WINSTON CHURCHILL, THE EVIL SOUL OF THE BRITISH RAJ
Expose Churchill and the evil that he and the British Raj was to stop the British from preaching high morality and civilisation in the name of their vaunted Empire. Their Empire was the leech that sucked out 45 trillion dollars' worth of India's resources besides the destruction to our economy and human resource that it unleashed that reduced India's share of the world GDP from its erstwhile 22% in 1800 to the 1.7% in 1900. Lives by the tens of millions were lost to the Indians due to famine, misgovernance and sheer atrocity and infliction of death on them by the British who stole, plundered and with clinical efficiency laid waste the indigenous economic and social system surrounding it, besides ruthlessly misruling the land and its inhabitants, denying them dignity and freedom to fashion their national evolution their own way.
The barbarism of the British in the West Indies, in Africa and in the Middle East was nothing compared to what they subjected us, Indians, to over centuries, for while the former was horrific in real terms, it was nothing in quantum compared to what India had to endure in the entirety of the holocaust unleashed on her by the British that eventually precipitated the horrendous Partition and its consequential after-effects.
The Great Bengal Famine of 1770 cost her 7 million lives and the Great Bengal Famine of 1943 cost her another 5 million lives, the latter in the researched opinion of Satayajit Ray, an estimate which is being these days contested and is being reduced to variably as 4.3 million (courtesy, Shashi Tharoor) and 3.4 million (courtesy, Madhusree Mukerjee). Whatever it be, the losses in these two famines was no less that 10 million and no more than 12 million lives of innocent Bengalis who were starved to death by dastardly British policy.
Hitler is held culpable to the offence of the Jewish holocaust which took away 6 million Jewish lives out of their then population of 6.6 million on earth. This mass annihilation programme of an entire human population has no parallels in the annals of history and everybody denounces it in no uncertain terms whenever the occasion arises, no less the Jews who do likewise in this regard by keeping the issue alive every day that passes such that the world will never be allowed to let its memory sink in the thoroughfare of everyday life. But Churchill's like crime against the Bengalis in 1943 find not even a mention anywhere in the world at any international forum and decades have passed hailing this evil man of dastardly desires, dreams and deeds as a messiah of men when all that he was was the very personification of imperial evil at its worst which is why, perhaps, he was historically at the helm of British imperial designs, of the Empire which has been the most evil in human history and which crowned its most malicious representative as its select knight of the order.
Stalin starved to death 7 million Ukranians during his collectivisation programme, sealing off the state's borders to prevent migration to other states for food. Such a horrendous crime against humanity has converted Stalin in the eyes of the world as the Devil personified just like his German sibling Hitler who has been dubbed by the Anglo-Americans as the Anti Christ. But Churchill for a like crime against the Bengalis is yet hailed as the saviour of the world from Nazi domination, although, to set things historically right, the Soviet contribution to Hitler's eventual defeat in World War II was immeasurably more than that of the British. Hence, if this latter criterion is to be the benchmark for judging the relative virtues of these pivotal personalities of history, Stalin would leave Churchill way behind in the race. But he is evidently denied that status for his evil doings otherwise, and rightly so. So, why should Churchill escape a like retribution in historical analysis and estimation thereof when the evil that he did to Bengal glares even today in the memory of old-timers? Why should the world be silent on this man-made catastrophe of epic proportions, this mass genocide of an entire population when the means to save them were there but denied by this evil man who contemptuously held the Bengalis as rats fit to die for they would breed again at any rate to their former numerical strength in due course of time? Why are we Bengalis not daily vocal about this dastardly crime and the entire dastardly force of the British Raj that stood behind him to precipitate this human holocaust?
Remember 1943 was not an year of drought or any natural calamity that had reduced crop production to a nullity. It was an year of plentiful rain and agricultural yield. So, why did the Bengalis starve and perish to the tune of 5 million? It was Churchill's doing entirely. He diverted the bumper Bengal crops to Europe to save them for the Allied soldiers as security stock against prospective German invasion therein, and he diverted them to his homeland Britain to feed His Majesty's subjects there when they were already getting their supply of rationed food. And Churchill did not allow ships from Australia to unload their relief supply of food grains at Bengal's ports, did not let Burmese rice to reach Bengal and adopted every measure to see to it that Bengal starved to weaken so that it would never raise its voice again against the Raj.
There could also have been one more reason for Churchill's denial of food to Bengal in that contentious year of World War II. And it was the Indian National Army's advance in alliance with the Japanese Army which would in all probability choose the most convenient route through Chittagong into India. To prevent this, Churchill followed a variation of the scorched earth policy whereby in the total absence of available food, the invading forces would be compelled to choose the more arduous route of mountainous Manipur into India which the British forces would be better able to defend. So, the crops of Bengal had to be collected and shipped elsewhere in the world, letting Bengal pay the price for such British military manoeuvring and millions starve to death in consequence. But was this necessary after all? Was it justifiable at any rate, by any principle of civilised warfare? Churchill's ghost will answer in future lives but the British must answer now.
This was Winston Churchill, pride of England even today but incarnate Devil who only the British could have given birth to and bred to the fullness of evil that he became. Now judgement is yours, my Lord !
Written by Sugata Bose
Expose Churchill and the evil that he and the British Raj was to stop the British from preaching high morality and civilisation in the name of their vaunted Empire. Their Empire was the leech that sucked out 45 trillion dollars' worth of India's resources besides the destruction to our economy and human resource that it unleashed that reduced India's share of the world GDP from its erstwhile 22% in 1800 to the 1.7% in 1900. Lives by the tens of millions were lost to the Indians due to famine, misgovernance and sheer atrocity and infliction of death on them by the British who stole, plundered and with clinical efficiency laid waste the indigenous economic and social system surrounding it, besides ruthlessly misruling the land and its inhabitants, denying them dignity and freedom to fashion their national evolution their own way.
The barbarism of the British in the West Indies, in Africa and in the Middle East was nothing compared to what they subjected us, Indians, to over centuries, for while the former was horrific in real terms, it was nothing in quantum compared to what India had to endure in the entirety of the holocaust unleashed on her by the British that eventually precipitated the horrendous Partition and its consequential after-effects.
The Great Bengal Famine of 1770 cost her 7 million lives and the Great Bengal Famine of 1943 cost her another 5 million lives, the latter in the researched opinion of Satayajit Ray, an estimate which is being these days contested and is being reduced to variably as 4.3 million (courtesy, Shashi Tharoor) and 3.4 million (courtesy, Madhusree Mukerjee). Whatever it be, the losses in these two famines was no less that 10 million and no more than 12 million lives of innocent Bengalis who were starved to death by dastardly British policy.
Hitler is held culpable to the offence of the Jewish holocaust which took away 6 million Jewish lives out of their then population of 6.6 million on earth. This mass annihilation programme of an entire human population has no parallels in the annals of history and everybody denounces it in no uncertain terms whenever the occasion arises, no less the Jews who do likewise in this regard by keeping the issue alive every day that passes such that the world will never be allowed to let its memory sink in the thoroughfare of everyday life. But Churchill's like crime against the Bengalis in 1943 find not even a mention anywhere in the world at any international forum and decades have passed hailing this evil man of dastardly desires, dreams and deeds as a messiah of men when all that he was was the very personification of imperial evil at its worst which is why, perhaps, he was historically at the helm of British imperial designs, of the Empire which has been the most evil in human history and which crowned its most malicious representative as its select knight of the order.
Stalin starved to death 7 million Ukranians during his collectivisation programme, sealing off the state's borders to prevent migration to other states for food. Such a horrendous crime against humanity has converted Stalin in the eyes of the world as the Devil personified just like his German sibling Hitler who has been dubbed by the Anglo-Americans as the Anti Christ. But Churchill for a like crime against the Bengalis is yet hailed as the saviour of the world from Nazi domination, although, to set things historically right, the Soviet contribution to Hitler's eventual defeat in World War II was immeasurably more than that of the British. Hence, if this latter criterion is to be the benchmark for judging the relative virtues of these pivotal personalities of history, Stalin would leave Churchill way behind in the race. But he is evidently denied that status for his evil doings otherwise, and rightly so. So, why should Churchill escape a like retribution in historical analysis and estimation thereof when the evil that he did to Bengal glares even today in the memory of old-timers? Why should the world be silent on this man-made catastrophe of epic proportions, this mass genocide of an entire population when the means to save them were there but denied by this evil man who contemptuously held the Bengalis as rats fit to die for they would breed again at any rate to their former numerical strength in due course of time? Why are we Bengalis not daily vocal about this dastardly crime and the entire dastardly force of the British Raj that stood behind him to precipitate this human holocaust?
Remember 1943 was not an year of drought or any natural calamity that had reduced crop production to a nullity. It was an year of plentiful rain and agricultural yield. So, why did the Bengalis starve and perish to the tune of 5 million? It was Churchill's doing entirely. He diverted the bumper Bengal crops to Europe to save them for the Allied soldiers as security stock against prospective German invasion therein, and he diverted them to his homeland Britain to feed His Majesty's subjects there when they were already getting their supply of rationed food. And Churchill did not allow ships from Australia to unload their relief supply of food grains at Bengal's ports, did not let Burmese rice to reach Bengal and adopted every measure to see to it that Bengal starved to weaken so that it would never raise its voice again against the Raj.
There could also have been one more reason for Churchill's denial of food to Bengal in that contentious year of World War II. And it was the Indian National Army's advance in alliance with the Japanese Army which would in all probability choose the most convenient route through Chittagong into India. To prevent this, Churchill followed a variation of the scorched earth policy whereby in the total absence of available food, the invading forces would be compelled to choose the more arduous route of mountainous Manipur into India which the British forces would be better able to defend. So, the crops of Bengal had to be collected and shipped elsewhere in the world, letting Bengal pay the price for such British military manoeuvring and millions starve to death in consequence. But was this necessary after all? Was it justifiable at any rate, by any principle of civilised warfare? Churchill's ghost will answer in future lives but the British must answer now.
This was Winston Churchill, pride of England even today but incarnate Devil who only the British could have given birth to and bred to the fullness of evil that he became. Now judgement is yours, my Lord !
Written by Sugata Bose
No comments:
Post a Comment