Democracy in India is a farce. Look at dynasty politics.

[axisofevil]

Lately whats been going round on Facebook is a picture with the following
text

"Power will go to rascals, rogues, freebooters. . . .
All leaders will be of low caliber & men of straw. . .
They'll have sweet tongues & silly hearts. . .
They will fight amongst themselves for power & the two countries will be
lost in political squabbles. . . .
A day would come when even air & water will be taxed.

He wrote this 64 years ago. . .
Incredibly we've worked very hard to prove him right. . . "

Apparently these words were uttered by Winston Churchill on the topic of
granting India independence.
And if you read the news of India its not surprising to find an article
about so and so scam or corruption involving major political figures.

So my question is..Did Winston Churchill really say the above words?





An early precursor to the above misattribution to Churchill seems to be this one, appearing at least by 1971 [1],


Quote:
Liberty is men's birthright. However, to give the reins of government to the Congress at this juncture is to hand over the destiny of hungry millions into the hands of rascals, rogues and freebooters. Not a bottle of water or a 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 Mr. Attlee. India will be lost in political squabbles.
Attlee was Prime Minister from 1945 to 1951. It was his government that introduced the Indian Independence Act of 1947. (Later forms of the above text include "men of straw" and other variations.)

But there's no evidence that Churchill said that, either.


Here's what Churchill did say about ceding governmental power to India. Then a mere member of parliament (Woodford), he observed in a parliamentary debate on 6 March 1947 [2],

Quote:
Let the House remember this. The Indian political parties and political classes do not represent the Indian masses. It is a delusion to believe that they do. I wish they did. They are not as representative of them as the movements in Britain represent the surges and impulses of the British nation. This has been proved in the war, and I can show the House how it was proved. The Congress Party declared non-co-operation with Great Britain and the Allies. The other great political party, to whom all main power is to be given, the Muslim League, sought to make a bargain about it, but no bargain was made. So both great political parties in India, the only forces that have been dealt with so far, stood aside. Nevertheless, the only great volunteer army in the world that fought on either side in that struggle was formed in India. More than three and a half million men came forward to support the King-Emperor and the cause of Britain; they came forward not by conscription or compulsion, but out of their loyalty to Britain and to all that Britain stood for in their lives. 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.

This Government, by their latest action, this 14 months limitation -- which is what I am coming to -- cripple the new Viceroy and destroy the prospect of even going through the business on the agenda which has to be settled. This can only be explained as the complete adoption of one of Mr. Gandhi's most scatterbrained observations, which I will read to the House. It was made on 24th May, 1942, after the [Cripps] Mission. He said: "Leave India in God's hands, in modern parlance, to anarchy; and that anarchy may lead to internecine warfare for a time, or to unrestricted dacoities. From these a true India will arise in place of the false one we see." There, as far as I can see, is a statement indistinguishable from the policy His Majesty's Government are determined to pursue.
So, there's Churchill's "men of straw" and, oddly enough, Gandhi's "anarchy" and "unrestricted dacoities" (acts of banditry). It's Gandhi's words that seem to suggest "rogues, rascals, and freebooters." Anyway, I'm guessing a lot of paraphrasing was going on between 1947 and 1971.

Other than that, I got nothing.





Bonnie "subcontent" Taylor

[1] Catalog Record: The Coorg memoirs (the story of the Kodavas);... | Hathi Trust Digital Library

[2] Commons Sitting of Thursday (India, Government Policy), 6 March 1947; House of Commons Debates, Hansard; Vol. 434, cc. 663-776.

 

[axisofevil]

There is absolutely no doubt Churchill was a hardcore racist ,imperialist and was personally responsible for 4 millions deaths in Bengal famine by sending all the produced rice to the military machnary. He is the fourth bigggest killer in the history after Mao-Se-Tung,Josef Stalin, Hitler and then Churchill.There is no doubt he was a great leader. patriot, man with great intuition and a true Brit. The interest of the nation was always at the top of his agenda. He could see the real colour of conman Gandhi, which 400 million Indians could not see and still can't see and his forecasts about Indian politicians have been proven 110% right.

Though I despise Churchill for his hatred towards India and being a racist but I wish we had a leader like him after 1947 instead of conman Gandhi planted Muhammud Nehru and similar ones afterwards.





Will Durant's "The Case for India".





I was listening to some Congress politicians post Gujarat election talking about how the Central Government of India will never have single party government because regional power based on the caste, regional, etc. This reminded me of Churchill's quote. It suits the Congress to follow British policy of 'Divide and Rule' to stay in the power while the country is being fragmented.

India needs someone Chanakya, Sardar Patel or N P Narayan to unite India under a new political force to remove congress of power a length of period to do away with effects of the Divide and Rule polices.

May be Modi is that person who could do this.

 

[axisofevil]

Top 25 Winston Churchill Quotes - Listverse

I got to say I kinda of like his quotes.

 

[jatt+gutts]

true..first we were ruled by kings. then by british..now with dynasties. how differnt is it from kings style monarchy

 

[janon]

true..first we were ruled by kings. then by british..now with dynasties. how differnt is it from kings style monarchy

The difference from the prior systems, is that the lower house of parliament is the only law making body in the country (and legislative assemblies at state level), and all these legislators have to be directly elected by the people. So lawmaking is strictly in people's hands. (The number of congress legislators is way less than half, the rest do not owe any affiliation to the congress dynasty. And people vote them in because their policies will best serve their interest.) In an absolute monarchy, the king's word is the law. Saudi Arabia is a modern example.

Then the concept of an independent judiciary, and the rights to free and fair trials. And that judiciary is independent of the other two branches of govt, and has nothing to do with any political family. That is another liberty we wouldn't have in the other systems you mentioned.

I could go on and on about why we do have a good system of government, and should be counting our blessings. Too much unjustified cynicism.

But opening these whine threads in the defence section is a violation of forum rules. Local news from India is also prohibited.
@Oscar @nuclearpak @WebMaster : Nothing to do with Indian defence

 

[axisofevil]

The difference from the prior systems, is that the lower house of parliament is the only law making body in the country (and legislative assemblies at state level), and all these legislators have to be directly elected by the people. So lawmaking is strictly in people's hands. (The number of congress legislators is way less than half, the rest do not owe any affiliation to the congress dynasty. And people vote them in because their policies will best serve their interest.) In an absolute monarchy, the king's word is the law. Saudi Arabia is a modern example.



Then the concept of an independent judiciary, and the rights to free and fair trials. And that judiciary is independent of the other two branches of govt, and has nothing to do with any political family. That is another liberty we wouldn't have in the other systems you mentioned.

I could go on and on about why we do have a good system of government, and should be counting our blessings. Too much unjustified cynicism.

But opening these whine threads in the defence section is a violation of forum rules. Local news from India is also prohibited.
@Oscar @nuclearpak @WebMaster : Nothing to do with Indian defence

Wow. You are so considerate. Helping educate Indians on this forum but you're full of it.

 

[karan21]

Yes Winston Churchill has been proved right beyond doubt.

But how many of you up there think that we can still do it and its not too late?? I think so

 

[UKBengali]

Yes Winston Churchill has been proved right beyond doubt.

But how many of you up there think that we can still do it and its not too late?? I think so

Ultimately it all boils down to sustained economic growth over a long period of time.

India has grown by 6% a year average in the 1980s and 1990s and 7% a year in the last decade. This decade it should also manage around 7% a year.

Most of the damage to India actually happened in the 3 decades after independence when it fell further behind western countries than when it gained independence in 1947. Since 1980 it has been catching up but not as quick as countries like China.

 

[karan21]

Ultimately it all boils down to sustained economic growth over a long period of time.

India has grown by 6% a year average in the 1980s and 1990s and 7% a year in the last decade. This decade it should also manage around 7% a year.

Most of the damage to India actually happened in the 3 decades after independence when it fell further behind western countries than when it gained independence in 1947. Since 1980 it has been catching up but not as quick as countries like China.

Yes I agree on that, but the problem is that as the economies become more advanced, corruption kindaa goes down. In, India this is opposite. Here as the pie is growing corruption is going up. India now has more money and the politicians have more chance to eat it up.

The social programs started by the govt are the biggest causes of corruption. All the welfare schemes are basically a chance for the corrupted to loot the nation. All the deals happening in defence sectors are helping the decision makers rich everyday. This is totally out of control right now. Country is going to dogs and we have the most honest Prime Minister ever.

 

[Silverblaze]

So what do indians want Martial's law? If something is not working, fix it; instead of scraping it.

 

[UKBengali]

Yes I agree on that, but the problem is that as the economies become more advanced, corruption kindaa goes down. In, India this is opposite. Here as the pie is growing corruption is going up. India now has more money and the politicians have more chance to eat it up.

The social programs started by the govt are the biggest causes of corruption. All the welfare schemes are basically a chance for the corrupted to loot the nation. All the deals happening in defence sectors are helping the decision makers rich everyday. This is totally out of control right now. Country is going to dogs and we have the most honest Prime Minister ever.

You are right that as countries get richer then corruption should go down but India is not really that much richer than it was 3 decades ago when it broke from the "Hindu" rate of growth of less than 4% a year.

India will have get a lot more richer to make any appreciable gains against corruption as there are currently far too many poor/illiterate people whose votes can be brought by free food and cheap slogans.

When India reaches a certain level of wealth and literacy(maybe around 2030) or so then politicians won't be able to buy voters as easily as they do now.

India will get there but it will be a long slow road ahead.

 

[karan21]

So what do indians want Martial's law? If something is not working, fix it; instead of scraping it.

We want better leaders who make this 1.4 billion poor nation into the world's most prosperous. Can you be one???

 

[Silverblaze]

We want better leaders who make this 1.4 billion poor nation into the world's most prosperous. Can you be one???

The problem is you and your voting attitudes. How many of you are prepared to take part in politics? None. Do not blame the politicians only, they are doing what they have been doing.

 

[karan21]

The problem is you and your voting attitudes. How many of you are prepared to take part in politics? None. Do not blame the politicians only, they are doing what they have been doing.

Yeah but we are a nation where only dynastic politics work. Father to son, son to grandson. We are not a democracy but a kingdom ruled by family rulers. Rahul Gandhi becomes the vice president the COngress there are 1000s of better and more experienced ones out there in congress.

Everything in India is imported seems like time has come to import better leaders.

 

[neehar]

i find no fault with those parties..afterall its people whos voting them..why blame them??we must blame ourselves..

The problem is you and your voting attitudes. How many of you are prepared to take part in politics? None. Do not blame the politicians only, they are doing what they have been doing.

well said..but a democracy gets better as it evolves.civil society in india is getting stronger and theyre demanding for better ..as people change politics too change.its just a matter of time