Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Understanding Churchill’s finest hour

By Amit Roy

INDIANS have reservations about Winston Churchill because of his hostility to the whole idea of Indian independence, his ir­rational hatred for Mahatma Gandhi and his alleged com­plicity in aggravating the effects of the Bengal famine of 1943-44, in which an estimated three million people died.


Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II by Madhusree Mukerjee is defi­nitely worth reading.

But it also important for Indi­ans living in this country to un­derstand why Churchill, consid­ered by many to be the greatest Briton of all time, occupies a unique place in British history.

That he was a flawed hero is made clear in The Darkest Hour, which was shown by the BBC last week, with Gary Oldman as Churchill turning in a perfor­mance which justly won him an Oscar in 2018.

The 2017 film, directed by Joe Wright, who was married to si­tar maestro Pandit Ravi Shankar’s daughter Anoushka Shankar from 2010-2018, does refer fleetingly to Churchill’s warped view of India.

When he succeeds Neville Chamberlain as prime minister on May 10, 1940, as Hitler’s forc­es are sweeping across Europe, King George VI makes it clear Churchill is not his choice: “Why have I been forced to send for Churchill?”

The monarch protests: “His record is a litany of catastrophe: Gallipoli, 25,00 dead; the Indian policy; the Russian civil war; the Gold standard; the abdica­tion; and now this Norway ad­venture, 1,800 men….Winston lacks judgement.”

The film depicts how, against all the odds, Churchill heroical­ly manages to turn it round. Had Britain not won the war against Hitler, Indians probably would not have emigrated to these shores seeking a better life.

More For You

Reeves tax plan

Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves

Reeves faces calls to resign over tax plan

IF ONLY voters had listened to Rishi Sunak last year, the economy would today have been in a much healthier state. Inflation was about two per cent when he was oust­ed from office. As chancellor, Rachel Reeves has managed to double that.

The Daily Telegraph wants Reeves to re­sign, allegedly because she misled the coun­try. She claimed the economy faced a black hole of £20–30 billion, but it has now emerged that Richard Hughes, chair of the indepen­dent Office for Budget Responsibility, told Reeves that “at no point” she faced a shortfall of more than £2.5bn. Hughes also confirmed that on October 31, the OBR upgraded its forecasts and told the chancellor that she, in fact, had a £4.2bn surplus. In other words, she stands accused of lying in order to justify her decision to raise taxes by £26bn.

Keep ReadingShow less