An Imperial Paradox

Winston Churchill loved India but hated Indians, a seemingly anomalous stance which is all too common among imperialists, who tend to disdain inhabitants of coveted lands. It’s worth asking how these divergent strands of Churchill’s thought – his desire to keep India under British rule and his extreme distaste for the real people who lived in that country – coexisted.


In opposition to granting India independence, Churchill once famously declared that “I have not become the King’s First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire.” Yet virtually everything Churchill said about India demonstrates that for him those who lived in India were, quite frankly, beneath contempt.


“I hate Indians,” Churchill once said, “They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” On another occasion Churchill said that Indians were “the beastliest people in the world, next to the Germans.”


Hindus, Churchill thought, were a “foul race protected by their pollution from the doom that is their due.” (This attitude, common enough among the British ruling class, had far-reaching consequences: it led the rulers of the Raj to try and divide Hindus from Muslims, cultivate an Islamic elite as an alternative to the Indian National Congress, and ultimately to support the partition of the subcontinent along religious lines).


As historian Christopher Thorne noted in his masterful 1978 book Allies of a Kind, Churchill’s ethnic hubris had real consequences on policy, notably in the low priority that was given to famine relief in the 1940s (at least a million Indians starved to death during those years). Tales of hunger and misery in India were often occasions for Churchill and his cronies to make quips. On one occasion, urged to release food stocks to alleviate a famine, “Churchill responded with a telegram asking why Gandhi hadn’t died yet.”


Thorne’s summary of how Churchill’s government handled of Indian policy is worth quoting: “It was not simply that these affairs showed up a side of Churchill that was ignorant, ugly and at times vicious… or that they revealed something of the way in which Cherwell approached the sufferings of the coloured peoples he found so distasteful. The Cabinet as a whole, with obvious exceptions such as Bevin, were wont to discuss India’s problems, be they starvation, communal strife, or the country’s economic structure, in a manner which, as we have seen, Wavell for one found appalling in its insouciance.”  


Insouciance is a very good word, suggesting as it does a kind of aristocratic fecklessness.


The Churchill paradox – a desire to rule coupled with a contempt for those ruled, leading to irresponsible governance – is common to many different types of imperialists. Don’t we see something like this in our own time? Isn’t it the case that those who are most eager to extend American power in the Middle East are also the very people who are most contemptuous of living, breathing Muslims? (Mark Steyn and Norman Podhoretz come to mind as examples). And doesn’t this combination of a desire to exercise imperial power fused with a disdain for those ruled lead to a repeated advocacy of policies that are not just wrong-headed but actually feckless, irresponsible, and divorced from reality?


In this sense, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are right to see themselves as heirs to Churchill.

3 thoughts on “An Imperial Paradox

  1. An excellent analysis of Churchill’s antipathy towards Indians. However that callousness towards colonial subjects had a human cost that is measureable in terms of avoidable death (excess death, avoidable mortality, excess mortality, deaths that should not have happened).

    Avoidable death is the difference between the actual deaths in a country and the deaths expected for a decently governed, peaceful country with the same demographics.

    It can be estimated that avoidable deaths associated with the 2 centuries of British rule in India totalled 1.5 billion (see my books “Body Count” and “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History”). Indeed if one includes the British Raj Native States in this analysis the avoidable death toll increases to 1.8 billion.

    For a shocking photograph of victims of Britain’s and Churchill’s crimes in India see my essay “Media lying over Churchill’s crimes. British-Indian Holocaust”, Nov 18 2008, via link provided ).

    Churchill served in the British Army in India in the mid to late 1890s in which 7-10 million Indians starved to death in successive famines. However his major personal crime was the deliberate starving to death of 6-7 million Indians in the man-made Bengal Famine (Bengali Holocaust) in 1943-1945 – an immense atrocity that is not mentioned in Churchill’s 6 volume history “The Second World War” and indeed has been largely deleted from British history (see recent BBC broadcast on the Bengal Famine involving me, Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen and other scholars).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s