Connect with us

Politics

Churchill, the Greatest Briton, Hated Gandhi, the Greatest Indian || By RAMACHANDRA GUHA

Published

on

Exactly a century ago, Mahatma Gandhi began his first all-India movement against British colonial rule. Winston Churchill was, and continued to be, unimpressed by those efforts.

Within his homeland, Winston Churchill’s colossal contribution to saving his people from Hitler eclipses all else, and he is widely regarded as the greatest Briton of all time. So it came as something of a surprise when a senior Labour Party politician recently described him as a “villain” for having ordered troops to fire on striking workers in the Welsh town of Tonypandy in 1910. The claim provoked vigorous denunciations from prominent politicians, as well as more sober reflections in op-ed pages. When the dust settles, as it soon must, Churchill will revert to being the figure of sanctity that he has always been.

Within his homeland, that is. Outside the United Kingdom, Churchill has always had a decidedly mixed reputation. This is especially so in India, my own country, where his undying opposition to freedom for Indians is both well known and widely deplored. As is his hatred for Mahatma Gandhi, a figure he repeatedly mocked, callinghim (among other things) a “malignant subversive fanatic” and “a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the East, striding half-naked up the steps of the Viceregal palace.”

Churchill and Gandhi met once, in November 1906. The Englishman was then the undersecretary of state for the colonies; the Indian, a spokesman for the rights of his countrymen in South Africa. Back then, Gandhi wore a suit and tie, as befitting a lawyer trained in London. It is not clear whether Churchill remembered their meeting when, in the early 1930s, he began attacking Gandhi, whose Salt March had made waves around the world and established him as the preeminent leader of India’s struggle for freedom from British rule.

At the time, Churchill was out of office and seeking to rebuild his political career by working up British sentiment in defense of the empire. By the time he was prime minister a decade later, leading the fight against the Nazis, he remained implacably opposed to independence for Gandhi’s people. His senior cabinet colleague Leo Amery recalled how Churchill had once referred to Indians “as a beastly people with a beastly religion.” He might have added that their leader was, in his opinion, the beastliest of them all.

In August 1942, Gandhi launched his last great popular struggle, the Quit India Movement. He was immediately arrested and taken to a prison in Poona (now known as Pune). Churchill also convinced himself that Gandhi was acting on behalf of the Axis powers. Archived British documents show that in September 1942, Churchill wrote to Amery, “Please let me have a note on Mr. Gandhi’s intrigues with Japan and the documents the Government of India published, or any other they possessed before on this topic.” Three days later, Amery replied, “The India Office has no evidence to show, or suggest, that Gandhi has intrigued with Japan.” The “only evidence of Japanese contacts [with Gandhi] during the war,” Amery continued, “relates to the presence in Wardha of two Japanese Buddhist priests who lived for part of 1940 in Gandhi’s Ashram.”

ALSO READ  Nigerian youths reposition for active political leadership

The Quit India Movement was marked by protests across the country. A British government report blamed Gandhi for the violence that followed his arrest. Gandhi was hurt by the accusations, since he had always preached and practiced nonviolence. When the Raj refused to retract the accusations, Gandhi began a three-week fast in prison. Once again, Churchill developed unfounded suspicions about Gandhi, this time convincing himself that the Indian was secretly using energy supplements, and therefore not really fasting.

On February 13, 1943, Churchill wired the viceroy, Lord Linlithgow: “I have heard that Gandhi usually has glucose in his water when doing his various fasting antics. Would it be possible to verify this.” Two days later the Viceroy responded, “This may be the case but those who have been in attendance on him doubt it, and present Surgeon-General Bombay (a European) says that on a previous fast G. was particularly careful to guard against possibility of glucose being used. I am told that his present medical attendants tried to persuade him to take glucose yesterday and again today, and that he refused absolutely.”

As Gandhi’s fast entered its third week, Churchill again wired the viceroy:

Cannot help feeling very suspicious of bona fides of Gandhi’s fast. We were told fourth day would be the crisis and then well staged climax was set for eleventh day onwards. Now at fifteenth day bulletins look as if he might get through. Would be most valuable [if] fraud could be exposed. Surely with all those Congress Hindu doctors round him it is quite easy to slip glucose or other nourishment into his food.

By this time, the viceroy was himself exasperated with Gandhi. But no evidence showed that he had actually taken any glucose. So the viceroy now replied to Churchill in a manner that stoked both men’s prejudices. “I have long known Gandhi as the world’s most successful humbug,” Linlithgow fumed, “and have not the least doubt that his physical condition and the bulletins reporting it from day to day have been deliberately cooked so as to produce the maximum effect on public opinion.” Then, going against his own previous statement, the viceroy claimed that “there would be no difficulty in his entourage administering glucose or any other food without the knowledge of the Government doctors”—this when the same government doctors had told him exactly the opposite. “If I can discover any firm of evidence of fraud I will let you hear,” Linlithgow wrote to Churchill, adding, “but I am not hopeful of this.”

This prompted an equally disappointed reply from Churchill: “It now seems certain that the old rascal will emerge all the better from his so-called fast.”

In 1943, Lord Wavell replaced Linlithgow as viceroy. The prime minister warned Wavell “that only over his [Churchill’s] dead body would any approach to Gandhi take place.” Then he joked that Wavell had “one great advantage over the last few Viceroys”: They “had to decide whether and when to lock up Gandhi,” whereas this viceroy “should find him already locked up.”

ALSO READ  Abacha loot: Mai Gaskiya, can you see your world in the open? |  By Festus Adedayo

Wavell, however, stood against Linlithgow and Churchill and believed that India should become independent. He released Gandhi from prison in May 1944. When World War II ended a year later and a Labour government came to power in Britain, Churchill’s reactionary policies were set aside, and formal negotiations for a transfer of power began. The British departed the subcontinent in August 1947, dividing it as they left into the separate, sovereign nations of India and Pakistan. Gandhi was murdered by a Hindu fanatic in January 1948.

These facts are well known. What is not is that Churchill’s dislike of Gandhi persisted even after British rule in India had ended and his adversary had died.

In 1951, Churchill published an installment of his war memoirs, The Hinge of Fate, and made an astonishing charge against Gandhi. The former prime minister claimed that the Indian had conducted his 1943 fast “under the most favourable conditions in a small palace” and that “the most active world-wide propaganda was set on foot that his death was approaching.” Then Churchill wrote, “It was certain, however, at an early stage that he was being fed with glucose whenever he drank water, and this, as well as his own intense vitality and lifelong austerity, enabled this frail being to maintain his prolonged abstention from any visible form of food.”

“In the end,” Churchill continued, “being quite convinced of our obduracy he abandoned his fast, and his health, though he was very weak, was not seriously affected.”

The publication of this volume of The Hinge of Fate created an uproar in India. Gandhi’s secretary, Pyarelal, and his doctor, B. C. Roy, wrote angry letters to Churchill, dismissing the Englishman’s claims as canards. Gandhi had refused to take glucose at any time during his fast—which Linlithgow had written to Churchill—even though a government doctor had warned him that he might die if he did not. Further, Gandhi had always said that his fast would last exactly three weeks.

The Indian press also responded with fury, archival materials show. The Tribune, a newspaper based in the northern-Indian city of Ambala, said Churchill’s charges had been refuted by those who had firsthand knowledge of Gandhi’s fast, and put Churchill’s baseless attacks in a broader context. “Mr. Churchill’s remarks only betray his lack of understanding of the Mahatma’s character and his general ignorance about this country,” the paper wrote. “Mr. Churchill is a great war-time leader. But no man is more insular in his outlook. He has yet to realise that the people of Asia, Africa and the Middle East are entitled to a life of their own. He still thinks in terms of the hegemony of the world by Anglo-Saxon peoples.”

Even sharper in its criticism was the now-defunct Indian News Chronicle. Its editorial on September 27, 1951, titled “Churchilliana,” said the former British leader’s memoirs were full of myths and misstatements, of which the calumnies against Gandhi were representative. Churchill’s “entire political career,” the paper thundered, “is a record of political opportunism, inconsistency, and downright wickedness.” Calling him a “friend of reaction” and “a high priest of British imperialism,” the editorial ended:

Mr. Churchill is incorrigible, hopelessly out of date, and is getting unpopular day by day. His memoirs might be read for their grandiloquent phraseology, bombast, and nineteenth century English, but no student of history will find his version of recent history a safe guide. The odds are that these memoirs, in course of time, will be rescinded to the dustbin. And as for his malicious attacks on Mahatma Gandhi, we are certain that they will deceive no one. Long after Churchill and his memoirs have been forgotten, humanity will continue to regard Gandhiji as a beacon of peace; and cherish his memory with reverence even as they cherish the memory of Jesus, Buddha and Socrates.

The Hindustan Times’ response was less polemical, but arguably more effective. The paper was then edited by Gandhi’s son Devdas, who dispatched a reporter to locate Major General R. H. Candy, the British doctor who had attended to Gandhi during his prison fast. Asked to comment on Churchill’s allegations, Candy, then living in retirement in rural Hampshire, confirmed that he had indeed advised Gandhi to take glucose, but that Gandhi had refused. “From my knowledge of Mr. Gandhi,” he said, “I am convinced that he would not willingly have taken glucose or any other form of food” during his fast. Churchill’s response to these corrections is unknown.

ALSO READ  Nigerian Excellence celebrated in London at Lux Afrique’s Nigerian Independence Dinner

Recent works by Indians have blamed Churchill for the Great Bengal Famine of 1943, in which more than 2 million people died. As prime minister, Churchill could have done more to ensure speedy supplies of grain to the affected areas. But to call him a war criminal and a mass murderer, as some polemicists have done, is surely hyperbolic.

That said, there is no question that Churchill had an intense dislike of Indians in general, and a pathological suspicion of one Indian in particular. His venomous and long-lasting hatred of Gandhi shows that this great Briton could sometimes think and act like a small-minded parochialist.

 

 


This essay has been adapted from Ramachandra Guha’s book Gandhi: The Years That Changed the World, 1914–1948.

RAMACHANDRA GUHA is a historian based in Bengaluru.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisement
Comments

Politics

Economic Hardship: Rep Oseni Lauds FG’s N100m Palliative for Each Constituency

Published

on

By

 

Hon. Aderemi Oseni, the lawmaker representing Ibarapa East/Ido Federal Constituency in Oyo State, has commended the proactive stance of the President Bola Tinubu-led administration towards addressing the welfare needs of Nigerians.

The lawmaker applauded the government’s commitment to ameliorating the prevailing hardships faced by citizens, particularly through the significant intervention of One Hundred Million Naira (N100,000,000) allocated to each federal constituency via the Ministry of Agriculture.

Oseni, in a statement on Thursday by his media aide, Idowu Ayodele, in Ibadan, emphasised the importance of such interventions in providing essential support to communities and constituents grappling with economic challenges, notably in the distribution of grains to cushion the impacts of the hardship in Nigeria.

The Chairman, House of Representatives Committee on Federal Road Maintenance Agency (FERMA), said the allocation, aimed at cushioning the adverse effects of hardship, signifies a crucial step towards fostering sustainable development and resilience across the nation.

He informed that the palliative has no bias for partisan politics as it is meant for all vulnerable members of the public in the Ibarapa East/Ido Federal constituency, irrespective of political affiliations, adding that the contractor had supplied the rice in the amount of the money approved.

ALSO READ  Russia to cut oil exports by 500,000 bpd in August

“I want to commend President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for the several initiatives and interventions of the federal government to bring ease to the people. I also want to reassure all the constituents in Ibarapa East/Ido federal constituency of my commitment to their welfare at this time and always,” the lawmaker assured.

The APC chieftain appealed to members of the public to remain patient and calm as lawmakers are making frantic efforts to ensure the effective implementation and equitable distribution of democratic dividends for the benefit of constituents in their various constituencies.

Renewing his commitment and promising more dividends of democracy for his constituency, Oseni also hinted that in line with his campaign promises, he would be commissioning road construction equipment for the rehabilitation of rural roads this Saturday.

Continue Reading

Politics

APC criticises Makinde for alleged education decline in Oyo

Published

on

APC criticises Makinde for alleged education decline in Oyo

 

Oyo state chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC) has expressed deep concern over the deteriorating state of education in the region, accusing Governor Seyi Makinde’s administration of negligence and insincerity in addressing the challenges faced by the sector.

In a statement issued by the party’s Publicity Secretary, Olawale Sadare, and made available to Mega Icon Magazine,  APC highlighted issues such as scarcity of teachers, deplorable infrastructure, lack of teaching aids and equipment, poor monitoring and supervision, erosion of competent administrators, and outdated policy and curriculum implementation as contributing factors to the decline in education standards.

Oyo APC emphasized the need for urgent intervention, stating, “It is time well-meaning citizens and residents of the state began to ask questions on why a key sector like that of education has had to be handled with levity in the last five years.”

The party disputed the state government’s claims of improvement, citing examples of severely understaffed schools and inadequate resources.

The statement pointed out specific cases like St. Joseph Primary School in Ibadan North West LGA, SDA Primary School in Egbeda LGA, Baptist Basic School in Tede, AUD Primary School in Igboora, Muslim Community Primary School in Itesiwaju LGA, and Christ Church School in Ona-Ara LGA, where an alarming shortage of teachers was evident.

ALSO READ  Why Dangote is most humble person on earth – Foluke Daramola-Salako

The APC also drew attention to the critical situation in public secondary schools, highlighting the lack of staff to teach core subjects.

“Examples included Baptist Secondary Grammar School in Atisbo LGA and Methodist High School in Ibarapa North LGA, where the Old Student Association and a mere four teachers, respectively, struggled to meet the educational needs of hundreds of students”.

The party urged residents to question the Seyi Makinde-led administration’s commitment to education, stressing the need for immediate action to prevent further deterioration.

Continue Reading

Politics

Donald Trump’s Candidacy Secured in Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling

Published

on

By

File photo Ex-Us President, Donald Trump

The US Supreme Court on Monday removed a potential hurdle to Donald Trump’s bid to recapture the White House, unanimously dismissing a state court ruling that could have barred him from the ballot for engaging in insurrection.

The high-stakes ruling in favor of the former president came on the eve of the Super Tuesday primaries that are expected to cement Trump’s march toward the Republican nomination to take on President Joe Biden in November.

It was the most consequential election case heard by the court since it halted the Florida vote recount in 2000 with Republican George W. Bush narrowly leading Democrat Al Gore.

The question before the nine justices was whether Trump was ineligible to appear on the Republican presidential primary ballot in Colorado because he engaged in an insurrection — the January 6, 2021 assault on the US Capitol by his supporters.

In a 9-0 decision, the conservative-dominated court said “the judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court… cannot stand,” meaning 77-year-old Trump, the Republican White House frontrunner, can appear on the state’s primary ballot.

“All nine Members of the Court agree with that result,” they added.

The case stemmed from a ruling in December by the state Supreme Court in Colorado, one of the 15 states and territories voting on Super Tuesday.

ALSO READ  Ekiti govt. commences 37 projects abandoned by Fayose

The court, citing the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ruled that Trump should be kicked off the ballot because of his role in the January 6 attack on Congress, when a mob tried to halt certification of Biden’s 2020 election victory.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars anyone from holding public office if they engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” after once pledging to support and defend the Constitution.

But during two hours of arguments last month, both conservative and liberal justices on the US Supreme Court expressed concern about having individual states decide which candidates can be on the presidential ballot this November.

On Monday, the top court ruled that “responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States.”

Multiple additional cases

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, was aimed at preventing supporters of the slave-holding breakaway Confederacy from being elected to Congress or from holding federal positions.

The Supreme Court, which includes three justices nominated by Trump, has historically been loath to get involved in political questions, but it is taking center stage in this year’s White House race.

Besides the Colorado case, the Supreme Court has also agreed to hear Trump’s claim that he is immune from criminal prosecution as a former president and cannot be tried on separate charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election.

ALSO READ  N500m grant: LAUTECH students appreciate Makinde

Trump was impeached by the Democratic-majority House of Representatives for inciting an insurrection but was acquitted thanks to Republican support in the Senate.

He is also scheduled to go on trial in New York on March 25 on charges of covering up hush money payments to a porn star ahead of the 2016 election.

In yet another case, Trump faces federal charges in Florida of refusing to give up top secret documents after leaving the White House.

During oral arguments in the Colorado case, Jonathan Mitchell, a former solicitor general of Texas representing Trump, urged the court to reverse the Colorado court’s decision, saying it would “take away the votes of potentially tens of millions of Americans.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, warned that upholding the state court ruling could lead to “disqualification proceedings on the other side.”

“I would expect that a goodly number of states will say ‘Whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot,’” Roberts said.

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Tweets by ‎@megaiconmagg

Subscribe to our Newsletter

* indicates required

MegaIcon Magazine Facebook Page

Advertisement

MEGAICON TV

Trending