For those of you, who are fans of Sir Winston Churchill's oratory and literary prowess, here's a short clip of his message to the nation during the second world war.

winner of the Nobel prize in literature in 1953 A.D., Churchill was the PM of UK during the second world war. on a personal note, i am a great fan of the leadership ability and the literary aptitude that this "arguably the greatest ever briton" had.

Here are two of my favorite quotes from Churchill.

"I have nothing to offer, but blood, toil, sweat and tears."

"An optimist sees an opportunity in every calamity; a pessimist sees a calmity in every opportunity"




Loote

I guess that's what I saw in some people out here in sajha: calmity in every opportunity

Loote -

Thanks for the posting. Churchill is a fascinating character no doubt. I thought I'd share a few more links that might be of interest - some of these are postive, others are not so postive - :)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Indian self rule and independence

- http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=354


That brings us back to Churchill, who had a confrontation of sorts with Gandhi. Churchill was an opponent of Home Rule for India, and Gandhi was the leader of the movement that won Home Rule. Churchill's views on this matter are not today well-known. His opinion was that the people of India were entitled to self-government. He had said years earlier, in a speech in honor of the Fourth of July, that the British Empire must stand for the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Equally, he believed that the people of India were incapable of self-government at the time. India was not so much a country, as he put it, as a "geographic expression." It was divided among peoples of different tribes, languages, and religions, some of whom meant violence upon others. He predicted that Home Rule or independence would mean a civil war and massive casualties. Moreover, Churchill's views continued, Britain carried a responsibility in India. Partly by accident, partly by policy, it had come to exercise sovereignty there, and because of its actions over many decades the population of India had greatly increased. Those people alive because of British rule could rightly blame Britain if they were subjected to violence or oppression.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other side of Churchill

http://www.mises.org/story/1450

With his lack of principles and scruples, Churchill was involved in one way or another in nearly every disaster that befell the 20th century. He helped destroy laissez-faire liberalism, he played a role in the Crash of 1929, he helped start WWI, and by bringing in America to help, prolonged the war and created the conditions for the rise of Nazism, prolonged WWII, laid the groundwork for Soviet domination, helped involve America in a cold war with Russia, and pioneered in the development of total war and undermining western civilized standards.

Chris Matthews described Churchill as the "man who save[d] the honor of the 20th century." Rather than this great accolade, Winston Churchill must be ranked with Karl Marx, Woodrow Wilson, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt as one of the destroyers of the values and greatness of Western civilization.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Churchill and the holocaust

- http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/genocide/churchill_holocaust_01.shtml

The Allied governments and their leaders have often been accused of failing to respond quickly enough to Nazi persecution of the Jews. In this article, Martin Gilbert focusses on the attempts made by Winston Churchill to respond to the crisis, both in private and as Britain's Prime Minister.

Woah! Something nice to read about! Never thought Loote could be interested in such topics. Thanks! :)

thanks.. loote and orion...

Every coin has two sides. Even God has two faces. One that saves and one that destryos. Nature has two sides...day and night...beauty and ugliness...there is a long list...The only thing of importance is- " which side of the coin has more brightness"...so every human being and every leader will have some good points and some bad points. If the number of good points are greater, he is great and friend of human kind.

For me, when I sit alone and analyze myself...I feel I have equal number of good and bad points :)...however, it is very hard to analyze oneself...

floppy ji,
what were you thinking my interestes would be on ? :P.

thanks a lot Orion for the references.

i totally agree with Churchill regarding his opninion on the independence of india. in my view, he was way more visonary than Gandhi. Gandhi fought a single ended war against the British and did not realise its repurcussion as Winston correctly pointed out the result of independence to a socially, religiously, culturally and lingually varying-India. India and Paklistan are still fighting and it seems immortal as of today.

as for the rescue of jews against the nazis during holocaust is concerned, i think he had a clear stance on that and stood everyway possible for the permanent respite for the poor jews.

the bondage with communist leaders with the likes of Stalin et. al. is understandable in my view. he was a warrior and he wanted to expand his empire, no doubt. it might be his policy to inject a balance in the power shedding process between europe, america and soviet union. americans would not welcome it, no wonder :).

Amidst all these, one thing i admire about him is the oratory and literary skills that he possessed which helped him a great deal to rule and make a point on the evolving issues of his era.

Loote

Wartime cabinet documents discovered only in 2006 about Churchill indicates that Churchill wanted Gandhi to die in jail similarly he wanted Hitler to be executed in electric chair if the Nazi dictator were ever to be captured by the British. However, since Britain didnt have any electric chair he suggested that an electric chair be borrowed and brought from the United States.

So the question is, why can't people see the ongoing revolution as an opportunity?

History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.

And indeed, he did.

Au contraire, it seems Gandhi turned out to be more right on India than Churchill. Going by Churchill's logic, India would probably still be under the Raj!

Anyway, another very interesting article with the famous "half-naked fakir" comment about Gandhi:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/churchill.htm


"It is alarming and also nauseating 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 organizing and conducting a defiant campaign of civil disobedience, to parley on equal terms with the representative of the king-emperor."

- Winston Churchill, 1930

For Gandhi, simplicity was the way of life. When the British invited Gandhi for peace talks, Gandhi saw no particular reason to change his attire, which was same as millions of his fellow countrymen. Gandhi met with Lord Irvin with the advantage of having won a moral victory. "I have caused a great deal for trouble for your government. But as men, we can set aside our differences for welfare of the nation" he said to the immaculately dressed viceroy, on occasion of which Churchill is said to have made his infamous comments.

Churchill, who considered himself a true democrat constantly opposed granting freedom to India. In more ways than one, Gandhi was a much greater democrat, especially in believing in self-determination of people and the universal equality of mankind. Churchill was to be irritated further. The following year, Gandhi met face to face with Churchill during the Indian round table conference -- "...I have an alternative that is unpleasant to you" he told Churchill and his clan of imperialists. " India demands complete liberty and freedom...the same liberty that Englishmen enjoy... and I want India to become a partner in the Empire. I want to partner with the English people ... not merely for mutual benefit, but so that the great weight that is crushing the world to atoms may be lifted from its shoulders".

Winston Churchill loathed Gandhi. Gandhi loathed none.

Orion,

thanks for the reference. it was interesting.

gandhi and churchill were on a different league altogether so a comparison won't be fair enough, i guess.

it's quite evident that churchill wanted england to dominate over India and other colonies, so independence of india would not be a fair deal for him. gandhi fought a rather spiritual war with british and he was all out for independence and equality. in a way, both stood for thier own coutries, so both were patriotic.

what was interesting though was the rhetoric that Churchill presented about the repurcussion of indpendence for a country like india which is religiously, lingually, culturally and socially variant. he knew that it would be difficult for india to bind all of them together. as known, pakistan separated within a couple of years of indpendence.

interesting thing, currently, nepal is somewhat in a similar position as india was during the independence. if british ruled over india, monarchy ruled nepal. since cultural, social and lingual diversity are also commonplace in nepal, it would be interesting to see if nepal goes through the same situation as india and pakistan had to go through during partition.

with madishe, janajati and other castes and creeds voicing their opinion for equitable society, who knows nepal may have to undergo partiion in the future. just a thought. i hope i am completely wrong.


Loote

Loote -

Good to hear your viewpoint again. A couple of further thoughts:

"what was interesting though was the rhetoric that Churchill presented about the repercussion of indpendence for a country like india which is religiously, lingually, culturally and socially variant. he knew that it would be difficult for india to bind all of them together. as known, pakistan separated within a couple of years of indpendence"

India and Pakistan separated right at independence under the very noses of the British. To imply that Churchill's alternative of continued colonialism would have prevented them from splitting is not based on objective reasoning in my opinion. On the contrary you could argue that it was the "divide and rule" policy of the British that precipitated the pre-existing Hindu-Muslim divide. For example, the partition of Bengal happened under the British long before Indians ran their own affairs.

While the human cost of the partition was horrendous and truly tragic, India is a much more prosperous country today and along with China is emerging as a global power center so I don't see the partition as a failure at all. The Indian sub-continent was a loose collection of states to begin with that the British cobbled together into a colony and I doubt even Churchill would have been able to keep all of them together for ever.

Last point on Churchill, he definitely had a good side to him that people must give him credit for. But in order to develop a holistic picture of the man and what he meant to the world, one needs to look at his other side as well and there is plenty of hypocrisy and double standards there. Churchill, a darling of white conservatives in the the English-speaking world has been over-hyped in my opinion. When you let the facts speak for themselves you find that Churchill was right on plenty of things but wrong on a whole lot of others.

As for Nepal, I am quite optimistic that we can survive and prosper without monarchy. Nepal is still at the early stages of a period of enlightenment that all societies go through in their history. The 1950 revolution and the two jana andolans have proved that Nepal has a matured polity and is far from a failed state. For the first time in the country's 250 year history people in villages are demanding equality and dignity. People whose voices were silenced for years are speaking up. People are questioning their leaders. All these to me look like signs of a strong and enlightened society developing over the course of time.

Orion,
not only i respect your opinion, but my views tend to accord with it to a great extent.

I, for one, am all up for INDPENDENCE. if i were born at around the period of India's indpendence, then i would have most probably opted for the path which Gandhi suggested and followed. and i don't deny the fact that it was india's freedom from british rule that made them stand, where they actually are standing currently. they have easily second or third best economy in the world, and they deserve it. Bravo!

I don't know whether india would have gone for partitioning though, if they were not officially independent. but that does not justify for not going for independence. I would say, it was poor leadership during that time, that led towards partitioning. Gandhi was way way too liberal for the giveaway.

The reason why i brought Nepal's situation in the context is due to the very fact that india went through similar situation during partition. responsibilty and visonary approach are as much integral and necessary as democracy is for a country. if nepal does not take it responsibly, then we may have to go through similar catastrophe. God forbids!

Churchill dual shades cannot be denied. he was born in a rather controversial phase in the history of world when a sage like gandhi had to be murdered. so i don't object you in pointing out the grey and black shades of Churchill. but he is one of a kind in the history of world politics. having won the nobel prize in literature, he was not too far away from bagging up another nobel prize for peace due to his stance and support for the deported jews during holocaust. he is, and will remain an eminent historical figure for many years to come.

Loote