LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Was Winston Churchill right about India?

Page no : 2

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     23 April 2011


Valerian Menezes (President)     23 April 2011

Indians are no doubt capable of ruling themselves.  Churchill was wrong in this respect.  Secularism is imbedded in the character of the citizens of India.  But a few communal groups are causing troubles.  Definitely they will be fought and overcome in due course.  India will be a best democracy in the comity of nations as per the aspirations of its constitutions.  Watch my word.

1 Like

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     24 April 2011

@ valerian


how many more years do we indians need to manage india properly?

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     24 April 2011

...........    need to manage india properly?




Valerian Menezes (President)     24 April 2011

We do not mind waiting.  India will develop into a strong nation, despite its diversity.  If not during our time, our children's time, our grandchildren's time.

1 Like



Winston Churchill is a cruel man ,hate indians.As i have read about in a magazine ,he is a against indians ,the main reason is that the West hates India. It has never reconciled to the fact that India broke away from the West and became free, and the people who did it were Hindus. It was the Hindus who fought for freedom, while the Muslims fought for Pakistan. The West has never forgiven the Hindus for snatching such a big prize like India from its clutches. This is the reason British leaders like Winston Churchill hated Indians like Gandhiji – not Nehru though, because Nehru was an Englishman in all but the name – and ultimately came to hate India herself.


This is also true of our secularists. They hate Hindus, but actually it is not the Hindus they hate, but India. They thought India would copy the West – as they themselves are a copy of the West – and become its carbon copy, aping its philosophy, its manners, its way of life etc. and ultimately become a part of the West. This is what Nehru also tried to do. I shall give a small example. Nehru used to wear dhoti, as long as Gandhiji was alive. The day Gandhi died, Nehru dropped his dhoti, literally, and was never seen in a dhoti again. Nehru himself said he was the last Englishman and he hoped that Indians would follow him.


UTTERANCES ON INDIA: Churchill (here with Queen Elizabeth I) worked up the forces hostile to the winning of political independence.




IN April 1919, a group of soldiers led by a man named Dyer fired at a crowd of unarmed Indians at the Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar. Speaking in the House of Commons, Winston Churchill described this as "a monstrous event", a "great slaughter or massacre upon a particular crowd of people, with the intention of terrorising not merely, the rest of the crowd, but the whole district or country".

Churchill was then the Secretary of State for War, and this was most likely his first public utterance on Indian affairs. His last such utterances date to the mid-1950s, when he and Jawaharlal Nehru were both Prime Ministers of independent nations. Now, Churchill expressed much admiration for Nehru as a man who "conquered two great human infirmities: fear and hate. In one fanciful moment, he even saw his fellow Harrovian as the "Light of Asia", who was shaping the destiny of hundreds of millions of Indians and playing an "outstanding part in world affairs".

`A necessity of empire'


Churchill's first and last statements about India were notably sympathetic to nationalist sentiments. But his record in-between was truly dreadful. Indeed, a whole book might be written about Churchill's tirades against this country and its peoples. These came in two phases. The first phase ran between 1929 and 1932, when the Gandhian movement had made the discussion of Indian self-government central to British politics. In October 1929, when the Viceroy (Lord Irwin) suggested Dominion Status for India, Churchill called the idea "not only fantastic in itself but criminally mischievous in its effects". As an ambitious politician currently out of power, Churchill thought it necessary to marshal "the sober and resolute forces of the British Empire" against the granting of self-government to India.

Over the next two years, Churchill delivered dozens of speeches where he worked up, in most unsober form, the forces hostile to the winning of political independence by people with brown (or black) skins. As the historian Sarvepalli Gopal writes, in these speeches Churchill "stressed not only the glory but also the necessity of empire." The glory was to India, for in his view, without the Raj there would be little peace and less prosperity. And the necessity was to England, for if the Raj ended, then "that spells the doom of Lancashire". Churchill assiduously stoked fears of an economic recession if access to Indian markets and goods was denied. Appealing to the basest prejudices of his audience, he claimed that the ones who would really benefit from any sort of decolonisation were rival European powers.

Speaking to an audience at the City of London in December 1930, Churchill claimed that if the British left the sub-continent, then "an army of white janissaries, officered if necessary from Germany, will be hired to secure the armed ascendancy of the Hindu. Speaking at the Albert Hall three months later, he claimed that "to abandon India to the rule of the Brahmins (who in his view dominated the Congress party) would be an act of cruel and wicked negligience". If the British left, "India will fall back quite rapidly through the centuries into the barbarism and privations of the Middle Ages".

Through the late 1930s, Churchill thought (and spoke) little about India. But then in 1940 he became Prime Minister, and had to confront the question as to what would happen to Indians after the Allies had won a war ostensibly fought to preserve freedom. As the diaries of his Secretary of State for India, Leo Amery, make clear, Churchill was implacably opposed to all proposals for Indian self-rule. In July 1940, Amery found Churchill "terribly exalté on the subject of India and impossible to reason with". When, in March 1941, Amery expressed his "anxiety about the growing cleavage between Moslem and Hindu, Churchill "at once said: `Oh, but that is all to the good'" because it would help the British stay a while longer).

An entry of September 1942 in the Amery diaries reads: "During my talk with Winston he burst out with: `I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion'." A year later, when the question of grain being sent to the victims of the Bengal famine came up in a Cabinet meeting, Churchill intervened with a "flourish on Indians breeding like rabbits and being paid a million a day by us for doing nothing by us about the war."

On August 4, 1944, after four years of suffering these outbursts, Amery wrote that "I am by no means sure whether on this subject of India he (Churchill) is really quite sane ... ". To this let me append the comment of Lord Wavell, who as Viceroy of India between 1943 and 1945, likewise had much to do with Churchill. In his diary, Wavell concluded that the British Prime Minister "has a curious complex about India and is always loth to hear good of it and apt to believe the worst".

1 Like

Democratic Indian (n/a)     24 April 2011

Originally posted by :Meenal Bahadur
INDIA BOASTS of having the biggest democracy of world, but is it indeed? Let’s look at few of the top stories recently:

Sikhs are still waiting for justice in Sikh riots of 1983

Muslims are not given justice even after 17 years after of Babri Mosque demolition.

A popular media group was attacked by a political party in front of cameras

About 800 million Indian people are below the poverty line.

Is this the kind of democracy India can be proud of? If the rights of minorities are not safe how is this democracy different from anarchism? Justice delayed is justice denied. If the juridical system can’t take decision in more the 15 years, is it indeed of any use?

The media is called the third pillar of democracy, but its sanctity remains unclear. It has even been commercialised to that extent that even religious programs of Hindus, astrological predictions, update of soap operas are finding their place on prime time.

India boasts of having a growth rate of about eight per cent even in this global crisis, but who is actually being benefited? To some extent it is even against the common people as only some part of population is progressing having much purchase power, which inflates the economy cursing the poor people.

Nothing is being done to stop the population of poor people, as that provides cheap labour to be harassed by industrialists. Even the politicians want poor people as they are easily bought to fulfil their political ambitions.

Winston Churchill, former British Prime minister had once said that if India ever gets freedom, it would be run by goons. With political parties leaving no stone unturned in a bid to continue mud-slinging against their rivals. The Babri demolition, the riots between communities that have frequently happened here as well as the blatant manner in which the Thackrays go about using regionalism as a demand, does not prove otherwise. The fact that these people are chosen to the lead the nation makes it even sadder.  Are we civilised indeed?

Wasn’t Churchill right???

Even if someone is your enemy, he may sometimes utter some truth about you. Let us accept this fact. Let us introspect and find out the truth whether Indians truly know and experiencing the true meaning of freedom? Or our minds have been brainwashed due to centuries of slavery and we are afraid of the risks of freedom and cherish the security of servitude? By disarming the people, the democracy has been taken over by goons and the corrupt. They know that you can do anything with people after disarming them. The choice is ours. The day we recognise the difference between freedom and slavery, the tyranny of corruption and misrule will see its last day.

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     24 April 2011






Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     24 April 2011


Democratic Indian (n/a)     24 April 2011

Arup ji it is very easy to disagree when facts and truth are bitter. You have every right to disagree but Meenal Bahadur has raised very important questions we cannot overlook:

  • Sikhs are still waiting for justice in Sikh riots of 1983
  • Muslims are not given justice even after 17 years after of Babri Mosque demolition.
  • A popular media group was attacked by a political party in front of cameras
  • About 800 million Indian people are below the poverty line.

Is this the kind of democracy India can be proud of?

There are certain facts and truths that always remain what they are. They are like 2+2 = 4, 2+2 can never be 3 or 5. The moment we try to make 2+2 = 3 or 5 the trouble begins. Similarly it is truth that RKBA defines relationship between State and citizens, it represents freedom of people. What kind of "freedom" are we enjoying where people are massacared directly and indirectly by the State and they are not allowed even to defend themselves? They are not even allowed a basic human right called Right to Keep and Bear Arms. For whose benefit it is being done? Please apply your mind and think. Is it not to defend the corrupt and tyrannical people who are sitting in power?

1 Like

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     24 April 2011

i agree churchill was cruel.


So,are his words false?


if they are false.............."PROVE IT".


if the present people who are running india are some saints,i will disagree with churchill completely.




Else we will always be overoptimistic,hallucinated,and live in delusions forever...latest example of our delusions......INDIA IS A SUPERPOWER


1 Like

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     25 April 2011

mr democratic indian,


ms  roshni raised a right issue in a wrong manner.

her issue or may say point is

whether india will ever overcome the said problems (those problems raised by her) ?

my answer is - yes, ofcourse it will overcome. more we fight with the problems sooner  we will overcome.

i mean to say all good persons have to fight against the problems. we will overcome the problems must.

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     25 April 2011

her question is not wrong but the way she placed the matter - is wrong.


at the time of churchill, india was not like as  today's india. therefore he can not tell that dialog, in today's context. churchill as british ruller told that dialog with a heatred attitude and from the state of superlative complex, which was wrong.

the problems narated by ms roshni is created by greedy indians. they were able to do it, as because the common people are less interested in politics. common people should take more interest in politics and business. it seems to me that the common people thinks that the polititians are contractor to run the govt for five years. we the common people ended our duty on that point. this is the result of these.

we indians are successful in many fields - like engineering; medical science; trade and commerce. then why we fail in administration?

actually, we want to fail, that's why we fail - otherwise there is no other reason of such failure.

one more thingh, if we say  yes churchill was right british government was right, then we automatically agreed on the point that our shahids who sacrified their life to build up the modern india, today's india, - they were wrong.


she raised  this type of question second time.

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     25 April 2011





"at the time of churchill, india was not like as  today's india. therefore he can not tell that dialog, in today's context. churchill as british ruller told that dialog with a heatred attitude and from the state of superlative complex, which was wrong"








·         Main subject;Sikhs are still waiting for justice in Sikh riots of 1983

·         Muslims are not given justice even after 17 years after of Babri Mosque demolition.

·         A popular media group was attacked by a political party in front of cameras

·         About 800 million Indian people are below the poverty line.


·         Who created all this ; the bl**dy britisher who adopted divide and rule policy and now few politicians also adopt this policy to get vote.


·         It’s called secularism versus fanaticism( A person affected by excessive enthusiasm, particularly on religious subjects; one who indulges wild and extravagant)


·         Ghandhiji said, sarva dharma sambhava means which literally means that all Dharmas (truths) are equal but someone adopted the policy sarva dharma abhav means totall neglect to other dharma except their religion ,now who will tought  obviously Britishers.And now todays politicians.


·         S. R. Bommai v. Union of India case said, The Court held that Secularism is one of the basic features of the Constitution. 


·         Ms. Aruna Roy And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 12 September, 2002  case the court said, He quotes the following lines of Rig Vedas 'Ekam Sat Vipra Bahuda Vadanti'. Truth everywhere is same; the devotees worship it in different forms. The other meaning of this Sanskrit couplet is "the thought of truth everywhere is the same; we have understood only a part of it, others have understood the other part of it". Therefore, according to him, different religious thoughts can be assimilated and synthesised for creating religious harmony. In the world, different thoughts on relationship of man with God and nature are to be found in various religions like Hindus, Buddhists, Parsies, Jains, Yahudies, Islams, Cristians and many others. These different thoughts influenced crores of people who are following them.


·         The common factor of all these thoughts should be understood as the ultimate truth. If we delve deep into these various thoughts we get this knowledge. These words should inspire the educationists and the people of India in creating a real secular society in which 'religion' in its wider sense is imbibed and a heart felt respect develops in people of one religious faith towards people of another religious faith.



·         In the Hindu Bhagavadgita the Lord says, "However men may approach me, even so do I accept them; for, on all sides, whatever path they may choose is mine". And in the Mahayana stream of Buddhism, the bodhisattva gives himself 'for the salvation of all beings". In the Quran, a following declaration is found :- To God belong the East And the West: whithersoever Ye turn, there is the Presence [or Face] Of God. For God is all pervading, All knowing.

And the Muslim Sufi poet Rumi wrote this of the different religious traditions : "The lamps are different but the light is the same:it comes from beyond".


The real meaning of secularism in the language of Gandhi is Sarva-Dharma-Samabhav meaning equal treatment and respect for all religions, but we have misunderstood the meaning of secularism as Sarva-Dharma-Sam-Abhav meaning negation of all religions. The result of this has been that we do not allow our students even touch of our religious books. Gandhiji in his lifetime has been trying to create religious and communal harmony and laid down his life in doing so. His ardent follower Vinoba Bhave after independence has not only learnt all the languages and made in-depth study of all the religions of India but covered length and breadth of India on foot to unite the hearts of Indian people by spreading his message of non-violence and love. Based on his in-depth study of all religious books of India, he published, in his life time, their essence in the form of different books. He has very strongly recommended that the essence of various religions, which he published in book forms like Quran Saar, KhistaDharma-Saar, BhagwatDharma-Saar, Manushasanam etc., should be introduced to the students through text books because these religious books have been tested since thousands of years and proved to be useful for the development of man and human society. In a society wedded to secularism, 'study of religions' would strengthen the concept of secularism in its true spirit.


In the name of secularism, we should not keep ourselves aloof from such great treasures of knowledge which have been left behind by sages, saints and seers. How can we develop cultured human-beings of moral character without teaching them from childhood the fundamental human and spiritual values.


 Swami Ranganathananda of Ramakrishna Mission, in the book "Eternal Values for a Changing Society, Vol. 3: Education for Human Excellence", has identified six objectives, which should be achieved by education. The following objectives which have been culled fully accord with the constitutional philosophy:-

1. The training of our children to an appreciation of our nation's cultural heritage and to equip them with the desire and the capacity to enhance the same and leave to posterity a richer legacy.

2. The training of our children in talents and capacities by which they become productive units of society and the source of its economic strength.

3. The equipment of our children with the qualities of courage and vision to protect our newly won national freedom, to preserve its democratic structure, function, and liberties, and to carry the same to ever wider fields and ever higher levels.

4. The training of our children in virtues and graces that will make them emotionally stable individuals and enable them to live in peace, harmony, and co-operation with their fellow citizens.

5. The training of our children in virtues and graces that will make them international in their outlook and sympathies, and enable them to live in peace, harmony, and co-operation with the emerging world community.

6. The training of our children to an awareness of the spiritual and trans-social dimension of the human personality and to a converging life-endeavour in the realization of this fact in and through life and action.

7. It is only thus that our education will become a fit discipline to help to continue the march of the Indian tradition from an impressive past to a glorious future." As pointed out by learned counsel on behalf of petitioners, if there are certain offending portions in the curriculum, which are not historically correct or has a tendency to misrepresent, suppress or project a wrong information, they can be removed. The learned Solicitor General on behalf of the Union of India and the counsel appearing for NCERT have very candidly stated that if those portions are identified, there would be no objection to the Government to consider their deletion from the curriculum. It has been emphatically stated that the object of introducing 'study of religions' in the education from primary stage is to ensure all round development of a child and with the object that he grows as citizen with respect for constitutional values.




Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register