-tolerant Churchill as a background to the chilling fact that he was voted ‘The Greatest Briton of All Time’ at the turn of the millennium. [...]
I think some people have missed the point. Hindsight is a lovely thing to have - I’m not going to sit here and judge historical figures by today’s standards.
I’m not trying to say that Churchill was scum nor am I trying to belittle his obvious successes in the war (although old Pauline Monty had something to do with it). But the whole greatest Briton thing really peeved me. NEWTON! I can’t even begin to comprehend how Newton didn’t win, I can only assume people are ignorant of his achievements. Perhaps I’m biased, I’m a scientist.
I just wish history painted a fairer picture of Churchill. A great war leader. A great man? No.
Old Pickler, with all respect, that’s nonsense. No one is proposing Gandhi (this is the spelling to all those reading) would have been useful against the Nazis! His opposition was the British and he tailored his strategy toward them.
Raz, you have surprised me most on this thread. I thought you’d know better than to believe daft Pakistani propaganda like that nonsense you linked to. So Gandhi didn’t like black people? SO WHY THE FUCK DID HE MOVE TO SOUTH AFRICA? He championed the human rights of black and Indian people under apartheid. The article is also complete bunk - read it. I can’t believe you actually linked to that as evidence. The most damning quote they can come up with is one of Gandhi talking about the views OF THE COLONIALS, not his own.
The article is also based on a piece on Sulekha. Please go to that website. See for yourself what sources you are now purporting as fact. You’ve inadvertantly become a Hindutvadi.
I’m Bengali and anyone who knows the politics of independence will know how I feel about Gandhi. But I can respect his fortitude and achievements in much the same way I can see Churchill’s good and bad points. I find it pathetic and rather sad how Pakistan villifies Gandhi. He was their best friend. It was only when he suggested that Jinnah become India’s first prime minister that Nehru, Patel and others finally said “you’ve gone too far” to Gandhi.
Pakistan celebrates independence every year. To them, there was only one man that mattered, The Big J. They erase many freedom fighters and invent rumour about the rest. Please cite where you got the gem that Gandhi said Pakistan was “evil”.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Raz, up till now I’ve been the main supporter of you saying what you like. But this bizarre Pakistani detestation of Gandhi and a total absence of any evidence is daft, to say the least.
Sid,
I hate to say it but you’re talking nonsense.
You’re behaving as disingenously as those axe grinders we habitually put down on this site.
No, it would not be “revisionist to say that he was in full support of Fascism as late as 1937.” It would be utter bollocks.
Go check you facts man.
P.S. I would add that Gallipoli is another black mark against Churchill. But all things considered I would still vote for him.
Rohin
I thionk I would have voted for Newton too if he’d been with a chancve.
The most annoying thing of all was that Princess Diana came in third. I mean, give me a break!!
Greatest Briton? Personally I would have gone for William Blake, but he wasn’t listed. Failing that, I’d agree with Jess; Darwin.
El Cid
I think it is you who needs to check the facts. Man.
I’m quoting from a essay by Hitchens which I have in front of me, who himself has synthesized his information from Churchill historians such as Clive Ponting (Myth and Reality, 1940), John Charmley (Churchill: The End Of Glory, 1993 and Churchill’s Grand Alliance 1995), Lord Jenkins and of course, David Irving.
Don: I would have gone for William Blake too.
El Cid, did she? I completely forgot that! I also though Brunel came too high to be honest. Anyway, it’s just a phone poll - I’m probably making too big of a deal of it.
Sid, Raz, whoever has strong views - I not only read the notes at Kew, I did a lot of reading around. The Indian press hates Churchill. I didn’t echo some of the things they said there - similar to what you’ve said Sid - such as Churchill supporting Stalin. One paper (I forget which) said “Churchill met Stalin and described him as a good man and splendid leader”.
It didn’t give a date. So if Hitler met Stalin when he’d just come to power, how would he know he’d go on to kill 20 million people? There are hagiographies aplenty of Churchill, but in the same way I object to glossing over his flaws, I don’t like dubious accusations about supporting fascism. It was a rapidly changing climate in the 30s.
Isn’t it cool how I voted for Newton and you two have voted for Blake, whose (arguably) most famous piece was a depiction of Newton? Yay!
Great Britain IS great. More specifically, its produced so many greats. Yet we’re discussing Churchill. Argh!
We should talk about Micheal Crawford from Some mothers.
He was a freaking legend or maybe not.
No. no he was.
But yeh Darwin or Newton both deserve to be the greatest briton over Churchill.
Most influential character ever for Great Britain is a difficult one though.
I would say Freddy from the triplet Rod, Jane and Freddy.
Bungle was a dude too.
If we’re going pop culture, then it’s Rowan Atkinson all the way.
If we’re going daft, it’s Dangermouse.
If we’re goin-
No no, I don’t want this thread de-railed. Not yet. Neha’s just been kind enough to link us from DP so let’s pretend to be serious for at least a few more hours.
Well well, if it isn’t the ‘drink-sodden former Trotskyist popinjay’ himself.
Sid, you haven’t actually checked the facts, now have you? You have resorted to quoting one of the most of controversial and polemical historical essayists of recent times.
Churchill was certainly an anti-communist, initially sympathetic to Mussolini, an imperialist and right wing too boot, and in the polarised pre-war years it’s not hard to see how he might be dubbed a “fascist”. But in its historical context, when Churchill was quite clearly the foremost British opponent of Nazi appeasement, it doesn’t make sense to call him that.
It’s just headline grabbing nonsense.
Everyone who has participated on this thread has already recognised that he was a hugely flawed character. But he was nonetheless there when it mattered (and promptly voted out after the war by a nonetheless grateful democracy).
I understand many British love churchill for what he did, and those Brits in turn told thier children and so on.
Which could be why majority of people voting for the greatest Britain looked past the outstanding discoveries of Newton and Darwin.
We all apparently know about evolution, but i think its more a case of many know the jist of evolution but not really how important the concept of evolution even today plays a part on our lives.
Everything is always evolving, especially the mind.
Same goes for Newton, hes just overlooked as only people that are interested in his work realise how much of an impact hes had on modern science.
Its more of a case of the average person just voting for the dude that saved us from the Nazis; Churchill.
raz
You are very funny!
All the snakes and demons that possess your unsubtle mind I can do nothing about. About me you are clueless. But the crudity of your nasty infections and implications, Tu Quoque arguments and raising of straw men are a sight to behold. Spitting piss and vinegar and juvenile slurring just emphasises my original point.
Carry on
Vladimir
It seems to me though a number of you have outlined criticisms of Churchill, you have forgotten the main one, the fact he was scum scum tory fuck’in scum. This surely deserves a mention
I already mentioned that he is hated in Welsh mining villages for sending in the army to kill them when they were striking! Do I get a prize from the society of working class demonisation?
El Cid
sigh*
I didn’t say WC was a Fascist sympathiser during the war years. I clearly said he had Fascist sympathies as late as 1937. And I’m not making this up, these are the thoughts of the historians which Hitchens presents pretty much without embellishment.
This is the historian David Dutton, as quoted in Hitchens’ essay:
As late as 1937 he even seemed willing to give Hitler the psosible benefit of the doubt. Accepting that history was full of men who had risen to power by “wicked and even frightful methods” but who had gone on to become great figures, enriching the “story of mankind”, he held out the possibility that “so it may be with Hitler”…
I have to say that I find Churchill’s wartime speeches and rhetoric damn inspiring though. You have to admit he was the right man for Blighty at the time. And then right after the War the British people kicked his arse out of Downing Street and got the NHS. So even then they knew that he had a job to do, he did it, and then told him to move along. So they claim that Churchill is eternal and for all seasons is a myth - invoking him every half hour just stunts the mind. The latest one is the picture doing the rounds of Wayne Rooney, Rio Ferdinand next to a picture of Churchill - the World Cup being in Germany this year.
Lets not forget Winston’s words on the religion of Islam, as quoted regularly on the ‘Anti-Dhimmi’ websites (jOnz control yourself! Dont get too excited!)
+++++++++++
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
“Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
+++++++++++++
I reckon jOnz has this particular speech on his bedroom wall
Sid,
For effing’s sake man.
He was the foremost opponent of Nazi appeasement in the pre-war years — that’s pre-war, well before 1937.
I could direct you to speeches that demonstrate that quite clearly (please don’t make me do that, it’ll take time I haven’t got).
As for that quote, what does that prove — that he had “fascist sympathies”??
Sorry to burst any long-held bubbles (?) about the wartime speeches, but it has now come to light the following:
The three crucial broadcasts (”We shall fight them on the beaches”, “blood, toil, tears and sweat” and “finest hour”) were not made Churchill but by an actor hired to impersonate him. Norman Shelley, who played Winnie-The-Pooh for BBC’s Children’s Hour, ventriloquized Churchill for history and fooled millions of listeners. Perhaps because WC was too incapicated by drink to deliver the speeches himself.
yes, it is a theory
Raz, if you wanna criticise Gandhi… be my guest! But agains methinks Pakistanis should be a lil’ more considerate of “cunning bania” who died for saving Pakistan from bankruptcy.
P.S I voted Churchill, but would have voted Rowan Aitkinson if he had been on the list!
Jay Singh, im not sure if they the the society of working class demonisation give out awards to people of such low wit as you .
Vladimir
Stick around - my wit gets even lower than that
[...] Churchill who has been voted as the ‘The Greatest Briton of All Time’ was a Gandhi-hater and a man who tolerated racism. More at Pickled Politics. [...]
Rohin, Ghandi made the remarks about Pakistan - “which I have declared as evil” in his Harijan weekly paper in 1947. And LOL at Ghandi being a friend of Pakistan! He fought against the partition of India all the way, until it became inevitable thanks to the efforts of Jinnah. If Ghandi had got his way, Pakistan would never have been created - and you wonder why he is disliked?
http://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap70.htm
Ghandi’s opposition to partition and the creation of Pakistan is palpable:
“I AM firmly convinced that the Pakistan demand as put forth by the Muslim League is un-Islamic and I have not hesitated to call it sinful”
“Therefore, those who want to divide India…are enemies alike of India and Islam”
“The ‘two-nations’ theory is an untruth”
“But i can never be a willing party to the vivisection”
“It is possible to turn Pakistan, which I have declared an evil ” - there’s your gem
While I can respect Ghandi for his desire for peace between the two nations, his oppostion to partition and the creation of Pakistan will always damn him in my eyes.
BTW, even some South Africans attack Ghandi’s racism now:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/southafrica/story/0,13262,1065018,00.html
Some choice quotes:
“Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought among themselves.”
“raw kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness”.
“GB Singh, the author of a critical book about Gandhi, had sifted through photos of Gandhi in South Africa and found not one black person in his vicinity.”
It’s really sad that you make a big issue over Churchill’s racism and yet refuse to consider the issue in relation to Ghandi.
Jay, keep it up
You may end up joining Vikrant as one of my VIP fan club members 
Vikrant, just for you - my favourite Winston Churchill quote :
“India is merely a geographical expression. It is no more a single country than the Equator.”
Lest we forget…
Fat boy sent gunboats up the Mersey and personally took charge of destroying the general strike, the wee charmer.
Personally I’d have voted for Shaun Ryder in the greatest Briton poll, if I could have been arsed.
And? It sounds like the late great man had Islam down to a tee.
You mean the late, great alcoholic, misogynistic, venally racist, manic depressive and fascist man? Halitosis is the least of his crimes.
raz
Get some pills for the delusion and depression dude
Depression? I’m as happy as they come
In his book “from The River War”, he also considered the spread of Islam as “the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries” and that we have “slovenly systems of agriculture”.. a quote the BNP like to use. apparantly he edited it out of later editions, probably after realising that us muslims do not consider themselves to be “Mohammedan”, and that agriculture originated in the middle east region.
Based on what youve said above (apart from the hitler bits) i think i just consider him as a racist. This is not actually surprising as hye was a leader of a country at a time when racism, prejudice and feelings of superiority were riding high in England. It wasnt that much of a way off from the imperialistic golden age which basically means racism, slaughter, pilliging and genocide.
Anyway, history is history, forget all the heros and has beens;
“As Gandhi said, ‘we must be the change we want to see in the world.”
Maybe the poll tells us more about what people feel they want to emulate. What it is they feel their world is missing.
Chuchill as a choice suggests people looking for strong leadership to fight evil. Churchill was many other things (and I have no great respect for him, unlike Gandhi) but what he represents for the people who do like him is probably not his racism, imperialism or class prejudices. They propbably like his charisma and what they believe to be his noble motives in a particular conflict which required heavy decisions.
This is still a bit frightening, as I assume he is most respected for being a wartime leader, not for humanistic impulses. Trying to improve the world by fighting world wars is not my favourite strategy.
Agreed Arif.
You wouldn’t catch Shaun Ryder starting world wars.
Bikhair#2, I don’t know what my strategy would be in ‘39. I’m not arguing that Churchill was wrong then (if you read what I wrote, I was saying his wartime role seems to show his most admirable qualities).
I just know that my strategy in ‘06 is very different. I am not attracted to strong leaders calling for global wars to defeat evil. There are lots of them on different sides of similar conflicts. If our leaders keep leading us up paths where they make war seem necessary then I might eventually get swept along. But my current strategy is to try to forge different paths.
Bikhair #2 - unless you pick a different name, I will continue to delete all your posts, as will the other admins.
My last post now makes no sense as Bikhair#2’s comment has disappeared. Was there something wrong with his comment? Does the moderator believe he misunderstands on purpose?
It does make sense as you repeated the question
The problem with Bikhair #2 is that he is imitating someone else and it becomes confusing…
[...] This has been the foundation of Political Correctness - a simple acknowledgement that our common language is been loaded with derogatory words. It is a subliminal prejudice, set as our factory default, which we must work hard to overcome. And if we acknowledge the undesirable aspects of our society, an recognition of the many undesirable aspects of our history must be a part of that too. [...]
In India we still continue to overlook the stupidity of Indira Gandhi, forget the Mahatma!
Raz - just to respond to you. I did not actually know about the comments Gandhi is alleged to have made about black people. I’m not unwilling to face that he made racist comments, as I think I’ve made it clear I’ve already got mixed views about the man. Although it’s interesting to see that in the article you linked to, the people vocal in the defence of Gandhi are African, including a certain Mr Mandela.
When I said Gandhi was a friend of Pakistan, I wasn’t clear. Obviously once Pakistan was created he wasn’t pleased, as we all know he was very much against it. But he was a great supporter of the Muslims who vehemently disliked Hindus - like Jinnah. Hence I can also see how Churchill would be a popular figure in Pakistan as he was one of the key people instrumental in forming the country. His outrageous lies about the number of Muslims in the army sealed India’s fate.
How the world would have turned out had Pakistan not been created…well that’s a whole different story!
“India is merely a geographical expression. It is no more a single country than the Equator”
Is this true?
No
please elaborate Sid
Sunny, and then there’s ranjiv ghandi as well! Mind you, be thankful that at least Indians don’t have any Bhuttos to contend with
Rohin, simple question - do you believe the partition of India was a good thing?
No I don’t, 3 wars, billions upon billions in defence spending and millions of lives lost mean partition was not a good thing.
But that’s a separate question from do I think NOT partitioning would have been better. Probably not. I can’t say.
Raz, Rohin.. was unification by the British a good thing (*I’ll get me coat*)
“No I don’t”
Nice stirring of the pot there, El Cid
Raz don’t take it as an offensive comment - I don’t say this as an Indian, just a neutral observer. One country becoming 3 and a whole bunch of wars and bloodshed afterwards. Does that sound like a good thing?
I don’t really go in for retrospective speculation (although those What If? books did very well. I think it’s all a bit silly), so what’s happened has happened. It’s not because I don’t think Pakistan should have existed or anything. Anyway, I followed up what I said by saying that not splitting India up would have probably been worse.
El Cid, do I think the unification by the British was a good thing? Yeah sure I do.
Don’t you think that a country that huge, and a young democracy to boot, might not have been better served by being split into even smaller more governable chunks built around ethnicity rather than religion?
It’s an honest question. I have no agenda.
Winston Churchill was a hero and a man I very much admire. Sure he had shitty lil’ traits, who doesn’t. He was a very arrogant, stubborn, ego-maniac but his very being allowed us to live in the free(ish) world we live in today. Yeah he was a racist per se but still very much a product of his generation. Thus he was very proud of his nationailty and the some what misplaced faith in the might of the British Empire.
I like Franks Sinatra and his music, but ole blue eyes wasn’t exactly a philanthropist, far from it.
Human beings are flawed!
Now Gandhi is a icon. He had an extremely peaceful soul and his legacy has more to do with just India. martin Luther King drew a lot of his thinking and actions from Gandhi.
And no, I am not a coconut.
What’s Frankie got to do with it?!
Yeah sure, bottom line as we’ve all said above - Churchill had his bad points, but we’re all thankful he was there to do his job the way he did - and we’re also thankful there were other ministers around to curtail his other aspirations. I just thought I’d share what I found out.
El Cid - perhaps. But it’s all about the long game. India is an economic elephant. Malaysia etc are tigers. India has lumbered even slower than it should have through years of idiotic economic theory from congress. But today it’s on the up. Pakistan is far smaller but hasn’t fared that differently.
India’s size has hampered it for many years and will continue to do so. But eventually it will be an immensely powerful nation. I’m not saying it is now, but there are few countries with the sheer size.
El Cid we (Indians) may vary in our ethnicity and culture to agreat extent but all these cultures share common “ancestry”. India is like Europe in many aspects. Marathis are to Bengalis what French are to Spanish.
India was never built upon basis of religion, it is home to 3rd largest Muslim population in the world! (India has as many Muslims if not more than Pakistan).
Rohin, i do believe partition was a necessary evil. Keeping India united would have lead to the ultimate balkanisation!
Raz 1 q, do you know why Gandhi died?
“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion”
I think people are products of their society, calling Churchill racist is hardly insightful. Most of British society could be accussed of it in that time.
It looks like he had a rather complicated realtionship, much like Kipling, with India and in fact with anyone involved with India at the time of Empire. It is a deep internal conflict with a person’s rationality, cultural prejudices and denial.
Interesting article here:http://www.hindu.com/mag/2005/06/05/stories/2005060500170300.htm
Further, one of the most famous campaigners against slavery William Wilberforce had said “‘The eradication of the Hindu faith is to me a more important ambition than the abolition of slavery.”
Mixed blessings, eh!
I didn’t know that quote from Wilberforce coruja, interesting! I’ve heard a lot of fire and brimstone about Hinduism in the past. Christianity had more of an evangelical missionary streak in the past and Hinduism was poorly understood, so I can see how Christian assumed Hindus to be snake-worshipping cult-following polytheists.
As Hindus learnt English etc and as education of other civilisations grew, a lot of the misunderstandings about Hinduism were put to bed - but many persist to this day.
Yes Vikrant, I agree - which is why I said Partition not happening would have been worse. By creating Pakistan, India was able to lose a great number of militantly anti-Hindu, anti-secular people. Had it not happened that way, we would have seen new countries pop up in pockets across the sub-continent.
It’s a mind-blowing chapter in history. The sheer mass of people moving is incredible.
I think the fact that ‘India’ splintered into 3 countries, a disputed terriotry of Kashmir and hundreds of separatist movements is evidence that Churchill was spot on in his views.
Erm, Raz if you really believe that you’ve not grasped the situation. And who are these ‘hundreds’ of separatist movements you like to frequently mention. I’ve listed a few in another thread, but I get stuck after about half a dozen.
hundreds of separatist movements… ROFL!!!
you fail to mention that almost 95% “separatist” movements exist in ISI books.
People living in glass houses shouldnt throw stones at others.
Pakistan is no more a country than Indo-China. An abomination of Punjab,Sindh,Balochistan,Afghan areas and parts of Kashmir cobbled together. With Punjabis dominating Pakistani society Sindh,Balochis and NWFP have active separatist movements.
For all your rants about self-determination for Kashmiris, what the fuck does Pakistan do in Nothern Areas and “Azad” Kashmir? These areas have no democratic infrastructure. One thing struck me during recent earthquake was how tmost of the survivors interviewed were speaking in Punjabi! “Azad” Kashmir and NA have been flooded with Punjabi migrants.
Sorry, I should have said ‘groups’. And I’m not just talking about India either
What don’t I grasp? Churchill made that comment in 1931, and a cursory look at modern day South Asia bears out his views. Not only have 3 countries appeared instead of one, not only is an entire state caught between two countries, but both Pakistan and India (and maybe Bangladesh as well) have plenty of internal uprisings and discontent, not to mention being wracked with sectarian/religous violence. Hardly one happy family, wouldn’t you say?
Sorry, I thought you were referring to his other comments - I didn’t realise you meant the one about India being a coherent country. Yes I have to admit, that has some credence BUT I think time has shown a lot of these groups (speaking for India) can be satisfied without balkanisation - e.g. Khalistanis. Go back 20 years and they were determined to have a state, now the movement barely registers.
Rohin… methinks Southall is a better place for Khalistan than Punjab. The movement obviously exists only in UK!
I think its heartland is Brum and some places in Canada. I’ve often criticised NRI communities for exactly this reason - they stay in the mindset as when they left ‘the motherland’ and India/anywhere else moves on in the meantime. Look at how backward so many British Asian communities are. From serious things like Khalistan to daft beliefs.
Without loonies from all the major religions raising money in the UK, US and Canada, the fundas in India would be stripped of much of their income.
I’ve never been to gurudwaras in Brumland but I’ve seen some Khalistani stuff at the one in Southall (Sri Guru Singh Sabha is it?).
the fundas in India would be stripped of much of their income
very true. Jihad in Kashmir and Hindutvadis are mainly funded by diaspora. Didnt parliament istitute an inquiry into “Saffron Pound Affair” a few years back?
Vik, Rohin, Raz
Thanks for your comments.
Vik, when I referred to religion I was really thinking of Pakistan and Bangladesh, which were part of British India, not India India.
But your comparison with Europe was instructive. After all, France, Spain et al are separate countries within a continent, which developed separately and only recently have started to bond. Even then, we’re not talking about homogenous nation-states (just ask the Bretons, Basques, Welsh, Catalans, etc). We share a common heritage as Europeans but we also have separate ones (and diff languages). Only the most ardent Brussels bureaucrats see themselves as European first.
As for the economics. Sure, the slow burn of Indian economic devlopment has picked up pace and the country has nuclear weapons. India is a rousing giant. But I can’t help thinking that your average Indian would be richer now if India had had a much stronger federalist arrangement or evolved along regional/ethnic lines.
As the tyre advert goes, power is nothing without control.
As the tyre advert goes, power is nothing without control.
With India.. you never know.
Of course, if it hadn’t been for Churchill, racist though he was, being a man of his time, there wouldn’t be any British Asians. Do you really think that a Britain occupied by the Nazis would have allowed immigration by “non Aryans”?
Churchill served his purpose. The alternative is too awful to contemplate. Churchill helped to keep Britain free; then it was free to change, and that includes changing attitudes to race, gender and sexuality that Churchill himself would not have agreed with, but ones that most people posting here would see as beneficial.
Yeah Old Pickler - we agree with all that, as we said above.
But I do object to “Oh he was a racist, as a man of his time”. No, there were plenty of less racist people and plenty of non-racist people. A man of his time wasn’t by default racist. Racism was more common then and less frowned upon, but just because someone said something racist 70 odd years ago, it doesn’t get automatically excused. Abraham Lincoln had more progressive views 50 years prior - how often do we say that about yanks?
Anyway, no one’s doubting his importance in avoiding the far worse alternative of a Nazi Britain.
Do you really think that a Britain occupied by the Nazis would have allowed immigration by “non Aryans”?
How far do you want to go with that kind of relativist claptrap? How about: Do you think that Britain could have been a superpower worthy of taking on the Nazis without having Africa, India and other imperial colonies to drain resources from?
Britain did a lot of good in these places. Africa, particularly has gone down the toilet since we left.
What I said about there being no British Asians if it hadn’t been for Churchill applies (presumably) to you, too. You should be grateful and stop whining.
You should be grateful and stop whining.
And you should stop twitching your net curtains and lay off the tinned cat food.
If, in fact, there were ever an audit on how much the Industrial Revolution, the building of Victorian Britian etc relied on the financial input of Indian and African resources, I suspect it would be quite revealing.
OP how easily you forget that 100000 brownies (including my kinsmen, The Rajputs) died for the Empire in WW2. Interestingly when Brits quit India, they left behind $5 billion war time debt! 200 years of British Raj wrecked havoc on India, especially rural India. Probably greater than the Islamic invasions!
as for Aryans…. if anybody can lay claim to Aryan descent then it is us the Indo-Iranians. Hitlers “Aryan Race” is actually based on Mullers pyschofansy as he obviously wanted to apporpriate the credits for Sankrit, Vedas and Yigas to the mythical Germanic race.
And you should stop twitching your net curtains and lay off the tinned cat food.
that’s hilarious!
OP, comment #90 was fair but then you spoil it with #93.
I must say, this medium is rather conducive to polemics. It’s a shame that seeking consensus should be so boring.
I repeat a request I made earlier, if anyone has relatives who fought in the British Indian Army in Burma, I’d love to speak to them. (*cue tumbleweed*)
Worse than Islamic rule? 70 million Hindus slaughtered? Plus Islamic rule did no good at all, whereas British rule did.
Countries that function best in the world are the ones most influenced by the British. And it is simply a fact - no Churchill, no British Asians. Be grateful, as I said and stop bleating about colonialism.
OP, as El Cid said, you spoilt a reasonably valid point (and Sid’s comeback was also reasonable) by becoming a typical tub-thumping old skooler by saying we’re bleating about colonialism. That’s not just daft, it’s quite offensive.
You said no Churchill, no British Asians - fine.
Sid said - no Indian and African money, no Indian and African soldiers - no Great Britain. He didn’t say that colonialism was a bad thing. He just said acknowledge how valuable it was to Britain.
This defensive attitude you display, immediately assuming that we’re moaning about the Raj, is a bit silly. Especially as it’s the kind of thing you accuse others of. A knee-jerk reaction.
@El Cid,
one of my acquaintances fought with the His Majesty’s Maratha Light Infantry of the British Indian Army in Italy and North Africa.
70 million Hindus slaughtered?
Hah! Where’dya get that figure? Some whacko Hindutva site no doubt.
And it is simply a fact - no Churchill, no British Asians
OP,
You’re employing sheer rhetoric for it is quite clearly not a fact but a hypothesis, albeit a good one. It is not something that is known to have happened and it is not a truth that can be proved.
How about: “it is very likely that without Churchill, there would have been no British Asians.”
Or how about: “If there’d been no British India there would have been no British Asians.”
You can’t deny also that an exceedingly large Commonweath force fought for Britain in WW2. So we can all claim Churchill’s win for ourselves, should we want to.
I’m not denying it. No, you can’t claim all Churchill’s win for yourselves - that would be silly - just some of it.
It is more than very likely that without Churchill’s win there would be no British Asians. It is about as certain as anything can be, unless you don’t know what the Nazis thought about race.
Thanks Vikrant, but I really need the Burma connection.
I would like to explore any mixed feelings that soldiers might have had re INLA as well with white officers.
and yet 1) who knows what might have happened in the intervening years and 2) old Adolfo was rather fond of Aryans and Hindu symbols, wasn’t he not?
Good point El Cid - no British India, unlikely there would be many British Asians today.
Anyway, as I’ve said before, all this what if history is bullshit. But I’m glad I have my first centurion post.
Rohin - you comment whore.
I’ve been called many whores in my day, but never a comment one.
110.
Old Pickler,
I am not sure who in according to your view should be grateful or ungrateful for Churchill: the British Asians, grateful for being allowed in; the native population ungrateful for allowing these darkies in?
I do think you need to examine the history of Asian & Caribbean immigration in to this country. Do not think it was directly due to Churchill’s policies. Cotton mills “up North”, London Transport and the NHS? Yes, Winston? No.
The Empire had passed its zenith long before Churchill. We all have our heroes, Churchill was truly a hero for the British people at a time of their need, likewise Ghandi was/is a hero for a lot of people in the sub-continent and beyond in their time of need.
It is also worth considering the whole ‘Aryan’ (a Sanskrit word) concept was invented in the 19th century to explain and rationalise how a sub-human race could have had a sophisticated civilisation in the Indus valley and to fit in to the concept that the world was no more than 4,000 or years old. You know, Max Muller et al.
In the late 19th & early 20th century there was a huge interest in Indian culture/language, especially in Germany (hence Aryan, Swastika), precisely because of the discovery of a language older than any known Semitic languages. In fact the whole field of linguistics was the result. Besides, I do not think there has been any archaeological evidence of an Aryan invasion.
Anyway, please elaborate exactly what were the benefits of colonialism to the colonised. It is very fashionable at the moment to hold your view (basically boils down to blacks can’t rule themselves), but it is an old one regurgitated time and again and conveniently avoids a full examination of the effects to everyone concerned. It is of course obvious what the benefits were to those European countries that did have colonies. It is interesting to note that how many of the worlds poorest countries were part of the last wave of European colonisation, which includes England, France, Belgium, Netherlands, and Italy.
In Britain it was government policy not to invest in and develop the economy of their colonies, perfectly articulated by James Mill. (Interestingly, it seems the contributions James Mill, James Stuart Mill and Bentham made to the intellectual justification of Colonisation seems to be ignored where their liberal philosophies are discussed.) In the light of this it doesn’t seem so unusual that an industrial revolution was not engendered within in India at the time when it was under British control & Britain was undergoing the same. What happened was 200 odd years of under-development.
It is a not a matter of apportioning blame and making excuses, but what I do find is that there is a severe disinterest in how the world was shaped and how we have arrived at the situation we are in. It is also surprising to hear the lamentations of many Asian ‘Libertarians’ about India’s cumbersome entry in to the market system, comparisons with China &etc without any reflection given at all to the circumstances of European development, the beneficial effects of having colonies and the side effects of active under-development. Pankaj Mishra sums up the situation very well for these countries “They knew that there remained no unknown lands and peoples for them to conquer, control and exploit. They could only cut down their own forests, pollute their own rivers and lakes, and seek to control and thereby oppress their own people, their women and minorities”.
All this navel gazing about British identity, multiculturalism &etc could very well start by an honest, humane and unbiased examination of consequences of the country’s past. I really don’t think any of this debate will get very far unless we do this and it is something Britain has so far refused to engage in.
Thinking about it what exactly is your point OP?
There have been British Asians long before Churchill - would you consider those Indians in India educated by the British to run Indian Civil/Administrative Services – Macaulay’s ‘Minute Men’ - British Asian?
Or would you consider the first Asian person to become an elected member of parliament British Asian? Dadabhai Noaroji (1892, Finsbury Park).
I realised what a pointless argument you’ve made and my stupidity for replying to it above.
Notwithstanding the OP’s venal stupidity, your comment Coruja (111) was a fine post in its own right. Well done.
El Cid,
Regarding your request for information about Indian veterans from the Burma conflict, I think I might be able to point you in the right direction (or at least towards large numbers of other people who will definitely be able to help you).
Huge numbers of Sikhs fought in WW2 in Burma. There’s a very good discussion forum on the Sikhnet website (www.Sikhnet.com). They’ve actually discussed this topic in detail a number of times before. You’ll have to register as a member before you can participate on the forum (it’s free and takes 30 seconds — just a matter of selecting a username & a password etc), but you can then open a new discussion topic and request the information you need.
Considering that tens of thousands of Sikhs worldwide access that website, and the forum participants are usually a pretty helpful bunch, I’m sure they should be able to assist you.
Dadabhai Noaroji (1892, Finsbury Park).
Well I never! That’s my manor!
Very interesting post Coruja. I have but two provisos to offer.
1) There’s an institutionalised disinterest in British history full stop. And for that you have to blame the liberal left and the damage they inflicted on the state education system, not the likes of Old Pickler.
2) On the question of India’s “cumbersome” entry into the global economy. You make some valid points. Imperialism and the birth of capitalism did go hand in hand. But they’ve been plenty of empires before and they never had the same economic success. So you have to give the Europeans, in particular the British, credit for their economic genius. Remember also that the working class British (Dickens, Engels, Rowntree, etc come to mind) suffered greatly in the 19th century in turning Britain into the economic power it became and leading the world out of its feudalistic and malthusian trappings (yes, I know much of the world is still playing catch up).
But as I said earlier, you make some very valid points.
It’s about balance. So I would hope that any future British-orientated history curriculum doesn’t simply slate the Empire for its wrongs.
The Victorians are the modern-day equivalents of the Romans.
did I say “modern-day”? I meant modern history’s
Jai, thanks very much! I shall register straight away.
El Cid,
‘There’s an institutionalised disinterest in British history full stop. And for that you have to blame the liberal left and the damage they inflicted on the state education system,’
What? Probably too OT to discuss it here, but that doesn’t square with my experience.
Don, maybe there is hope after all
I didn’t say British history was completely ignored. But all I remember from school is ancient egypt, the Romans, the Tudors, slavery trade, social history under the Victorians and during WW2. And then at A-Level the imperialist Scramble for Africa and East Asia, how WW1 began, plus the inevitable Stalin and Hitler.
(Actually, this is beginning to sound like a “what did the Romans do for us” sketch. *giggles to himself* Maybe there was more UK history at school than I originally recalled).
But where was the English Civil War and the Enlightenment? Where was the Napoleonic Wars and the rise of British Naval and economic prowess? Where was the rise and fall of Empire?
These were crucial in shaping the modern world, let alone our country. Anyway, we’ll save that discussion for another time.
El Cid,
No problem, I hope you find it useful. I believe they do have an FAQ section too, but if you run into any major difficulties about how to use their discussion forum, post a message on this thread here on PP and I’ll try to help you out.
(Although bear in mind that there may be a delay in getting a reply from me, as it’s now the weekend
)
Best of luck with Sikhnet anyway.
Good point Coruja. I doubt OP will be able to come back to that, the girl is only good at one-liners
El Cid - I did GCSE and A Level history, with the Tudors and 20th Century Europe, and yeah you are right that there is a lot more to teach (specially around the industrial revolution) but not everything can be crammed into the limited time students have to learn history. Otherwise it turns into one of those “brief outline of world history” things…
am not sure who in according to your view should be grateful or ungrateful for Churchill: the British Asians, grateful for being allowed in; the native population ungrateful for allowing these darkies in?
We should all be grateful to Churchill for defeating an enemy that would not have allowed any immigration of non-white peoples, and would have put to death any that lived in Britain had we been conquered.
I do think you need to examine the history of Asian & Caribbean immigration in to this country. Do not think it was directly due to Churchill’s policies. Cotton mills “up North”, London Transport and the NHS?
Not directly due to Churchill’s policies, but indirectly because he preserved us from the Nazis. Yes, cotton mills etc, but it must have been a lot worse in India or Pakistan, otherwise immigrants would not have come. My own grandmother worked in a cotton mill. I don’t. People can better themselves, black, white or Asian..
Come to think about it, Churchill, being a man of his time was probably very sexist. You don’t catch me whining and bleating about that.
Raz,
You truely know nothing. Sure, Gandhi opposed Partition (making of Pakistan) and he deeply cared for “undivided” India. He did put forth the idea that Jinnah be the first PM of independent India.
Please go and read ANC (African National Congress) website and academic papers by black scholars on Gandhi there, some by Nelson Mandela himself. Taking comments by 20something guy in 1800s or early 1900s out of context - putting them on the sensitivities of today is damn stupid. His comments were the product of his time.
Remember, the journey he took, a man who called African “Kaffir” become the source of their inspiration for like of Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King later. Black leaders from America made journey to India to visit him. One of his son was involved in one of the first “comprehensive” disobedience in SA. That is a hell of long journey.
Please read real acedemic stuff rather than internet garbage only………..Ignorance is sin.
Google = African National Congress + Gandhi
124 posts and not one mention of the greatist Briton of them all, the one and only Ronnie Barker.
greatist Briton of them all, the one and only Ronnie Barker
You’ve got a point there. He was the greatest. Porridge is years old, yet it never dates. And The Two Ronnies? Ageless. Timeless.
There are three characters on this thread - Siddharth, Sunny and Coruja - who are bizarrely hostile to Churchill. Was he a paragon of virtue in every respect? No. But if you read Roy Jenkins’ biography (quoted as a source by Siddharth) there is the real sense of a fundamentally decent and large-hearted human being.
Any great figure has flaws, somethimes considerable ones. But to damn Churchill for his shortcomings is like damning Gandhi for his early racism towards blacks or damning Martin Luther King for his adultery - correct in the narrow sense but SO missing the point of a great life.
It’s been said elsewhere on this thread but merits restating. World War Two - an event that took place within living memory of many people today - was a rare moment in world history where the future of humanity itself was at stake.
What would have happened to black and brown people if the Nazis had triumphed? Think about it. These maniacs were driven by an unquenchable hatred for ‘lesser races’. Their end game was crystal clear - genocide.
Sitting here in comfortable 21st century London it all seems about as real as Lord of the Rings but that shit really happened - millions of people were systematically murdered on the basis of their race.
Anyone - ANYONE - who has studies WW2 knows that it was a damn close run thing. In short, Hitler nearly won. And, insofar as it’s possible to identify one single human being who stopped him, Churchill was his nemesis. Through a clear-sighted ability to understand the evil nature of the nazi agenda (way before 1937, Siddharth), a ruthless determination to fight to the bitter end and a unique ability to inspire his fellow countrymen, Churchill kept the war going when every other country (and even a few leading figures in the UK) has given up in despair. Without him, Hitler would have had the whole of the West in his pocket before he attacked Russia - and would, for that reason, have smashed the Soviet Union (even fighting a war on two fronts he came within an inch of doing so) and the Americans would never have entered the war, at least not in time.
Sorry to sound like some old bloke in the pub but sometimes a cliche really does sum up the truth - this was Britain’s finest hour and without it I doubt we’d even be here, and we certainly wouldn’t be free to defame Churchill on a website.
So good on you, big man. We owe you an awful lot - even if some people are too ignorant to see it.
Gandhi and the Africans
It has became fashionable to pick some of the Gandhi statements and run them through the mud.
Therefore a while ago, I went to Michigan State University online library (http://www.lib.msu.edu/limb/a-z/az_bg5.html) and African National Congress Website (http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/people/gandhi/). They have 10 articles by African National Congress (ANC) on Gandhi, including two by Nelson Mandela and other reputed people. They all speak very highly of Gandhi and James Hunt from Shaw University talks of his son, Manilal’s lead role in 1952 Great Defiance Campaign in South Africa. Nelson Mandela wrote a very moving article for Time millenium special issue. Do you think there is something “goofy” internet sites know that ANC and African scholars don’t. Are they on Indian government pay roll?
This is as academic rigorous I (or anyone) can be in using less than an hour on the internet. All I did was I visited an online site for a North American University. I would trust the integrity of ANC and Nelson Mandela over shady literature on any given day. I am pleading and coaxing the readers and writers of Pickled Plotics to read these articles from Michigan State University online library and African National Congress and make up their own mind and clear themselves of any propaganda, the readers of Pickled Politics by Raz went through. Everything is presented to you loud and clear.
For his influence on African Americans, please read http://www.emory.edu/ACAD_EXCHANGE/2001/decjan/bilimoria.html
If Gandhi or for that matter any figure is to be criticized or evaluated, then it should be done with full academic integrity and rigor not with slander. I also believe historical figures including Gandhi need to be evaluated from time to time but with care.
Cruiser & OP,
No where in my previous posts have I indicated any hostility towards Churchill, in fact I had mentioned he was a hero and seems to have a very complicated relationship – as did most others who administered the Empire – with India. Unfortunately, the topic got side-tracked in to a discussion of colonialism.
But it is inevitable that any non-Eurocentric discussion of modern history will give rise to misunderstanding and hostility because there is always the belief that someone is out to trash another’s heroes and the values they hold dear.
Of course Hitler was a fanatical racist and had “unquenchable hatred for lesser races”, but this really wasn’t the preserve of one lunatic Austrian.
How would you describe the position of a subjugated people, who are not free and are exploited and are treated as sub-human? What is the relationship between the colonist and the colonised, are not the colonised considered a lesser race?
If you look at British policy (post-East India Company) toward its colony, its whole philosophical basis is found upon the idea of lesser races and improving their lot.
As for the threat of Hitler killing the Indians, I think the list of famines caused by basically racist colonial policy had cost between 12 – 27 million Indian lives. Of course, Churchill was not involved in any of this, I am making the point that murder of the subjugated race carried on quite well before Hitler.
However, even during the war, the famine and the abuse continued: http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2005/09/angloamerican_w.html
I don’t think any real assessment of how England made India and India made England is really possible with the mindset most people currently have. There is a tendency for people to avoid unpalatable truths and concentrate on the aspects that make their favoured nation appear ‘benevolent’ – this doesn’t seem to help in the long run.
People in past times may have been trapped by the attitudes and circumstances of that time but it does not mean we have to be; a balanced view of things is always uncomfortable because we have to consider differing point of view. For instance, whenever the Independence struggle is discussed here Subhas Chandra Bose (yes, at one time India did fight for and against Britain) is rarely mentioned – something else to look in to when trying to validate the claim of a massacre of Indians by a victorious Hitler. Nor is the possibility that it was not the Independence movement itself but much larger economic forces that led to Britain to quit India. Gandhi might have been the leader for the people/movement but it is possible that the loss of bureaucratic control in India since mid-1930s and the ruinous impact of the war itself on Britain did more for Indian independence (Liberty or Death, Patrick French)
You may be firmly of the opinion that Churchill saved the entire population of India from being massacred by Hitler, but I do not think so.
I get the feeling behind all this talk is idea that British Asians should consider themselves lucky to be allowed in to the country and they should not ‘whinge’, criticise or engage in any discussion and evaluation of the accepted truths of how and why they arrived here in the first place and of the part they played in the shaping of world affairs. British Asians have as much claim on this as any Englishman born and raised here and it makes a lot of people uncomfortable, this puncturing of cosy assumptions.
Coruja, I think you’ll find I’ve mentioned Netaji on several occasions on PP. I didn’t think it pertinent to mention him on this thread though.
Hello Kush, nice of you to drop in!
I get the feeling behind all this talk is idea that British Asians should consider themselves lucky to be allowed in to the country and they should not ‘whinge’, criticise or engage in any discussion and evaluation of the accepted truths of how and why they arrived here in the first place and of the part they played in the shaping of world affairs. British Asians have as much claim on this