Churchill on Indians Gandhi and Islam (Churchill's Profound Insight, Prescience Regarding Islam)

Patriot's Forum ^ | May 14, 2013 | Staff

[lbryce]

Winston Churchil Disliked Indians particularly Gandhi . His most famous quote on Gandhi reveals his bias :

It was while addressing the Council of the West Essex Unionists on February 23, 1931, that Churchill remarked of how, to him and most likely to much of his audience, it “was alarming 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 Viceregal Palace, while he is still organising and conducting a defiant campaign of civil disobedience, to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor.”

Indians and Gandhi

In Churchill’s opinion, the Viceroy’s agreeing to speak to Gandhi involved a serious loss of face for the British in India. As he put it: “It is never possible to make concessions to Orientals when they think you are weak or afraid of them.” In his view, Irwin was too apologetic, too conciliatory in his manner and method, whereas British rule had always rested on assertion and the show of strong authority. And Gandhi took full advantage of this. Speaking at the Constitutional Club on March 26, 1931, Churchill observed that “Gandhi, with deep knowledge of the Indian peoples, by the dress he wore — or did not wear, by the way in which his food was brought to him at the Viceregal Palace, deliberately insulted, in a manner which he knew everyone in India would appreciate, the majesty of the King’s representative. These are not trifles in the East. Thereby our power to maintain peace and order among the immense masses of India has been sensibly impaired.”

Churchil’s Views On Islam :islamic terror This is amazing. Even more amazing is that this hasn’t been published long before now.CHURCHILL ON ISLAM

Unbelievable, but the speech below was written in 1899… (check Wikipedia – The River War).The attached short speech from Winston Churchill, was delivered by him in 1899 when he was a young soldier and journalist. It probably sets out the current views of many, but expresses in the wonderful Churchillian turn of phrase and use of the English language, of which he was a past master. Sir Winston Churchill was, without doubt, one of the greatest men of the late 19th and 20th centuries.He was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, a great war leader and British Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in his debt. He was a prophet in his own time. He died on 24th January 1965, at the grand old age of 90 and, after a lifetime of service to his country, was accorded a State funeral. HERE IS THE SPEECH:

“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. The effects are apparent in many countries, 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 Muslims may show splendid qualities, 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 proselytizing 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 civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome …”Sir Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol II, pages 248-250 London).Churchill saw it coming……

[lbryce]

Winston Churchill is a personal hero of mine, one of the greatest men of history who through his relentless indefatigability, I believe, was the single most influential person, force in the victory for the Allies in Europe.

I came across this post that shares his profound insight of India, Gandhi in particular, and of Islam. As related in the post, his views on Islam was profoundly insightful, prescient.

Wikipedia:The River War-(Churchill's Take On Islam)

[rktman]

Winston hit the nail on the head. I’ve read some of his thoughts on mu-slums before and he was “spot on”.

[sasportas]

With such forthright statements about Islam, is it any wonder that our Muslim in chief hates Churchill? Though the greatest statesman of the 20th century, sending his bust back to England.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Churchill was right about Islam, and wrong about Gandhi.

[allendale]

Now you know why Obama removed the bust of Churchill from the oval office. That symbolism was not lost on Islamic world he is trying to placate and to whom he bows.

[Pearls Before Swine]

To my mind, Winston was one of the greatest men of the 20th century.

In a perverse way, though, maybe that’s not so if you use the criterion of lasting influence. Churchill saw the threats of Germany earlier than almost anyone; he rallied Britain and the West. Yet, it seems he’s almost forgotten. Our very own “Bareback” sent back his bronze bust.

From another point of view, perhaps “great” is measured by lasting effect. Then we’d have to give Lenin a big plus, devil that he was. Maybe even Hitler, too—some of our policies, such as multiculturalism, seem to derive from an unreasoning “if Hitler was against them we have to buy into them unquestioningly and full throttle.”

Too bad, too sad.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

He recognized what I have been saying for quite a while: Gandhi and his disciples King and Mandela were not harbingers of love, peace and prosperity but the leaders of the first onslaught by the Third World against a spiritually sick and degenerate West. They were and their descendants are today being led and financed by members of the Magian Civilization.(See Spengler)

Gandhi had the brilliant realization that the Eastern part of the Third World could never defeat the West through armed confrontation. (Witness the hapless Japanese who took on the West violently in WWII!)But he recognized that the West no longer had the spiritual strength and wallowed in the mire of pity for the little people. He exploited that. Most of you cannot remember the news reels of the late 1940's showing millions of Moslems being displaced from India as a direct result of the combination of Gandhi's cleverness and British weakness. I saw the news reels.

The psychological attack by Gandhi, Mandela and King against the West has and is working. The Third World has placed one of its members in the chief magistracy of the United States and is busily transferring Western wealth to "His People."

There have been and are those of our own people who have helped the Third World conquest; i.e. Earl Warren, Eisenhower and Kennedy. They did not think they were helping a conquest but that is the result of their "liberalism." In addition I'm sure they thought they would garner blocs of votes. Kennedy did the Republicans failed.

[knarf]

It wasn't that long ago that uncommonly common men spoke English.

"The effects are apparent in many countries,
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."

[ZULU]

He's no hero of mine

“It is never possible to make concessions to Orientals when they think you are weak or afraid of them.”

“It is never possible to make concessions to colonials when they think you are weak or afraid of them.”

Churchill's analysis the Muslim Menace and the Communist Menace is right on.

But Churchill is the same guy who supported the Brits in the war with the Boers. He's the same guy who thought Anglo-Saxons were, like Germans, some inherent type of sub-human. Churchill is the guy who worked with FDR to get us involved in WW1 (When asked how many Americans he would like to help the Brits in France, he said just one. And that he would put him in a spot where he was certain to be shot).

In short Churchill REEKS of the kind of Imperalist British Bombast which created problems for us in 1776 and 1812 and, almost, in 1861 - 1862.

The Brits were our cultural forebearers until we split from them - thankfully - in 1783. Some time before then they started drifting off in another direction politically.

[ZULU]

Bingo

[nathanbedford]

To my mind Churchill was the greatest man of the 20th century. In addition to longevity of his effect on history, one must also judge the man on the quality of his contribution.

In addition to Churchill's early recognition of the danger to Western civilization presented by Adolf Hitler, Churchill was also early in his recognition and opposition to the Bolsheviks. Indeed, Churchill was called a warmonger all his life and not for the first time-nor for the last time-that occurred when he sent British soldiers to fight the Bolsheviks at the conclusion of World War I and stood isolated and alone against the cabinet in support of the White Russians.

We now recognize Churchill's Iron Curtain speech to be a watershed moment in the history of the Cold War but we must understand the moral courage required for Churchill to make that speech. He was roundly criticized on both sides of the Atlantic as the apologists for Stalin moved into high gear to discredit Churchill and those who would oppose Stalin's ambitions in Europe. The Western world was quite prepared to shoot the messenger.

We must recognize Churchill to have been a staunch fighter against socialism even though in his early parliamentary career he led what we Americans would recognize to be "progressive" reforms in such matters as child labor etc.

He was clearly a Renaissance man of many parts. He won the Nobel Prize for literature not just for his account of World War II but for his speeches. He wrote hundreds of articles and scores of books virtually all of which have stood the test time and many of which remain in print and widely sold today.

It is difficult to assess the scope of Churchill's intellect but clearly he bordered on the genius. He was able to write histories of the English-speaking peoples and organize the sweep of history in his head and he was able to "mobilize the English language and hurl it into battle" when he needed to in 1940. After a stroke, he tested his mental acuity by reciting hundreds of lines of Macauley.

His contributions to the British Empire were enormous even if one discounts entirely his monumental role in the Second World War. He was not alone in having the vision to see the problem of stalemate on the Western front in World War I but he strove in as many ways as his genius could contrive to break through that stalemate. To that drive and genius we owe the tank, for example. We also, of course, can trace the disaster of the Dardanelles to Churchill's determination to find a way out of the slaughter of the trenches. Incidentally, he was exonerated by the board of inquiry for the failure of the Dardanelles. Churchill was instrumental in bringing the British Navy to a stage of readiness for World War I. Kitchener was correct when he said to Churchill to cheer him up after Churchill was cashiered for the Dardanelles, "the Navy was ready, at least they will be able to take that away from you." Churchill was early to recognize the potential of air power and, characteristically alone, forced through the naval air arm prior to World War I. He had a great strategic sense and was relied upon by his own prime minister and by the French for a correct assessment of the battle situation. For example, Churchill was able to reassure Prime Minister Lord George that the German offensives of 1918 would eventually peter out, which they did. Churchill had a sense for the flow of battle.

After the war he was instrumental with TE Lawrence of Arabia in the structuring of the Middle East and the securing of Israel as a Jewish homeland.

All of these things are recited to demonstrate the scope and vision of the man even before it was called upon to save Western civilization. It does not seem necessary to recount his contribution to the Allied war effort in World War II nor his prescience in forecasting that war and the way it could be won. Nor does it seem necessary to recount his amazing adventures in Afghanistan, Sudan at the battle of Khartoum, or in South Africa when he was captured by the Boers only to escape and serve with great distinction in subsequent battles just as he subsequently would in the trenches in World War 1.

At the beginning of The Second World War Churchill wrote a memorandum to the effect that subordinates and officers should expect to receive instructions from him in writing. If one reads his monumental history of the second world war one reads time and again Churchill's contemporaneous writings. Churchill once said that he did not fear history because he intended to write it but in many cases he wrote it as it happened and he should be judged by history with the highest regard on account of that.

Finally, as the psychiatrist said about his wife, if you want to find a greater man of the 20th century you must answer the question, compared to whom?

[VRW Conspirator]

Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

The "paralyzed" are the grass. The "splendid" are the snakes.

[nathanbedford]

Churchill is to be admired for the very same reasons he is despised by Obama. Churchill never conceded that the British Empire was an unmixed curse to the subjects of the Empire.

Beginning in the 1960s and for the next half-century it has been politically correct to deplore the British Empire. I believe that history will revise this assessment and ultimately emerge from the swamps of political correctness. Churchill was right, the British Empire on balance was a factor for good. It policed the seas and put a stop to the slave trade. It provided honest administration to a world that existed on "baksheesh." It served as a model for the rule of law to a world that existed under the rule of man. It served as a model of fair dealings to a world that had no conception of fairness but only of might. The English brought their subjects another precious gift, their language.

One wrong does not justify another but it is instructive to compare the English colonies to those of their European neighbors and the English fare rather well by the comparison. If one compares the English colonies to those of Portugal, Japan, and especially Belgium, the British acted as paragons of enlightenment.

We would do well to remember that the American Revolution was predicated on the notion that we were not being treated as Englishman were entitled to be treated.

If you lived in South Africa would you prefer to be governed as part of the British Empire or as it exists today? If you live in Africa would you prefer to be ruled by Winston Churchill and his successors or by Barack Obama Senior?

[cyn]

bflr - thanks for posting

[x]

He recognized what I have been saying for quite a while: Gandhi and his disciples King and Mandela were not harbingers of love, peace and prosperity but the leaders of the first onslaught by the Third World against a spiritually sick and degenerate West.

Or they were neither angels nor demons but political figures with specific political goals.

They were and their descendants are today being led and financed by members of the Magian Civilization.

Hmmm ... Who are they?

Gandhi had the brilliant realization that the Eastern part of the Third World could never defeat the West through armed confrontation. (Witness the hapless Japanese who took on the West violently in WWII!)

Hapless indeed. It may be politically incorrect to say so, but if there were as many Japanese as Americans, they may have become our overlords. They certainly fought hard enough.

Most of you cannot remember the news reels of the late 1940's showing millions of Moslems being displaced from India as a direct result of the combination of Gandhi's cleverness and British weakness.

Must have been very clever. By every account I've seen Gandhi opposed the partition and ethnic cleansing.

We don't have to see Gandhi as a saint to recognize that the old empires were breaking up, and it was probably better to see them dissolved through non-violence than through violence.

Comparing India (with all its problems) to, say, Algeria, suggests that Gandhi may not have been entirely wrong or destructive.

As for Churchill, he was more articulate and held more power than those of other Britons of his day, but his views were very similar to the prevalent opinions of his day.

Don't get Winston started about the rarely admirable qualities of mongrels, though.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

I think you are correct. The Imperial British had the characteristic of all great people and that was being exclusive. They, as were all great peoples, not always warm and fuzzy. But as you said they were much better than the “Shahs,” and “Bashahs” they replaced. The Romans in the heyday of the Republic were exclusive as the devil yet gave such good government that peoples would submit their internal disputes to the Roman Senate for resolution. The British in their Imperial days conquered but then administered the conquered in a first rate fashion. They had their stupidities in governance such as the way they handled the Americans just before our Revolution but in the main governed well. I love America and respect the British.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

For an adequate description of Magian Civilization see Oswald Spengler-read his entire work.

[James C. Bennett]

Why Churchill had an aversion to India

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-10-03/book-mark/28261705_1_winston-churchill-greatest-briton-boer-war

For more than 45 years, the Winston Churchill book industry has purred along smoothly, cosseted by western biographers in thrall of a man described as the most important statesman of the 20th century. In a 2002 BBC poll, Winston Churchill was voted the “Greatest Briton of All Time”, ahead of Shakespeare, Darwin and Newton.

Richard Toye’s new biography, “Churchill’s Empire: The World That Made Him and The World He Made” sets his life and politics in a modern context. Previous biographers of Churchill such as William Manchester (”The Caged Lion”) tip-toed around their subject. The occasional attempt to uncover Churchill’s racism, especially his contempt for Mahatma Gandhi, dissolved quickly into platitudes that justified Empire as a force for good.

Churchill’s racism, Toye suggests, was acceptable in the early 1900s because almost all white people held racist views at the time. This sophistry is the principal reason why this biography, so promising in precept, fails in practice. Churchill’s dysfunctional family forged his attitude to race, imperialism and war. His father, Lord Randolph Churchill, briefly Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, “actually loathed Winston”, wrote Manchester. His mother, a beautiful American named Jennie Jerome, “devoted most of her time to sexual intrigue, slipping between the sheets with handsome, powerful men in Britain, in the United States, and on the Continent. Her husband was in no position to object. He was an incurable syphilitic.”

A father who loathes you and a mother who embarrasses you (one of her lovers was the Prince of Wales) are not a recipe for a happy childhood and Winston’s was not. He went to Harrow, came last in class, flunked Oxford and Cambridge and was packed off to Sandhurst as a consolation prize. Churchill’s lack of a university education nagged him throughout his adult life and he acquired many affectations to disguise it.

Churchill arrived in India in 1895, aged 20. He spent his time in Bangalore reading Plato, Aristotle, Gibbon, Macaulay and Schopenhauer, honing his skill with words and ideas. They were to serve him well in later years. Churchill inveigled the Prince of Wales to get him plum war reporting assignments. By 1899, he was in South Africa, covering the Boer war. He was imprisoned, escaped heroically and became nationally famous at 24. He was elected to parliament and, by 33, was a cabinet minister. It would take him, despite ambition and single-mindedness, another 32 years to become prime minister.

Toye acknowledges Churchill’s pathological aversion to India and how he wished Partition upon the subcontinent. “The mere mention of India,” he writes, “brought out a streak of unpleasantness or even irrationality in Churchill. In March 1943, R A Butler, the education minister, visited him at Chequers. The prime minister ‘launched into a most terrible attack on the ‘baboos’, saying that they were gross, dirty and corrupt. He even declared that he wanted the British to leave India, and – this was a more serious remark – that he supported the principle of Pakistan. When Butler argued that the Raj had always stood for Indian unity, Churchill replied, ‘Well, if our poor troops have to be kept in a sweltering, syphilitic climate for the sake of your precious unity, I’d rather see them have a good civil war.’ “

Toye devotes less than three pages to Churchill’s malign role in the Great Bengal Famine of 1943-44. Britain’s plunder of India is dispensed with equally briskly: “One factor that increased Churchill’s resentment towards India was the issue of the sterling balances. These were British debts chalked up in London in exchange for goods and services required for the war effort. These grew, in total, from £1,299 million in December 1941 to £3,355 million in June 1945, of which around one-third was owed to India. From one perspective, this was very good news for the UK. She was, in effect, extracting an enormous forced loan which she was unlikely to have to repay in the near future.”

Globally, reviewers have called this biography “revisionist”. It is not. It exposes Churchill’s warts

but, often in the same paragraph, presents a contextual justification for them.

The concluding lines of Toye’s book reveal where his sympathies lie: “The decline of Churchill’s Empire, much as the man himself regretted it, can be seen in part as a tribute to the power of beliefs that he himself prized dearly.”

It is a disappointing end to a biography that sets out to critically re-examine Churchill but fails the final test, unheroically, like Churchill himself.

[ZULU]

Most interesting. Thank you for that information.

[Cronos]

Churchill didn't realise that British rule over India was precisely because they did not implement force and get the entire continent of India united against them

British "rule" was actually rule by various sovereigns with the British as the benign overlords.

They treated their subjects well and there was no sense of being "others" - that is why former british colonies have a love-hate but generally ok relationship with their former colonizers -- as opposed to ex-French or Belgian or Dutch colonies which just hate the former colonizers.