Gandhi’s Final Judgment on Winston Churchill, British Rule, and Indian Independence, Written Shortly Before His Assassination

If Winston Churchill tried to undo Indian independence, he stated, there would be fierce opposition

 

Provenance: A Gandhi freedom fighter

Winston Churchill venerated the British Empire; it was virtually sacred to him. In the high tide of British imperial rule, India was the “jewel in the crown” of British possessions. On September 11, 1896, Churchill sailed from Southampton on the S.S. Britannia with other officers of the Fourth Hussars bound for Bombay. When he arrived at Bombay Harbor, he wrote in “My Early Life”, we “pulled up the curtain on what might well have been a different planet.” When there was a direct challenge to British imperial rule on the Indian frontier in 1897, Churchill went to the front and then wrote a book about his experiences. He could never reconcile himself to the loss of the Empire and especially Indian independence.

Churchill and Gandhi met once, in November 1906. The Englishman was then the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies; the Indian, a spokesman for the rights of his countrymen in South Africa. Back then, Gandhi wore a suit and tie, as befitting a lawyer trained in London. It is not clear whether Churchill remembered their meeting when, in the early 1930s, he began attacking Gandhi, whose Salt March in 1930 had made waves around the world and established him as the preeminent leader of India’s struggle for freedom from British rule. “It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir… striding half-naked up the steps of the Vice-regal Palace,” Churchill said of Gandhi in 1931. That year he opposed the India Bill that would have given Indian provinces a measure of autonomy, arguing it was a slippery slope towards independence. “Gandhi should not be released on the account of a mere threat of fasting,” Churchill told the cabinet on another occasion. “We should be rid of a bad man and an enemy of the Empire if he died.”

In the wake of World War II, and with a Labour government in office and austerity at home, Britain felt it could no longer sustain its far-flung empire. Sentiment rose for giving India its independence. In March 1947, a new viceroy, Lord Louis Mountbatten, arrived in Delhi with a mandate to find a way of bringing the British Raj to a very speedy end. On June 3, he announced that independence would be moved up to August that very year, presenting politicians on the subcontinent with an ultimatum that gave them little alternative but to agree to the creation of two separate states. Muslims had been agitating for their own nation, to be called Pakistan, while Hindus were generally opposed to partition.

The 1947 Indian Independence Act passed Parliament and partitioned British India into the two new independent nations of India and Pakistan. The Act received the royal assent on July 18, 1947. Pakistan celebrated independence on August 14 that year; India did so the following day. The new borders, which split the key provinces of the Punjab and Bengal in two, were officially approved on August 17. Partition triggered riots, mass casualties, and a colossal wave of migration. Millions of people moved to what they hoped would be safer territory, with Muslims heading towards Pakistan, and Hindus and Sikhs in the direction of India. As many as 14-16 million people may have been eventually displaced.

Churchill had opposed the India Independence Bill, writing in July 1947 to Prime Minister Clement Attlee, “I am much concerned to hear from my colleagues whom you consulted yesterday that you propose to call the India Bill, ‘The Indian Independence Bill’. This, I am assured, is entirely contrary to the text, which corresponds to what we have previously been told were your intentions. The essence of the Mountbatten proposals and the only reason why I gave support to them is because they establish the phase of Dominion status. Dominion status is not the same as Independence…It is not true that a community is independent when its Ministers have in fact taken the Oath of Allegiance to The King. This is a measure of grave constitutional importance and a correct and formal procedure and nomenclature should be observed.” Thus Churchill opposed outright Indian independence.

On September 27, 1947, Churchill made a speech attacking partition and the impact of Indian independence, in which he was reported in India as having said, “Fearful massacres which are occurring in India are no surprise to me…The future will witness a vast abridgement of the population throughout what has for 60 or 70 years been the most peaceful part of the world and that at the same time will come a retrogression of civilization.”

Gandhi responded to this and similar recent speeches Churchill had given in a post-prayer speech on October 5, 1947, and in doing so, he placed a harsh judgment upon British rule in India and touched on the consequences if Churchill tried to revoke Indian independence. These are his remarks, as reported in “Delhi Diary”, which refers to Gandhi in the 3rd person. “He then referred to Mr. Churchill’s second speech in which he had attacked the Labour Government for bringing ruin upon India. They had liquidated the empire, he said, and brought misery upon India’s masses. He was afraid the same fate would befall Burma. Was the wish father to the thought? Mr. Churchill was a great man. It hurt him that he should have spoken in that manner again. He put party before the nation. India consisted of seven lakhs of villages. These seven lakhs of villages had not run amuck. But supposing that they did, would that be a justification for reducing India to slavery. Was it only the good who had a right to freedom? It was the British who had taught us that freedom with drunkenness was any day preferable to slavery with sobriety. We were rightly taught that self-government included the right to misgovernment and that good government was no substitute for self-government. Socialism was Mr. Churchill’s bete noire. Labour could not be other than socialist….The victory of the Labour Party in England was the victory of socialism. Labour Government was a government by labour He had long held the view that when labour realized its dignity, it would eclipse all other parties. Labour had withdrawn British power from India by the consent of all parties. It ill became Mr. Churchill to quarrel with the great act. Supposing that he succeeded at the next election, surely he did not dream that he would undo the act and compel India to a second dose of slavery. He would have to face a living wall of opposition.”

These are three pages of those remarks, containing the historic words: “Socialism was Mr. Churchill’s bete noire. Labour could not be other than socialist. Socialism was a great doctrine. It did not admit of condemnation, but wise application. Socialists may be bad, not socialism. The victory of the Labour Party in England was the victory of socialism. Labour Government was a government by labour. He had long held the view that when labour realized its dignity [it would eclipse all other parties. Labour]” “had withdrawn British power from India by the consent of all parties. It ill became Mr. Churchill to quarrel with the great act. Supposing that he succeeded at the next election, surely he did not dream that he would undo the act and compel India to a second dose of slavery. He would have to face a living wall of opposition. ” “Did he for one moment think how shameful was the act of the annexation of Burma ?  Did he remember the way in which India was brought under subjection? He did not wish to open the dark chapter. The less said about it the better.” The provenance: Gandhi’s aide, who retained many of his discarded drafts.