Subscribe now and receive weekly newsletters with educational materials, new courses, interesting posts, popular books, and much more!
Articles
“Power will go to the hands of rascals, rogues, freebooters; all Indian leaders will be of low calibre & men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight amongst themselves for power and India will be lost in political squabbles. A day would come when even air and water would be taxed in India.”
The statement above is attributed to Winston Churchill, but I cannot find it, as a speech or in a book: Where can I find it? Although it is widely and increasingly quoted in the Indian press and, given what is happening, he seems to have been prophetic! — K.P., India
The Churchill Archives Centre and we have searched for this line, and isolated key word combinations from it, without success. Thus, while it sounds like his early sentiments toward the Congress Party, I cannot confirm that he said these words.
Churchill’s views on India were more nuanced than is commonly understood. For instance, his defense of Indian minorities in South Africa, when he was at the Colonial Office in 1906, found Gandhi quite favorably disposed him when he sent this message to Gandhi in 1935:
I do not care whether you are more or less loyal to Great Britain. I do not mind about education, but give the masses more butter. . . . Tell Mr. Gandhi to use the powers that are offered and make the thing a success. . . . I am genuinely sympathetic towards India. I have got real fears about the future . . . but you have got the things now; make a success and if you do I will advocate your getting much more.
Churchill wrote this to Ghanshyam Das Birla, a Gandhi supporter who had lunched with Churchill at Chartwell. When Birla repeated the conversation Gandhi replied: “I have got a good recollection of Mr. Churchill when he was in the Colonial Office and somehow or other since then I have held the opinion that I can always rely on his sympathy and goodwill.”
Part of Churchill’s friendly overture to Gandhi in 1935 was prompted by Gandhi’s (and Birla’s) defense of the Dalit, or Untouchables.
Remember also that twenty years later, Churchill became quite friendly with Nehru, partly because they were both Harrow Old Boys:
I have worked very hard with Nehru. I told him he should be the light of Asia, to show all those millions how they can shine out, instead of accepting the darkness of Communism.1
Arthur Herman’s 2008 book Gandhi and Churchill is a brilliant piece of writing that is fair and balanced toward both leaders, and effectively captures their mutual generosity of soul. The sins of past and present politicians aside, Churchill would be as proud as Gandhi over the democracy that is modern India.
1 Richard M. Langworth, Churchill by Himself: The Definitive Collection of Quotations (New York: PublicAffairs, 2008), 163. Letter from WSC to Anthony Eden’s private secretary Evelyn Shuckburgh, February 18, 1955.
When we try to dig into Churchill’s mind on his thoughts about India and Indian independence the following points stand out:
– Churchill valued British sacrifices over 200 years to unify hundreds of Indian kingdoms to create India as we know today
– Churchill valued British contributions to modernize India with Civil Services, Railways, etc.
– Churchill cared for fair treatment of Indian minorities such as Dalits and Muslims and was concerned about their wellbeing in an Independent India
– Chrchill would have wanted close relationship between Britain and India like Britain has with Canada or Australia
– Churchill stood for equal treatment of people of various races despite his belief in superiority of his own race.
Thank-you. I think the sources would largely confirm that. Your last point is very apt. Born when Darwin was still alive, he grew up in an age that proclaimed a hierarchy of races with whites on top. That is antithetical to our thinking today, indeed repulsive. Paternalistic, yes, but he was not a “man of his time.” His belief in equal rights for all peoples surfaced again and again from 25 to 80, and many in his time considered him a dangerous radical. Surely his record on South Africa, for example, is more significant than the fact that, in a four-year window 1942-45, he said nasty things about the Hindu nationalists in Delhi, largely reported by only one source, Leo Amery, whose own language was far worse.
Arguably, with Nazi Germany arming, he was wrong to spend so much political capital with the “diehards” opposing the 1935 India Bill, which in the end he acknowledged, to Gandhi’s friend Birla: “I do not care whether you are more or less loyal to Great Britain. I do not mind about education, but give the masses more butter….Tell Mr. Gandhi to use the powers that are offered and make the thing a success.” That kind of magnanimity was rare then. And even rarer today.
Thank you for your helpful thoughts. With Churchill I tend to focus more on the positives and seem to ignore his politically incorrect statements on specific races or religions! I agree he would be very happy how Indian democracy whose foundations were laid by Britain still works slowly to uplift her masses.
Mr. Churchill certainly had both bright and dark side. On one hand he was a remarkable statesman and on the other side, he was also the man responsible for the “Great famine of Bengal ” which resulted in the unnecessary deaths of millions of Bengalis. How you see him really depends on where you are from.
=
Well, we think Dr. Tirthankar Roy is from India. Click here.
Nor is the range of opinion from India at all uniform. In fact, it is quite thoughtful. Click here. —Editors
I’d like to see a response to the last comment as a friend and I have been discussing this very question. How much blame should Churchill have for the famine Bengal Famine? How much of it had to do with food panic and hoarding due to the war vs. Churchill’s actions? in the search box and you will find a vast array. As the man at the top, Churchill always bore final responsibility for the British war effort in all its myriad phases. As much as he enjoyed baiting Amery with disparaging remarks (which only Amery seems to have recorded), his record is replete with efforts to do what he could to relieve the famine in the midst of all-out war. From America to Iraq, it is hard to think of a source of grain he didn’t investigate. As he said after the war, “If I and my colleagues erred in these decisions, we must be judged in relation to the circumstances of the awful conflict in which we were engaged.” -RML
=
It was a complicated problem with many causes, all of which are touched on herein by Indian and other scholars. Enter
I think what goes unnoticed is Churchill’s personal wrath towards Hindus and Hindu religion. Like most westerners then and now, there is no understanding of and no sympathy for Hindus. Churchill believed in the greatness of white race as a Darwinian and a defender of Christian civilization. He understood Muslims better than he did Hindus. Perhaps it is not his fault. It is in most part a failure of Hindu thinkers and Hindu political leaders that they have not been able fully to articulate the Hindu religion and civilization. Churchill showed a great concern for minorities in India, namely Muslims and Dalits and even as an intellectual he never explored the vast historical reality that created a marginalized political status of some Hindus in his time and even today. He predicted their leaders would be “of low calibre and men of straw.” He openly indulged in derogatory comments in his conversations and speeches. However, the British who lived in and managed the government in India understood Hindus well and even sympathized with them. Muslim rulers in India carried on centuries long genocide of Hindus and destroyed Hindu religious institutions. Dalits were and are Hindus and mainly were upper caste Hindus who got expelled or excommunicated as many Western Christian Churches do today for some of other violation of religious duty. Having been under the wrathful overlordship of Muslim rulers in cities and villages with many Hindu institutions destroyed and burnt to ashes, gave all Hindus little control over their destiny. Perhaps arrival of British in India was a blessing in disguise for Hindus. I am disappointed that Churchill, while a great military and political mind, had a shortcoming in understanding the vast masses the British crown ruled.
–
Thank-you for your thoughtful remarks, the type we encourage here. You make a valid point that Churchill distinguished between types of Hindus. His sympathy for the lower castes was genuine, as he told G.D. Birla: “My test is improvement in the lot of the masses, morally as well as materially. I do not care whether you are more or less loyal to Great Britain. I do not mind about education, but give the masses more butter….Make every tiller of the soil his own landlord….Tell Mr Gandhi to use the powers that are offered and make the thing a success.” That suggests a more sympathetic attitude than was commonplace at the time. —Eds.
Power will go to the hands of rascals, rogues, freebooters; all Indian leaders will be of low calibre & men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight amongst themselves for power and India will be lost in political squabbles. A day would come when even air and water would be taxed in India.”
The above statement is true for Pakistan!
“Power will go to the hands of rascals, rogues, freebooters; all Indian leaders will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight amongst themselves for power and India will be lost in political squabbles. A day would come when even air and water would be taxed in India.” This statement is fit for the United Kingdom after Boris Johnson resigned as Prime Minister. And still.
=
Perhaps so, but careful research shows that Churchill never said those words. See http://bit.ly/2DzPzPR. —Eds.
Wether Churchill said those words or not …today it stands true to a large extent in the Indian politics..
Today, during the 75th year of India’s Independence, we’re poised to see a man of Indian origin as the PM of the UK. Life is beautiful…
Not a single sentence is wrong. It’s all true now.
Just a few negative words of his, said out of frustration, have spread around the world and people have overexagerrated it.
More positive things on Sir Winston Churchill must be posted…. All The Best