A Churchill 'Misunderstanding'
halcombe
programme earlier today, which seemed to be an Attenborough-style
hagiography of Gandhi.
It seemed to be a slice of standard C4 anachronistic Brit-bashing -
the Captain Merricks shown in the obligatory newsreel clips slumming
it with the odd lathi strike on some native demonstrator's head -
though unexpectedly relativised this week by the incendiary events in
today's India.
Perhaps, just as I switched off, the show was about to be balanced by,
say, some reference to Gandhi's antediluvian views on untouchables and
women - it's just possible.
But, justification for lack of confidence in its historical accuracy
came with the shamless twisting of the well-known Churchill 'fakir'
quotation.
These are close to the exact words as I could get online:
"It is alarming and odious to see Mr. Gandhi, 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 vice-regal palace, while he is
still conducting a defiant campaign of civil disobedience, to parley
on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor." --- House
of Commons. Feb 23, 1931.
The programme said that Churchill had "called Gandhi a half-naked
fakir". In fact, Churchill's meaning was obviously that Gandhi was no
more a fakir than he was.
He was accusing Gandhi of playacting, of making himself into a
sideshow freak, with a view to bamboozling his less acute followers,
indulging his own vanity and embarrassing the British representatives
he met.
I suspect strongly that Churchill chose the word deliberately as
susceptible to his peculiar habit of eccentric pronunciation (eg
'Nazi' pronounced 'Narzy', to rhyme (perhaps not coincidentally) with
'karzy' (Cockney slang for toilet)). I'd hazard a guess that he would
have pronounced the word something pretty close to 'faker'. Which was
the essence of his charge against the man.
There are interesting things to say about Churchill and India - the
parallel between him and Gandhi and their respective homelands, for
instance: their symbolism long outliving their practical usefulness,
for instance; and the fact that Churchill stood pretty much alone,
amongst senior politicians, against the appeasement of Indian
agitation for independence favoured (to varying degrees) by leading
members of all major British political parties between the Wars.
Most of all, with reference to the fakir crack, the fact that the men
in charge of Congress had no more desire to see British rule violently
overthrown than the British themselves. And, in 1947, they got what
they wanted (much to Churchill's disgust): the apparatus of government
handed over more or less intact (subject to Partition effects, of
course) with not too many shots being fired (at the British, at
least). The leather chairs left ready warmed, one bunch of Oxbridge
men gracefully making way for another.
Congress could have taken power much earlier - 100,000 Europeans to
200,000,000 Indians (very roughly) are not odds which could have
withstood a sacrifice of Indian lives on the same scale as, say,
France in World War 1 (around 7% of the male population killed).
Congress preferred to wait.
Perhaps such matters were brought out by the programme. But, probably
not: that sort of complexity fails to serve the cause of
indoctrinating little Johnny with a proper quota of post-colonial
guilt. "Brown skin good, white skin bad", as the other Mr Blair never
actually said. But, had he been a C4 viewer, might have.
William Black
halcombe <halc...@subdimension.com> wrote in message
news:d7fa3848.02030...@posting.google.com...
> Congress could have taken power much earlier - 100,000 Europeans to
> 200,000,000 Indians (very roughly) are not odds which could have
> withstood a sacrifice of Indian lives on the same scale as, say,
> France in World War 1 (around 7% of the male population killed).
> Congress preferred to wait.
Read about The Indian Mutiny.
Any violence from Congress would have been put down with far more force,
remembert that this is an administration (in India) that used poison gas as
a means of 'pacification' on the North West frontier and machine guns as a
means of crowd control.
There were plenty of people who would have been delighted to turn these
atrocities into mainstream policy.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Z
news:d7fa3848.02030...@posting.google.com:
Pronunciation was never his strong suit,
esp combined with his lisp. Remember how he
called the capital of Uraguay "Monta-video"?
>
> There are interesting things to say about Churchill and India - the
> parallel between him and Gandhi and their respective homelands, for
> instance: their symbolism long outliving their practical usefulness,
> for instance; and the fact that Churchill stood pretty much alone,
> amongst senior politicians, against the appeasement of Indian
> agitation for independence favoured (to varying degrees) by leading
> members of all major British political parties between the Wars.
What was his line - "I did not become
Prime Minister to oversee the dissolution
of the British Empire".
a.spencer3
William Black <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a60arf$i00$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>
>
> Read about The Indian Mutiny.
>
>
Only an extremely small proportion of Indians involved, within a relatively
small area. The eventual relieving armies were largely Indian troops
themselves, and faced 'only' odds of between 10 & 20 to 1 (against quite
well trained and armed mutineers - their failure was due to the absence of
trained officers)!
And, I believe, only one Maxim was involved in the whole shooting match.
Surreyman
Mike Gooding
> remembert that this is an administration (in India) that used poison gas as
> a means of 'pacification' on the North West frontier
I don't remember hearing about that. When did is happen ?
> and machine guns as a means of crowd control.
It happened once.
>
> There were plenty of people who would have been delighted to turn these
> atrocities into mainstream policy.
I'm pretty sure none of these 'plenty' were in positions of power.
Mike Gooding
------------
William Black
Mike Gooding <michael...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9a94c4e8.02030...@posting.google.com...
> "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<a60arf$i00$1...@helle.btinternet.com>...
> > Any violence from Congress would have been put down with far more force,
> > remembert that this is an administration (in India) that used poison gas
as
> > a means of 'pacification' on the North West frontier
>
> I don't remember hearing about that. When did is happen ?
The RAF dropped poison gas in the late 1920's on Afgjhan and tribal area
villages which were believed to be causing a problem, it didn't work...
>
> > and machine guns as a means of crowd control.
>
> It happened once.
>
> >
> > There were plenty of people who would have been delighted to turn these
> > atrocities into mainstream policy.
>
> I'm pretty sure none of these 'plenty' were in positions of power.
Well at least one was of general rank (Dyer) and there were plenty of other
nasty characters around British India. If some sort of revolt had broken
out it would have been put down with a ruthlessness and violence that would
have put Dublin in 1916 to shame.
The British Empire was in a war for survival and became less and less
scrupulous as the war went on.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> Mike Gooding <michael...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote ...
> > "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> > > Any violence from Congress would have been put down with far more force,
> > > remembert that this is an administration (in India) that used poison gas
> as
> > > a means of 'pacification' on the North West frontier
> >
> > I don't remember hearing about that. When did is happen ?
>
> The RAF dropped poison gas in the late 1920's on Afgjhan and tribal area
> villages which were believed to be causing a problem, it didn't work...
I remember reading about someone (it might have been Abdul Gaffer
Khan's son) saying that the British also castrated Muslim rebels with
a castrating machine at a veterinary hospital.
a.spencer3
M. Ranjit Mathews <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1d4c67e3.02030...@posting.google.com...
> I remember reading about someone (it might have been Abdul Gaffer
> Khan's son) saying that the British also castrated Muslim rebels with
> a castrating machine at a veterinary hospital.
I strongly suggest you get a bit more proof before posting stuff like this.
Surreyman
M. Ranjit Mathews
> M. Ranjit Mathews <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> > I remember reading about someone (it might have been Abdul Gaffer
> > Khan's son) saying that the British also castrated Muslim rebels with
> > a castrating machine at a veterinary hospital.
>
> I strongly suggest you get a bit more proof before posting stuff like this.
Racking my brain, I'm pretty sure that what I read was an interview
with Abdul Gaffer Khan's son. As far as I can remember, he said that
his father (AGK) had been a pacifist and even when the British used
punishments like castration, his father urged his followers not to
become violent revolutionaries. I didn't say that the British did it;
I said that I've read that he (AGK's son) said they did it.
hippo
"a.spencer3" wrote in message
> William Black wrote in message
> > Read about The Indian Mutiny.
> >
> >
> Rather different, wasn't it?
>
> Only an extremely small proportion of Indians involved, within a
relatively
> small area. The eventual relieving armies were largely Indian troops
> themselves, and faced 'only' odds of between 10 & 20 to 1 (against quite
> well trained and armed mutineers - their failure was due to the absence of
> trained officers)!
> And, I believe, only one Maxim was involved in the whole shooting match.
>
> Surreyman
Ah, you are an historian first and humanist second. Nice touch the one gun.
I often wonder the mess the subcontinent would be in today if it had never
been pacified and unified by The Company and Britain. We'd probably be
wringing our hands about the treatment of women, the caste system, and the
frightful loss of life in inter-tribal warfare. -the Troll