The Bengal famine of 1943-In July 1940, newly in office Churchill responded with a telegram to Wavell asking, if food was so scarce, "why Gandhi hadn’t died yet."

famines under british rule in india









(click on photo to enlarge it)

famine in delhi 1870 under british













famine in bangalore 1870 under british















BRITISH AIR FORCE PERSONAL FEEDING THE FAMINE VICTIMS (BENGAL FAMINE 1943













STARVING PEOPLE WAITING FOR GRAINS












FAMINE BENGAL
STARVING CHILD








STARVING PEOPLE PRAYING FOR FOOD






BENGAL FAMINE











Q FOR FOOD

















The Bengal famine of 1943
is one amongst the several famine that occurred in British administered Bengal. It is


estimated that around

3 million people died

from starvation and malnutrition during the period.
1940 15% of India's rice overall came from Burma, whilst in Bengal the proportion was slightly higher given the province's proximity to Burma.

A "scorched earth" policy was implemented in Bengal by British authorities confiscated many boats (and motor vehicles, carts and even elephants), fearing that the Japanese would commandeer them to speed an advance into India. The inhabitants used the boats for fishing, and failed to distribute rations to replace the fish.

Large amounts of rice continued to be exported to the Middle East to feed British troops there

The BRITISH government reacted to the crisis lazily and incompetently, refusing to stop the export of food from Bengal

Winston Churchill was the Prime Minister of the time

When in response to an urgent request by the Secretary of State for India, Leo Amery, and Wavell to release food stocks for India, Churchill responded with a telegram to Wavell asking,

if food was so scarce, "why Gandhi hadn’t died yet.

Initially during the famine he was more concerned with the civilians of Greece (who were also suffering from a famine) compared with the Bengalis.

The famine ended when the government in London agreed to import 1,000,000 tons of grain to Bengal, reducing food prices

Famines and democracies:-Amartya Sen argues that famines do not occur in functioning democracies.Though malnutrition and hunger remain widespread in India, there have been no famines since the end of the British rule in 1947 and the establishment of a democratic government

During the British rule in India there were approximately 25 major famines spread through states such as Tamil Nadu in South India, Bihar in the north, and Bengal in the east;

The official famine inquiry commission reporting on the Bengal Famine of 1943 put its death toll at

about 1.5 million Indians

Amartya Sen has recently estimated that three million may be slightly too high an estimate and

that two to two and a half million fatalities may be more accurate IN BENGAL FAMINE

[AND ALTOGETHER 40 million Indians[4 crore indians] were the victims of famines in the latter half of the 19th century]

Amartya Sen has cast doubt on the idea that the rice shortage was due to a fall in production

WELL THIS CONCLUSION OF NOBEL WINNER AMARTYA SEN BRINGS US TO THE CONSPIRACY THEORY:- CONSPIRACY TO STARVE BENGAL ,BECAUSE BENGAL WAS NEAR ASSAM ;AND JAPANESE FORCES ALREADY REACHED ASSAM AT THAT TIME.

ALSO INDIAN NATIONAL ARMY [I.N.A.]UNDER SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE (A BENGALI) WAS ALREADY IN ASSAM LEADING THE I.N.A. FORCES

This song of mass awakening was first recorded in 1949 for the Indian People's Theatre Association or Bharotiyo Ganonatya Sangha; the backdrop was the 1943 Bengal famine when millions died of starvation

from wikipedia :-
churchils hatred
for INDIA; "he welcomed reports of the emerging conflict

between the Muslim League and the Indian Congress
,
hoping "it would be bitter and bloody"



(Image : Wikipedia, scenes of massacre ) Inefficiency of the then PM of Bengal Suhrawardy to stop the carnage was pathetic , no police , no law and order and Army was not called in for 96 Hrs. and the day 16th August , 1946 was declared a 'Public Holiday'.


Another source of controversy about Churchill's attitude towards Indian affairs arises over what some historians term the Indian 'nationalist approach' to the Bengal famine of 1943, which has sought to place significant blame on Churchill's wartime government for the excessive mortality of up to 3 million people. While some commentators point to the disruption of the traditional marketing system and maladministration at the provincial level, Arthur Herman, author of Churchill and Gandhi, contends, 'The real cause was the fall of Burma to the Japanese, which cut off India’s main supply of rice imports when domestic sources fell short...[though] it is true that Churchill opposed diverting food supplies and transports from other theatres to India to cover the shortfall: this was wartime.' In response to an urgent request by the Secretary of State for India, Leo Amery, and Viceroy of India, Wavell, to release food stocks for India, Churchill responded with a telegram to Wavell asking, if food was so scarce, "why Gandhi hadn’t died yet."
In July 1940, newly in office, he welcomed reports of the emerging conflict between the Muslim League and the Indian Congress, hoping "it would be bitter and bloody".

HE MAY BE HAPPY IN HIS GRAVE NOW THAT PAKISTAN IS FORMED AND REMAINS A PERMANENT THORN FOR INDIA !!


HIS HOPE FOR A BITTER AND BLOODY LIFE HAS AFFECTED ; EVERYBODY INCLUDING BRITISH;FROM TERRORISTS OF PAKISTAN!!!!


REST IN PEACE??
=========================================================================================================================================================================


JI

Dadabhai Naoroji (4 September 1825 – 30 June 1917) (Hindi: दादाभाई नौरोजी), known as

Grand Old Man of India,

was a Parsi intellectual, educator, cotton trader, and an early Indianpolitical leader. His book Poverty and Un-British Rule in India brought attention to the draining of India's wealth into Britain. He was a Member of Parliament (MP) in the British House of Commons between 1892 and 1895,

and the first Asian to be a British MP.

He is also credited with the
founding of the Indian National Congress, along with A.O. Hume and Dinshaw Edulji Wacha.


Spe aking at the
N e w i n g t o n R e f o rm C l u b , W a l w o r t h , he s a id:

One of the arguments p ut f o rwa rd in defence of the system
was that the B r i t i sh prevented the different peoples of India f r om
plunde r ing each other. T h at was o n ly a h a lf t r u t h; the w h o le
t r u th was that they prevented the different peoples f r om plunde ri ng each other in order that they themselves m i g ht plunder a l l.

T h en they were t o ld that the B r i t i sh had int roduc ed security of
prope r ty, b ut o n ly in order that they m i g ht carry it away w i t h
perfect security. As to the security of l i f e, it was said that the
o ld mental despots used to k i ll thousands and thousands, and
harass the people. If that was so, the


B r i t i sh Gove rnment, w i t h
great ingenui ty and scientific precision, was k i l l i ng mi l l ions by
famines and plagues, and starving scores of mi l l i o n s. . . . T he
Anglo-Indians, or the B r i t i s h, were l i ke clever surgeons w h o,
w i t h the sharpest scalpels, cut to the v e ry heart, and dr ew every
d r op of b l o od w i t h o ut leaving a scar.
da t ed A p r i l 2 1 , 1905,


(despatch M a r ch 25,
1890):—
" M i l l i o ns of money have been spent on increasing the
a rmy in Indi a, on armaments, and on fortifications to p r o v i de
f or the security of Indi a, n ot against domestic enemies or to
pr event the invasions of the w a r l i ke peoples of adjoining
countries, b ut to ma i n t a in the supremacy of B r i t i sh p o w er
in the East."


He r e, t h e n, is a strange and sad contrast. T he U n i t e d K i n g d om
and I n d ia are g o v e r n ed by the same G o v e r n m e n t, w i t h the result
of b r i n g i ng to the U n i t e d K i n g d om an a d d i t i on to its w e a l t h,
as p r o f i ts of its e x p o r t s, in t en years, of £1,267,441,206, and, on
the o t h er h a n d, causing to I n d ia in the same t en years a d e p r i v a t i on
and loss of £ 3 4 3 , 6 5 9 , 9 2 0.

N o t o n ly thi s. T he loss to I n d ia mu st be measured by h ow
m u ch m o re I n d ia w o u l d have benefited, had this e n o rmo us d r a in
of the t en years and a ll d r a in of pr evious years been at Indi a 's
o w n disposal and f r u c t i f i ed in the Indi ans' pockets



Open Library

Poverty and un-British rule in India.




As late as the 1750s, India had an export surplus; its favourable trade balance was matched by bullion import, as the world had nothing else to offer India in return for its fine textiles. British colonialism reversed this process, first by monopolising trade and then — in the early 19th century — by demolishing Indian industry. During the period when British trade established supremacy, goods were exported by India but the bullion never reached the country. British merchants purchased goods in rupee receipts in India, and exchanged them abroad for bullion. Much before Dadabhai Naoroji and the so-called ‘modern nationalist’ school came up with a figure for India’s drain of wealth chroniclers had put it at more than 100,000 million pound sterling per annum.


ConvertTo

1 GBPINR=76.47681 GBP = 76.4768 INR as of 30/09/2011 12:08
[GBP IN 1900 A.D. 1 POUND = ABOUT 10 RUPEES]

Dadabhai NAVROJIproved that the average annual income of an Indian was barely Rs 20. Examining the import and export figures for 37 years, he proved that India's exports exceeded its imports by Rs 50 crores (approximately $135 million) annually.

In fact, bullion owed to India helped finance England’s Industrial Revolution. Then, in order to flood Indian markets with European goods, India was de-industrialised. From being a supplier of luxury goods, it was turned into an exporter of raw material. Between 1820 and 1840, de-industrialisation closed down more than 12,000 markets, controlled and operated by peasants and small entrepreneurs in northern India

The ideological moorings of imperialism have been many. From liberal tradition of orientalism to that of not so good utilitarianism. All these affected the political as well as the economic fabric. The imperial powers started as trading organisations and later developed into full fledged political powers. This transformation was to a large extent based on the control over resources. In India's context, this had meant things like:  # Use of territorial revenue by British trading company as 'investment', whereby during the eighteenth century, it would use the territorial revenue of Bengal to buy goods from Bengal and export that to Europe, and would show that this money was their 'investment' in India!  #Trade imbalance that had gradually transformed India from an exporting country in goods like Cotton to that of an importing country of cotton.  #Transfer of wealth in form of invisibles eg. transfer of profit, pensions, cost of maintenance of Office of Secy etc all these coming from Indian revenue. 

Destruction of handicraft industries (during the later eighteenth century), when the industrial revolution had only just started~ and perhaps the societies were poised in a balanced way. This is also related to an important phenomena of "proto-industrialisation" and "deindustrialisation".

# Destruction of technological industries like shipping in the early nineteenth century. Here it is interesting to note that shipping of India was not outdone by any Western technology, but by the non-technological political policies made in Britain. Scholars like Gunder Frank also puts the western superiority in areas like shipping only by 1840s. All these meant technological impoverishment in the long run

# The nature of this drain underwent a shift when the age of finance capitalism emerged. The most glaring example is that of railways. In the case, of railways the whole cost was put on India as guaranteed project. This meant that whether the project earned money or losses, it would be paid a guaranteed system by the Govt that protected the private investment. Consequently, this meant that the money for investment in projects like railways was basically extracted from India. If the investment in railways is neglected, then there was very little foreign investment during the whole period of imperialism

# Moreover, all this was not just a matter of drain, but also worked to serve the imperial political interests. Railways & Telegraph was used for suppression of revolts. Railways particularly was useful both for things like troop movement as well as penetration into areas and provinces of princely rulers, who were theoretically free. (at the time of independence, there were some 562 such independent states, that became part of the successor states) It was also useful for penetration of foreign goods, particularly textile into the hinterlands and also for transfer of raw materials from hinterland to the seaports for export to Britain.

# The drain also happened in terms of expenses on military. The costs of military expedition in far off lands- Middle East, Africa (like the Abyssinian & Sudan expeditons), Europe etc, which were basically British imperial wars, and had no relation to India were charged on Indian exchequer.
These areas were identified by the early Indian nationalists and much literature was written on it. It in some ways became an ideological issue, that received support from all spectrum of politics in India. This "Drain of Wealth Theory" gave a firm foundation to the anti-imperial struggle. In some ways, it meant that the struggle was not just political or even an issue of power, but of safeguarding of the basic interests of the country from an exploitative imperial power.

The people, among others, who actually theorised this were- Dada Bhai
Naoroji in his various monographs and particularly in "Poverty and Unbritish Rule in India", and RC Dutt in his "The Economic History of India", in two vol. Such a thing also received support of some Britishers like Digby.

In 1906, at the age of 80, Dadabhai was invited for a third time to be president of the Indian National Congress in Calcutta, 
and he helped to patch up a conflict between the moderates and the extremists.
 In his keynote speech he demanded "Swaraj" or Self-Rule from the British,
 which delighted the Congress attendees and the Indian public. 
He said "Be united, persevere, and achieve self-Government, so that the millions now perishing
 by poverty, famine, and plague may be saved, and India may once more occupy her proud 
position of yore among the greatest and civilized nations of the world"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE STORY BEHIND FAMINES IN INDIA DURING BRITISH RULE
INDIA IS BELIEVED TO BE THE OLDEST CENTER OF INDIGO DYEING IN THE OLD WORLD.
IT WAS A PRIMARY SUPPLIER OF INDIGO DYE, DERIVED FROM THE PLANTINDIGOFERA TINCTORIA, TO EUROPE AS EARLY AS THE GRECO-ROMAN ERA. THE ROMANS USED THE TERM INDICUM, WHICH PASSED INTO ITALIAN DIALECT AND EVENTUALLY INTO ENGLISH AS THE WORDINDIGO
.INDIGO REMAINED A RARE COMMODITY IN EUROPE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE AGES.
FORCEFUL CULTIVATION OF INDIGO IN INDIA.
, DURING BRITISH RULE 7000 SQUARE KILOMETERS WERE DEDICATED TO THE CULTIVATION OF INDICAN-PRODUCING PLANTS, MAINLY IN INDIA . BY COMPARISON, THE COUNTRY OF LUXEMBOURG CONSISTS OF 2,586 SQUARE KILOMETERS
THE INDIGO PLANTERS[BRITISH] LEFT NO STONES UNTURNED TO MAKE MONEY. THEY MERCILESSLY PURSUED THE PEASANTS TO PLANT INDIGO INSTEAD OF FOOD CROPS.
THEY PROVIDED LOANS, CALLED DADON AT A VERY HIGH INTEREST. ONCE A FARMER TOOK SUCH LOANS HE REMAINED IN DEBT FOR WHOLE OF HIS LIFE BEFORE PASSING IT TO HIS SUCCESSORS. 
THE PRICE PAID BY THE PLANTERS WAS MEAGRE,ONLY 2.5% OF THE MARKET PRICE.
SO THE FARMERS COULD MAKE NO PROFIT BY GROWING INDIGO. THE FARMERS WERE TOTALLY UNPROTECTED FROM THE BRUTAL INDIGO PLANTERS, WHO RESORTED TO MORTGAGE OR DESTRUCTION OF THEIR PROPERTY IF THEY WERE UNWILLING TO OBEY THEM.
GOVERNMENT RULES FAVOURED THE PLANTERS[BRITISH]. BY AN ACT IN 1833, THE PLANTERS WERE GRANTED A FREE HAND IN OPPRESSION.
EVEN THE ZAMINDARS, MONEY LENDERS AND OTHER INFLUENTIAL PERSONS SIDED WITH THE PLANTERS. OUT OF THE SEVERE OPPRESSION UNLEASHED ON THEM THE FARMERS RESORTED TO REVOLT.
 WHEN FARMERS ROSE AGAINST THE FORCIBLE CULTIVATION OF THE UN-REMUNERATIVE INDIGO CROP
THE REVOLT WAS RUTHLESSLY SUPPRESSED. LARGE FORCES OF POLICE AND MILITARY BACKED BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT AND THE ZAMINDARS
THE REVOLT HAD A STRONG EFFECT ON THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH IMMEDIATELY APPOINT THE "INDIGO COMMISSION" IN 1860. IN THECOMMISSION REPORT, E. W. L. TOWER NOTED THAT "NOT A CHEST OF INDIGO REACHED ENGLAND WITHOUT BEING STAINED WITH HUMAN BLOOD
FORCIBLE -INDIGO MANUFACTURE IN INDIA UNDER BRITISH
THE BRITISH SLAVE MASTER CAN BE SEEN IN LOWER RIGHT PICTURE WITH A WHIP IN HAND

BRITISH FORCIBLY CONVERTED AGRICULTURE LAND TO INDIGO CULTIVATION CAUSING FAMINE

[2]

The Terrible Indian Famine of 1876-79

Figure 2 Food Exports during the years 1872-1879 (source: Famines in Bengal 1770-1943,K C Ghosh,from pages 28-29)

[3]

STORY BEHIND BENGAL FAMINE 1943


British prime minister Winston Churchill
deliberately let millions of Indians starve to death, the author of a new book has claimed, alleging he was motivated in part by racial hatred.
As many as three million people died in the Bengal famine of 1943 after Japan captured neighbouring Burma -- a major source of rice imports -- and British colonial rulers in India stockpiled food for soldiers and war workers.
Panic-buying of rice sent prices soaring, and distribution channels were wrecked when officials confiscated or destroyed most boats and bullock carts in Bengal to stop them falling into enemy hands if Japan invaded.
Rice suddenly became scarce in markets and, as worsening hunger spread through villages, Churchill repeatedly refused pleas for emergency food shipments.
Emaciated masses drifted into Kolkata, where eye-witnesses described men fighting over foul scraps and skeletal mothers dying in the streets as British and middle-class Indians ate large meals in their clubs or at home.
The "man-made" famine has long been one of the darkest chapters of the British Raj, but now Madhusree Mukerjee says she has uncovered evidence that Churchill was directly responsible for the appalling suffering.
Her book, "Churchill's Secret War", quotes previously unused papers that disprove his claim that no ships could be spared from the war and that show him brushing aside increasingly desperate requests from British officials in India.
Analysis of World War II cabinet meetings, forgotten ministry records and personal archives show that full grain ships from Australia were passing India on their way to the Mediterranean region, where huge stockpiles were building up.
"It wasn't a question of Churchill being inept: sending relief to Bengal was raised repeatedly and he and his close associates thwarted every effort," Mukerjee told AFP in a telephone interview.
"The United States and Australia offered to send help but couldn't because the war cabinet was not willing to release ships. And when the US offered to send grain on its own ships, that offer was not followed up by the British."
Churchill's record as a war leader against Nazi Germany has secured his place in history, but hisattitude towards Indians attracts less admiration.
"He said awful things about Indians. He told his secretary he wished they could be bombed," Mukerjee said. "He was furious with Indians because he could see America would not let British rule in India continue."



Eminent British historian Max Hastings has described it as "significant -- and to British readers -- distressing."






=================================================================================================================================================================================




15 FAMINES UNDER BRITISH RULE &TOTAL INDIANS DEAD 45 MILLION:-http://pazhayathu.blogspot.in/2010/05/15-famines-under-british-rule-indians.html

 

=========================================================================================================================================================

 

Brijesh Kalappa
Thursday , September 13, 2012 at 14 : 04

Decoding Winston Churchill's hatred for India


1IBNLive IBNLive


When the Independence Bill was being debated in British Parliament in 1947, Winston Churchill had angrily remarked, "Power will go into the hands of rascals, rogues, and freebooters. Not a bottle of water or loaf of bread shall escape taxation; only the air will be free and the blood of these hungry millions will be on the head of Attlee."
While reading Kuldip Nayar's autobiography, "Beyond the lines", I came across a portion which is a brief account of his interaction with Lord Mountbatten - wherein Nayar threw an allegation at Mountbatten: "But your act of advancing the date by ten months resulted in the killing of over a million on both sides of the border, I charged. It was as if I had touched a raw nerve because he suddenly became pensive and lapsed into silence. After a while he said that in the 1947 Partition riots nearly 2.5 million people had died but he had saved three to four million people from starvation during the 1943 Bengal famine by giving 10 per cent of the space on his ships for the transport of food grains to Calcutta despite Churchill's opposition. 'Well, before Providence I can say that the balance is in my favour', said Mountbatten, adding: 'Wherever colonial rule has ended, there has been bloodshed. This is the price you pay.' (Some books subsequently revealed that Churchill had intentionally denied food grains to India.)"
Quite a number of books like Richard Toye's new biography, "Churchill's Empire: The World That Made Him and The World He Made", William Manchester's "The Caged Lion" and "When illness strikes the leader" by Jerrold Post, a professor of psychiatry at George Washington University and Robert Robins, a professor of political science at Tulane University, written in 1993 and published by Yale University Press, throw new light on Churchill, his mental depression, his racist views, his early life that shaped his thoughts and his hatred of Indians.
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (November 30, 1874 - January 24, 1965) was a British Conservative politician renowned for his extraordinary leadership of the United Kingdom during the Second World War. He is undoubtedly one of the greatest wartime leaders of the century. He served as the Prime Minister of England twice (1940-45 and 1955. A noted orator, Churchill was earlier an officer in the British Army and had served in Bangalore. He is also a historian, a writer and an artist. He is the only British Prime Minister to have received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1953 "for his mastery of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in defending exalted human values", and was the first person to be made an Honorary Citizen of the United States.
Churchill was voted as the greatest British gentlemen of the last century and his words that power will go into the hands of rogues in India is oft-quoted by those fighting 'corruption' in India.
Benjamin Disraeli, former British PM, called India "the brightest jewel in the crown," acknowledging India's valuable resources that Europe exploited like spices, mineral ores, textiles, the huge pool of cheap labour and the large market for British goods. As its largest colonial territory, India was the most important of all the overseas possessions of the British Empire. India became independent in 1947. In 65 years, India has crossed many hurdles. It is the world's largest democracy, a nuclear power, a human resource powerhouse and is emerging as an economic giant.
Why really did Churchill have to speak so disdainfully of the unborn Indian republic?
"When illness strikes the leader" unravels the mind of Churchill at the time he made this statement: "At the beginning of World War II, Winston Churchill was a healthy man of sixty-four. By the end of that conflict, the natural process of aging, six years of hard work under tension, heavy drinking and the frequent use of sedatives had taken their physical toll." His physician, Charles Wilson 1st Baron Moran, said Churchill's mental and physical health began to wane in 1944. In his diaries, Sir Francis Alan Brooke, Churchill's chief of the Imperial General Staff, observed on March 24, 1944, "He seems quite incapable of concentrating for a few minutes on end, and keeps wandering continuously."
The book reports that "The inner circle noted Churchill's rapid decline soon after the election. On some days he was nearly his old self, but more often than not he was unable to cope. The private secretary to the queen reported that Churchill often could not follow the trend of a conversation. At one point he even forgot that the electric power industry had been nationalized. He was frequently unable to contain his emotions often irritable and short of temper, at other times breaking into tears or becoming extremely maudlin. He also suffered from delusions of grandiosity, believing that only he could prevent a third world war."
Churchill, always a showman, kept criticism at bay by his continuing, though less frequent, personal flamboyance. Harold Macmillan, the most open and persistent of those in the inner circle who tried to get Churchill to resign, recollects visiting Churchill one morning by invitation and finding him in bed "with a little green budgerigar sitting on his head.... A cigar in his hand and whisky and soda by his side, from which the little bird took sips from time to time... while Gibbonesque sentences were rolling from the maestro's mouth about the Bomb. From time to time the bird said a few words in a husky kind of voice like an American actress. This was not senility but self-confident eccentricity in the grand manner."
Eventually, however, the book reports that "The press began to comment on the extent of Churchill's disability. Even he began to acknowledge it. On August 29, 1954, he said to his doctor, 'I have become so stupid, Charles, cannot you do anything for me?' Six weeks later, however, he boasted, 'If they try to get me out I will resist.' In March 1955, he spent much of his time depressed and staring vacantly ahead."
On April 6, 1955, after six months of almost total inactivity, he finally succumbed to the persuasion of his friends and the pressure of his adversaries and left 10 Downing Street. Having painfully learnt the folly of confronting the magnitude of Churchill's disability directly, the inner circle based its most effective arguments not on a criticism of Churchill's poor health and impaired leadership but on the positive state of the nation. They argued that he had fulfilled his promises to the people about improving housing, stabilising prices, reducing taxation, ending rationing, creating a balance of payments surplus and increasing the rate of growth. Parliament had been sitting for four years and now was a good time for an election. Churchill was told that he could finish on a note of triumph. Otherwise, he would have to undergo an election campaign. Ever mindful of the judgments of history, Churchill yielded.
Churchill did not however die soon after but lived for another decade in declining health.
The South African president President Thabo Mbeki made news recently with a withering attack on Winston Churchill and other historic British figures, calling them racists who ravaged Africa and blighted its post-colonial development. He said British imperialists in the 19th and 20th centuries had treated Africans as savages and left a "terrible legacy" of countries divided by race, colour, culture and religion. He singled out Churchill as a progenitor of vicious prejudice who justified British atrocities by depicting the continent's inhabitants as inferior races who needed to be subdued, and pointed out that Kitchener and Wolseley had waged ruthless campaigns in Sudan and South Africa.
Mr Mbeki quoted a passage from "The River War", Churchill's account of Kitchener's campaign in Sudan, which described shortcomings in "Mohammedanism" - Islam. It said: "Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity."
Richard Toye opines that Churchill's racism, was acceptable in the early 1900s because almost all white people held racist views at that time. He writes that Churchill's dysfunctional family forged his attitude to race, imperialism and war. His father, Lord Randolph Churchill, briefly Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer, "actually loathed Winston", wrote William Manchester. "His mother, a beautiful American named Jennie Jerome, devoted most of her time to sexual intrigue, slipping between the sheets with handsome, powerful men in Britain, in the United States, and on the Continent. Her husband was in no position to object. He was an incurable syphilitic. A father who loathes you and a mother who embarrasses you (one of her lovers was the Prince of Wales) are not a recipe for a happy childhood and Winston's was not. He went to Harrow, came last in class, flunked Oxford and Cambridge and was packed off to Sandhurst as a consolation prize. Churchill's lack of a university education nagged him throughout his adult life and he acquired many affectations to disguise it."
Churchill arrived in India in 1895, aged 20. He reportedly spent his time in Bangalore, reading Plato, Aristotle, Gibbon, Macaulay and Schopenhauer, honing his skill with words and ideas. By 1899, he was in South Africa, covering the Boer war. He was imprisoned, escaped heroically and became nationally famous at 24. He was elected to Parliament and, by 33, was a cabinet minister. It would take him, it reads, despite ambition and single-mindedness, another 32 years to become Prime Minister.
Toye notes Churchill's pathological aversion to India and how he wished Partition upon the subcontinent.
"The mere mention of India," he writes, "brought out a streak of unpleasantness or even irrationality in Churchill. In March 1943, R A Butler, the education minister, visited him at Chequers. The Prime Minister "launched into a most terrible attack on the 'baboos', saying that they were gross, dirty and corrupt." He even declared that he wanted the British to leave India, and - this was a more serious remark - that he supported the principle of Pakistan. When Butler argued that the Raj had always stood for Indian unity, Churchill replied: "Well, if our poor troops have to be kept in a sweltering, syphilitic climate for the sake of your precious unity, I'd rather see them have a good civil war."
The Partition of India with Pakistan caused the death of about 2.5 million people and displaced some 12.5 million others.

=