“Rascals, Rogues and Freebooters”: Churchill and India
“Rascals, Rogues and Freebooters”
“Power will go to the hands of rascals, rogues, freebooters; all Indian leaders will be of low calibre & men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight amongst themselves for power and India will be lost in political squabbles.”
The statement above is attributed to Churchill. I cannot find it, as a speech or in a book. Although it is widely and increasingly quoted in the Indian press and, given what is happening, he seems to have been prophetic! —K.P., India
This post has the distinction of engendering the most comment among the 500 on my website. I found no references in his 20 million word canon to “rascals, rogues or freebooters” or “low calibre.” However, he did refer to the Congress leaders as “men of straw” on 6 March 1947, in condemning their rush toward independence before borders of a subdivided subcontinent were resolved. (See my quotations book, Churchill by Himself, Chapter 11, Nations…India.)
“Genuinely sympathetic…”
Churchill was more nuanced about India than is commonly understood. For instance, he defended the Indian minority in South Africa when he was at the Colonial Office in 1906. This left Gandhi quite favorably disposed toward him. In 1935, Churchill, who had softened his view of the Mahatma, sent this message to Gandhi:
I do not care whether you are more or less loyal to Great Britain. I do not mind about education, but give the masses more butter…. Tell Mr. Gandhi to use the powers that are offered and make the thing a success…. I am genuinely sympathetic towards India. I have got real fears about the future… But you have got the things now; make a success and if you do I will advocate your getting much more.
Gandhi, Birla, Nehru
Churchill wrote this to Ghanshyam Das Birla, a Gandhi supporter who had lunched with Churchill at Chartwell. Birla repeated the conversation. Gandhi replied: “I have got a good recollection of Mr. Churchill when he was in the Colonial Office and somehow or other since then I have held the opinion that I can always rely on his sympathy and goodwill.” A Hindu nationalist assassinated Gandhi on 30 January 1948. Churchill issued a statement the same day, expressing his shock at “this wicked crime.”
Part of Churchill’s changing views toward Gandhi in 1935 was prompted by Gandhi’s (and Birla’s) defense of the Dalit, or Untouchables. Remember also that twenty years later, Churchill became quite friendly with Nehru, whom he thought no rascal, partly because they were both Harrow Old Boys. To Eden’s private secretary Evelyn Shuckburgh, WSC wrote in 1955:
I have worked very hard with Nehru. I told him he should be the light of Asia, to show all those millions how they can shine out, instead of accepting the darkness of Communism.
Arthur Herman’s 2008 book Gandhi and Churchill is a brilliant piece of writing that is fair and balanced toward both leaders, and effectively captures their mutual generosity of soul. The sins of politicians aside, Churchill would be as proud as Gandhi over the democracy that is modern India.
2017:
Republished with reader comments, below. This post has drawn the most comments of any on this website.
48 thoughts on ““Rascals, Rogues and Freebooters”: Churchill and India”
I would reply to Partaha Sarathi (below) that Winston Churchill was genuinely concerned about India and hence said what he said. Seeing the present day politics he was correct. Unholy political alliances, crony capitalism, land grabbing in the name of development, high on road inflation (please don’t consider the government’s declared inflation rate), Land mafia, poor law and order, rapes and murders on a daily basis…all these proves Churchill’s fears was well founded..
Thank you for the article.
I had the benefit of reading the questionable quote of Sir Winston Churchill and the comments of the learned writers. I am an octogenarian. I have seen India growing since independence. Except education for all and dignity of life for every Indian, India has achieved many things. Elections without education for all is like searching for the jewel in the mud.
I have authored two books related to the subject: (1) A Wake Up Call for Every Indian, based on the last address of Dr B.R. Ambedkar to the Constituent Assembly, 25 November 1949. (2) Sounds of Silences in India’s Constitution: Dangers Ahead (November 2020). What Dr. Ambedkar said was similar to what Sir Winston allegedly said. Their relevance is apparent in today’s politics in India. How we realize this for today and for generations to come depends upon how best we can teach politicians to run democracy by word and deed, not rhetoric. What many politicians have been showing to the people is a fool’s paradise. India’s unity since ancient times comes from traditions and culture that have survived. We have the strength to make a great country if we stand up to the truth.
–
Thank-you. And not just in India. —RML
(Reply to message below) “From an area constantly under the threat of droughts, Sir Arthur Cotton turned Tanjore, India, into one of the richest parts of the country via multiple engineering works such as dams and canals. Sir Arthur also founded a hydraulics school in Madras. His work prevented many famines.” (@legacy_of_UK)
Of course Churchill was biased towards India. He was biased toward Britons like Cotton, who left India better than they found it. He was biased toward the 2.5 million Indian volunteers who fought with Britain against the Axis. Churchill’s views are well explained in this post. His antipathy to the Congress hierarchy gave him a blind spot about approaching independence, yet somehow Gandhi thought well of him. (Find out why here). he would be as proud as anyone that India is today the world’s largest democracy—with a form of government derived from Britain’s. This is a complex subject that cannot be addressed by simplistic sloganeering. Nor is Indian opinion at all uniform on Churchill. Read the remarks of others below.
Churchill was baised towards India. He somewhere had the thought that India cannot administrate on own, yet as future has shown it’s the world’s largest democracy.
The way Indians are dealing with their differences is incredible. I do not know how the West perceives him but Indians see him as villian. Britons did not came to India to help it.They just looted and left, so they are on no better grounds and thought they were supreme but time changes and now power is shifting towards India and China. Churchill may be a respected figure for Brits but no Indian thinks so. I don’t know about today’s British, they may be sympathetic, but nothing can be done, so historically all Brits are considered evil because they took everything from Indians. It’s not specific to Churchill. Simple thing is that they had powerso exploited others no will like anyone who exploits him or her. Things are changing and young Indians have overcome their hatred but still they feel the pain of past wounds.
Thanks. That’s better sourcing than anyone has found so far. If the phrase was coined before 1973, perhaps someone will know.
Take a look at this publication “Hindu Regeneration, Volume 3” (1973) , seems like by Bharat Sevashram Sangha (a right wing Hindu org). The text reads:
“…this juncture is to hand over the destiny of hungry millions into the hands of rascals, rouges and freebooters. Not a bottle of water or a loaf of bread shall escape taxation; only the air will be free.” It is very similar to the miscredited Churchill line.
I am speculating that these quotes were generated by the right wing Hindutwa folks to malign the Congress Party, but it seems that have prophesied their current condition.
I think Churchill’s prediction about India is spot on. Indeed, the country is now ruled by Hindutvadi rascals, freebooters and rogues. The current PM of India is of a very low caliber. He is not even a high school graduate but with the help of his minions, uses PR machinery to create a successful larger than life image.
Have often thought that Churchill would be pleased to see how the India democracy evolved over the years since 1947, when it began at a fraught time.
Is the West any better? If people cannot see how India has progressed then they must be blind. See how democracy is doing the everywhere and then look at India, we are in much better position.
My brief is only to confirm what WSC really said, and perhaps draw lessons from it. Otherwise, debate away.
Whether Churchill said it or not doesn’t matter. It is the truth. The true face of India’s political class today.
Welcome to the club!
Even if Churchill didn’t say it, it is an apt comment for the present Indian political scene. It is polite to describe them as “rascals, rogues and freebooters.” In fact they deserve much worse.
Wonderful repartee back and forth. Some of the respondents are irrational nationalists; others were quite reasonable. Liked this: “While a dogged believer in the Empire, Churchill believed more fundamentally in constitutional liberty. The salient fact is not that Churchill shared certain views of his time about the Empire, but that Churchill believed ‘people of all colors should enjoy the same rights, and that it was the mission of his country, and the Empire while it lasted, to protect those rights.’ Well said. Churchill believed, rightly or wrongly, that the Britain provided order, peace, and security. He also recognized that free peoples would want to govern themselves. Today NATO has taken a similar role. Churchill knew that freedom and prosperity were impossible absent security and order.
Another soldier in the Onward March of Invincible Ignorance. 1) As Leader of the Opposition, Churchill instructed his party to vote for Indian independence. 2) Many of his remarks have been twisted out of context by people who won’t change their minds and won’t change the subject. 3) Last viceroy, not governor-general. 4) After partition, Churchill didn’t speak to Mountbatten for years. When Mountbatten asked why he said: “What you did in India was like striking me across the face.” 5) Mischiefs is a mild word for Mountbatten’s administration, and the premature exit before boundary questions were settled resulted in the deaths of millions. 6) Nehru was too clever a man to be brain-washed by anybody. By cleverly fanning Mountbatten’s antipathy toward Jinna and the Muslims, it was Nehru who did the brain-washing. 7) If the Axis had won the war Churchill would indeed have been declared a war criminal, and the Axis had quite different things in mind for India than the old British Raj. 8) More dangerous than Hitler and Tojo? Well, Hitler and Tojo certainly thought so.
1) Churchill if he was the prime minister at that time would not give freedom to India. 2) Many of his remarks appeared to have come from the lips of a blood thirsty monster. 3) Mountbatten was placed as the last governor-general of India. 4) He was a favourite to Churchill. 5) Mountbatten did all the mischiefs 6) by brain washing Nehru and seducing him to be with his wife. 7) If true trials were held in Europe and Asia, he would be declared the most dangerous War Criminal. 8) Read minutely the history of the second world war. He was more dangerous than Hitler and Tojo.
Sir, What Winston Churchill said is certainly correct for Indians, and befitting for India.
Thanks, but Churchill’s “rascals” speech is reported in numerous books, never with a proper citation. If you have Falco’s book, please advise his source, if he gives one. Is it Hansard (Parliamentary Debates), the 8-volume Complete Speeches, a memoir by a primary source, or a paper in the Churchill or other archives? If not, it’s the same old story: an invented quotation given credence without justification. See reply to David Bradbury below.
The entire speech is in the book “India 70 Years After Midnight” by Columbus Falco.
Thank-you for providing surrounding verbiage for, and recent appearances of, this famous Churchill non-quotation. You are quite right. While Churchill spoke on 3 June 1947 (“India: Transfer of Power,” Complete Speeches VII, 7499), he discussed only Dominion status, which he did not oppose. He ended by saying: “These are matters about which it is extremely difficult to form decided opinions now.” Again, no mention of “rascals, rogues and freebooters” (or “free booters”). Those words appear nowhere in his complete works (books, articles, speeches, papers), scanned by the Hillsdale College Churchill Project.
I searched for key passages in the Muthanna quote you mention. There are no occurrences, for example, of “liberty is a man’s birthright,” “give the reins of government to the Congress,” “destiny of the hungry millions,” etc.
There are several occurrences of “men of straw” (a favorite Churchillism, used as early as The World Crisis). He used it in “India (Government Policy),” House of Commons, 6 March 1947: “In handing over the Government of India to these so-called political classes we are handing over to men of straw, of whom, in a few years, no trace will remain” (Complete Speeches, VII 7445).
Muddying the waters, Churchill misquoted himself on 27 September 1947, in a Constituency meeting at the Royal Wanstead Schools, adding words he had not actually said in March or June. He may have been working from a draft of those speeches, which he often did; nevertheless, the words in bold face below were not in his earlier speeches:
So, what we are left with in these latterday versions is an almost completely invented quotation, in which “men of straw,” which he did say, is mixed with other phrases he never said, and also misdated. And “rascals, rogues and freebooters” remains fiction.
The first point which I think should be noted about this “quotation” is that the traditional context, a speech opposing the Bill for Indian independence in June 1947, is impossible. Shortly after the publication of the White Paper on 3 June—which Churchill welcomed—he had an operation on a hernia which had been getting steadily worse since 1945, and he spent the whole summer convalescing, scarcely showing his face in Westminster until August, let alone making any speeches opposing the Bill (which was actually debated in mid-July).
The earliest version of the “quotation” I found is in The Coorg Memoirs by I. M. Muthanna (1971), page 413: “Liberty is man’s birthright. However, to give the reins of government to the Congress at this juncture is to hand over the destiny of the hungry millions into the hands of rascals, rogues, and free booters…. It will take a thousand years for them to enter the periphery of philosophy or politics. Today we hand over the reins of Government to men of straw, of whom no trace will be found after a few years.” Muthanna adds: “Thus spoke Sir Winston Churchill while opposing the Bill to grant independence to India, introduced by the Prime Minister Clement Attlee in the British House of Commons, in 1947. These are harsh words indeed, but the people of India would do well to ponder over them.”
The significantly different version under discussion here, on the other hand, seems to originate on page 5 of Introspection for India: A Paradigm for Progress, by V. K. Subramanian (New Delhi, 2001).
Neither author provided source notes. One resource unavailable in 1971, rare even in 2001, is full-text searching of newspapers. I’ve checked several UK indexes and although “men of straw” was indeed widely reported, I have failed to find any early references to the most obviously newsworthy words- “rascals, rogues”- even in The Guardian, which you’d have expected to make a huge fuss about it.
Hear hear. India is a great country with a boundless future. See Andrew Roberts on Post-Truth History.
India and Indians need to wake up to current-day issues and not hibernate dreaming of past glory. Take one day at a time and solve problems. Nothing wrong if Churchill is quoted. It is what it is. Look ahead and move on.
Since you have read all this on the web, and since we all know everything on the web is true, perhaps you wouldn’t mind reading some other URLs:
1) While a dogged believer in the Empire, Churchill believed more fundamentally in constitutional liberty. The salient fact is not that Churchill shared certain views of his time about the Empire, but that Churchill believed “people of all colors should enjoy the same rights, and that it was the mission of his country, and the Empire while it lasted, to protect those rights.”
https://richardlangworth.com/churchill-racism-think-little-deeper
2) Churchill’s instructions to the new Viceroy of India, General Wavell, in 1943: “Every effort should be made by you to assuage the strife between the Hindus and Moslems and to induce them to work together for the common good. No form of democratic Government can flourish in India while so many millions are by their birth excluded from those fundamental rights of equality between man and man, upon which all healthy human societies must stand.” So much for a “yoke for perpetuity.” Gandhi was himself murdered by a Hindu who rejected his outreach to Muslims.
https://richardlangworth.com/fateful-questions-world-war-ii-microcosm-1
3) Despite the new Mountbatten whitewash film, claiming that during the division of India Churchill demanded Mountbatten favor Jinna and Pakistan, Churchill had been out of office two years when the separation took place. He was in no position to influence Mountbatten, who made a mess of the job all by himself. http://dailym.ai/2pJBvrJ
4) On the Bengal Famine, what Churchill was responsible for was a sustained effort to alleviate the shortages, scouring the globe for grain and the means to ship it, trying to locate substitute grains, even appealing to Roosevelt (who refused). All the documents support historian Arthur Herman’s conclusion: ”Without Churchill, the Bengal Famine would have been worse.”
5) I have no quarrel with the fact that Churchill tried to convince Nehru, a fellow Harrovian whom he called “The Light of Asia,” not to allow communism to get a foothold in India. If you think that was a bad thing, stand up!
Churchill may have been a great leader for Britain but he was staunchly a colonialist whose one great desire was to see India under the British yoke for perpetuity. When things were getting out of hand, he advised Lord Mountbatten to ensure that the Muslims in India, as they had proved loyal to the British crown, are not denied their separate nation that they were clamoring for. The present day phenomenon of Islamic extremism is to an extent the result of his working as the creation of Pakistan had been instrumental in bolstering the Islamic fundamentalist feeling and in the process has somewhat marginalized the saner and more moderate voices of Muslim community. Last but not the least he was directly responsible for the man made famine in Bengal in the 40’s that took a toll of three million Indians living in the eastern province of Bengal. He thought Indian lives that cheap. This can only be paralleled with the holocaust of the second world war. And after India manged to get India independent his deep rooted abhorrence of Communism led him to try to convince Nehru that he never allows Communism to get a foothold in India. Churchill was by no means good for India.
Here’s Churchill on Haile Selassie, 27 February 1945, from my book, Churchill by Himself:
“It was a satisfaction for me to see for the first time in the flesh Haile Selassie, that historical figure who pleaded the cause of his country amid the storms of the League of Nations, who was the first victim of Mussolini’s lust for power and conquest, and who was also the first to be restored to his ancient throne by the heavy exertions of our British and Indian armies in the far-off days of 1940 and 1941.”
I am a longtime Churchill fan and love the insights on your blog. Churchill was a great leader and all the talk of him being racist is a lot of hysteria. I want to get your books. I am a Rastaman and writer, check my books. Haile Selassie is my inspiration and leader, but Churchill is my other favorite statesman. Peace.
Well said. I think the blog persists because of searches for Churchill’s alleged “rascals” quote.
It is interesting to see this 2012 blog still alive—but no wonder, it’s the ‘demonetization’ that’s helping. The very fact that 90% of the cash is back in the system and it was suspected not more than 50% would make it back is forcing an optimist like myself also become a pessimist and believe in what Churchill “quoted.”
As for the idea of India to continue, only the choices India and Indians make in the present will decide her future and in that sense, history, whether 6 months ago or 6000 years, is irrelevant to me. We Indians must learn that basking on the past glory won’t do any good at the same time be aware that there is something in this country (‘sanatan-dharma’) that somehow keeps it running and always look alive, corrupt or otherwise. The way we need to approach is; wake up in the morning and work to fix the damn problem, one-day-at-a-time. Eventually, in hindsight, that becomes history.
I appreciate the thoughtful comments by Indians replying to this post. Personally I think India has been around quite a long time, and it’s premature to contemplate the demise of even the “Idea called India.”
For the benefit of readers, Google records: “Bhakts is a Sanskrit word and also used in Hindi, meaning a person who believes in someone he follows. As far as the Indian political scenario is considered, this term is coined by Mr. Digvijay Singh and usually applied to Modi supporters.”
Perfectly true. Just because some blind bhakts cannot see what the Great Visionary saw does not mean he was wrong. Instead of taking the government to task, these bhakts are hastening the demise of the Idea called India.
What Winston Churchill said is true to India both economically and politically. 1 When you see any Indian in foreign soil ,he will say i am from Andhra,Karnataka,Tamil Nadu etc Not as Indian,(seperation of states in Language biggest mistake 2.Did we achieve any major development in Infrastructure,In roads,Railways, Bridges,Nuclear plants, Defense in the past 70 years.(read APJ Kalam’S college days book How he was sent from pillar to post 3 Caste and religion is predominant in deciding a Councillor seat (have a open /objective survey with respect to selection of candidate and come out with white paper .What is true face of all political parties 4. corruption even with dead body and burial ground .5 Did you fulfill any water (see Karnataka having problem with all states .How because of Positioning of Tamil Nadu other states store water and Tamil Nadu is starving ) this applies to Maharashtra,Gujarat ,Rajasthan also (but Karnataka is Worst state in India) ,food (millions of people are without one time food and eating what is thrown out in the streets ,shelter (just visit Major metropolitan cities and people are in family way in streets) self sufficiency to all Indians (basic needs) Much more due to space i left out Both National parties will point out each other .Even in National security we did not have one voice .Our Institutions like Supreme court,Election commission,CAG ,CBI successively degraded /diluted by politicians .You may ask whether other countries are free from above issues . Yes, every country has own problems.but in India every individual has own set of rules ,this is not in other countries . 99% of corrupt,Rapers ,Theif can go scot free in India .But in other countires the chances of people scoot free are may be 10-15 % .Hence i fully support what Winston Churchill said .Even if WC has not told the statement . The statement is true and applicable to Indian system of course to me also .Since i am also part of the system Talking about what is happening in 4000-5000 years old But never think on world has changed.The difference between age old and contemporary is very WIDE .
“Your guys?” I’m not British. Seems to me that India was free to choose its systems from 1947, and tried most of them, including a pretty abject form of socialism. India’s British-style parliament has its roots in Magna Carta, which applies as well to Icelanders as to Englishmen. Reminds me of Churchill’s quote from an old adage that democracy is the worst possible system, except for all the other systems that have been tried from time to time. I think however that you could be right about paper money, ethics and icebergs.I asked an eminent economist and thinker for his comments: “Anyone who thinks the Indian system was (is) less corrupt than the Anglo-Saxon system, or that India’s problems can be blamed on Britain or anyone else, is beyond reason. Others might like to consider that for all its faults the Anglo-Saxon banking system has provided the liquidity and capital to fuel economies that have propelled living standards to heights not dreamed of a short time ago. Also, it has demonstrated a capacity for reform that must have Mr. Modi green with envy as he attempts to bring India into the 21st century. It is true that central banks are groping for ways to prevent slow growth from morphing into recession, and some of the tools they have whipped out of their kits do contain the danger of undesirable future consequences. But better that than anything else that seems on offer.”
” True, the Raj was around for a very short time in India’s long history, but free India adopted British institutions of Parliamentary government which have stood her well since 1947.”
Well what could we possibly do, the amount of filth your guys had left by completely transforming Indian economics to their corrupt Anglo-Saxon banking treachery, we just have to take it as it is. Any attempt to change this would have created more chaos. This obviously never proves that your system was better than any system existing in India prior to British rule or for that matter prior to Mughal rule. This only says the amount of transformation that had taken place due to mis-rule of first Mughals then British.
On a separate note, we all know how disgusting is this Banking system Anglo-Saxons have levied on the whole world, where the bankers go about loaning tax payers money to all of the so called elites, who year on year basis crook their books to show profits. Banks conveniently show these losses as NPAs. A system where in a deep understanding exists between politicians, elites and bankers. Tip of iceberg, let me not open my mouth to show with proof, to demonstrate how the whole world is inching towards destruction day by day by your system! Not to mention Bank Of England has been worse hit lately by your own holy system of banking and economics. Print more paper money and reduce interest rate we will, until we destroy that every bit of ethics!
By your standard the Frenchman de Tocqueville should not have written about the USA, or the Englishman Macaulay about the Roman Empire, and Dipesh Chakrabarty had no business writing Provincializing Europe. True, the Raj was around for a very short time in India’s long history, but free India adopted British institutions of Parliamentary government which have stood her well since 1947. Churchill probably did have a superiority complex. After one of his rants about the India Bill, Stanley Baldwin said the principle fact was that “the unchanging East has changed.” “With that one nugget,” wrote Manfred Weidhorn, “the usually pedestrian Baldwin shoots the usually eloquent Churchill, with his romantic, Victorian, imperial rhetoric, right out of the water.” All this is incontrovertible; but in the end Churchill wished Gandhi and Nehru well. And that is to his credit.
If Sir Winston was here I would have said to him, “India was there ages before the Britishers knew how to brush their teeth, India was there when the Britishers ruled, and India is still there and the world’s biggest and glorified democracy and Britishers are long gone.” Churchill is no one to talk about my nation. If someone wants to talk, that person needs to be among us, who knows the problems we Indians are going through. Still we are here in the map with 6000 years of history, and where were the Britishers then? Churchill said these words because he was suffering from superiority complex, period.
–
By your standard the Frenchman de Tocqueville should not have written about the USA, or the Englishman Macaulay about the Roman Empire. And Dipesh Chakrabarty had no business writing Provincializing Europe. The Raj was around for a very short time in India’s long history, but free India adopted British institutions of Parliamentary government which have stood her well since 1947. Churchill probably did have a superiority complex. After one of his rants about the India Bill, Stanley Baldwin said the principle fact was that “the unchanging East has changed.” “With that one nugget,” wrote Manfred Weidhorn, “the usually pedestrian Baldwin shoots the usually eloquent Churchill, with his romantic, Victorian, imperial rhetoric, right out of the water.” All this is incontrovertible; but in the end Churchill wished Gandhi and Nehru well. And that is to his credit. —RML
:LL
Thanks Mr Langworth for clearing this confusion. Though the words look chillingly prophetic, it seemed to me that he would never have said it, even considering his scathingly critical nature. We have done well, we Indians, but I believe if we were more pro-country instead of being pro-ourselves, we would have been on top of the world. Agree with you that there are no dearth of looters anywhere in the world!
I am not sufficiently versed to understand all your points but I gather this is a message to Indian commentators below, and a kind of back-handed agreement with words ascribed to Churchill which he apparently never said. But if you are saying that “rascals, rogues and freebooters” exist in democracies because people elect them, I agree. The quote you mention (“…ignorance of voters”) was never said by Churchill, who had more respect than that for the average voter. Nor did Churchill ever wish Indians to be slaves.
As for Sir Winston’s present location, I’m reminded of Robert Lovett’s question when Churchill asked President Truman what they would say to their Maker on their day of judgment: “Are you sure, Prime Minister, that you are going to be in the same place as the President for that interrogation? It could be in another court far away.” I think we have to regard the answer to Mr. Lovett’s question as “undetermined.”
I’m really upset with Indians who say the words of a person who wanted us to be slaves is correct. Did you they forget the struggles behind our freedom? What they or their elders of independent India did to preserve and take India forward to its zenith? Even after 74% literacy we don’t do our democratic duty of electing our rulers. Are we all not responsible for electing rascals, rogues and freebooters? This same Winston Churchill said “The failure of democracy is because ignorance of voters.” Failing to do our duty, be it voting or voting for great leader or NOTA if you don’t feel there is one, we vote for our family member or a relative or someone from our caste or seine who give something free to us. After selecting these leaders, which is our mistake, we blame the government in turn blame the country. Without patriotism today many are comparing India with USA and praising the latter.
I would say if a leader selected through elections is a rascal, then the people who elected him are rascals. Raping a child, being addicted to liquor without caring for wife and kids, spoiling self-education in name of love and getting divorce sooner if at all married, killing elderly for 1 gram of gold, did government ask you to do this? A country filled by these rascals will elect rascals (as you people say).
I say this country is ruled and being ruled by good leaders from Nehru to Narendra Modi. They are supposed to be great leaders which did not happen because of the citizens who do the above two things. When citizens are patriotic, self disciplined, well educated, enthused for growth, then the good leaders become great leaders. Jai Hind! I say to Winston Churchill now India is the largest successful democracy of the world which he will watch from hell…
Why worry? But this is what happening in India…
All free peoples tend to think at times that their countries are governed by “rascals, rogues and freebooters.” Churchill urged us all to “Never Despair,” and to K.B.O. –good advice, I suspect.
Very true statements. Given the way India is being governed, I do not see any hope or future on this country.
I welcome these views from India, while knowing nothing of your current politics. In the larger picture I believe Churchill would be pleased to see India the world’s largest democracy, though governing in a democracy is never easy.
About what Churchill said, true rascals are there. Nehru was the man who spoiled India with his so-called socialism and brought a communal- and caste-based constitution to keep the Indians in a divided spirit….
The actual writer of these lines was so good an observer: Indians are trying their best to prove the prophecy right, irrespective of who said it.
Yes, well, I know how you feel. There are plenty of rascals, rogues and freebooters outside India!
I too have researched on these lines a while ago. I received the following official response from Laure Clinquin at the Churchill Archives Centre:
While no certain source can be found for this quote, I wish, looking at the state of India after 65 years of independence, that he had said it.