June 22, 2015

Finest Hour 106, Spring 2000

Page 32

By Richard M. Langworth

Layman’s Questions About Churchill, by Inder Dan Ratnu, Jaipur, India: Mumal Publishers 1998, 112 pages, illus. softbound, Rs./125, Member price $15

2024 International Churchill Conference

Join us for the 41st International Churchill Conference. London | October 2024

More

What Every Indian Needs to Know

Given what’s come out of India on Churchill in the past (see sidebar), it is a pleasure to find an Indian author with something positive to say. Inder Dan Ratnu has been doing so for a quarter century, evidently without the total enthusiasm of his countrymen, or even his family. Finding a paperback copy of Churchill’s Great War Speeches, about to be used to wrap peanuts by a Gujarat street vendor, Mr. Ratnu salvaged it and wore it out with the use for which it was intended: reading. A member of the poet community of “Charans” of Rajasthan State in Western India, he has been reciting Churchill’s war speeches “as an item of entertainment” since 1974. After his first book was published (see next review), Indian readers wanted to know more about the statesman responsible for Mr. Ratnu’s excitement. This book provides it. Perhaps more important to non-Indians, it gives a close glimpse of the ordinary Indian’s view of Churchill—about which quite a lot needs to be done.

The author divides his book into seven closely set sections: biographic details, contemporary personalities, the war speeches, Indian independence, “controversial aspects” (charges that WSC was an imperialist, racist, dictator, etc.), “hypothetical” (Churchill and the European Union), and “conceptual” (Churchill on Britain, America, Germany, Liberty; and WSC’s philosophy and achievement). All are interesting, the sections on Gandhi especially so given recent debates over the “Person of the Century,” in which Gandhi was usually a strong contender.

Some of the writing borders on the hilarious, particularly what Ratnu describes as their “fooding habits.” Gandhi, “could not think of killing,” let alone eating, animals….He hardly consumed 2-3 wheat chapatis, vegetables and daal bhatt (pulse and rice) followed by a glass of goat milk just before sleeping…” Churchill—well, never mind! And, whereas “Churchill invariably carried a smoking cigar to burn Hitler and ‘all vestiges of Nazi tyranny’ out of Europe, the Mahatma always carried a long stick to beat the British out of the land ofhis birth.” (64)

Clearly for Mr. Ratnu, Gandhi is as great a hero as Churchill, in the context of which his view of the GandhiChurchill quarrel is interesting. When debate over the India Bill erupted in the early 1930s, Churchill led the diehards, which Ratnu acknowledges but qualifies: “He was not an arrogant man…he did suffer from an imperial arrogance… [but] Churchill did not spread freedom, sprinkling it all around. He simply saved from being destroyed….” (30)

Inder Dan Ratnu also grasps the broad irony of the British Raj in India: “the British Empire did work to spread the idea of freedom and did ‘impose’ democracies in the countries of its rule.” By its very nature, therefore, British ideas of representative government led inevitably to the Empire’s liberation: “Gradually the British worked out a system to administer and guide the life of the common men and women of India. They ‘imposed’ a rule of law and justice enabling the common persons, if need be, to challenge the authority of the highest….Even the British themselves were subject to it….This had the seeds of freedom.” (38)

The author quotes an Indian United Nations officer, Sashi Tharoor, that “Churchill’s notions of freedom and democracy faltered at the frontiers of India.” Unfortunately Ratnu does not counter this very widespread Indian view by mentioning Churchill’s magnanimity toward Gandhi (“I do not care whether you are more or less loyal to Great Britain…You need not expect anything but silence or help from us.”), recounted in Volume V of Sir Martin Gilbert’s biography. Even in his worst diehard mode, Churchill held sincere fear of what he saw as the dominant Congress Party’s rejection of oneman/one-vote, particularly for the Untouchables. Churchill also feared a Hindu-Muslim schism once the British authorities departed, which is exactly what happened.

Instead Mr. Ratnu takes a philosophic view, allowing that “time has proved that Indians can march together on the path of progress without any widespread violence and chaos.” If India’s democracy is not yet perfect, he concludes, “No one can deny the credit due to Churchill for [democracy’s] defence. Nor can anyone blame him for the ills of democracy or the distortions of freedom that have crept into the life of this country since Independence.” (42) This recalls Churchill’s 1954 remark to Eisenhower: “The British and American Democracies were slowly and painfully forged, and even they are not perfect yet.”

In other areas Mr. Ratnu has gone rather far afield by imagining what Churchill’s attitude might be toward modern questions, like Britain within Europe. “He would almost certainly propose/accept Mr. Gorbachev of Russia as the first elected President of the United States of Europe.” (35), although “he would certainly ‘prefer,’ if it were within his bounds, to make Britain the 52nd State of the United States.” (34) Not so fast! (And which state was the 51st?) But Mr. Ratnu is an enthusiast, and we should not cavil over the fact that he has put most of his research into Churchill on the war, on India, and on freedom: which he represents with skill.

This is a useful little book, nicely produced, altogether different from anything else on your library shelf. Technology moves apace, and in the new century the world’s nations, to paraphrase Churchill, “are going to be somewhat mixed up together for general and mutual advantage.” India is the second most populous country in the world, worth understanding, and worthy itself of Mr. Ratnu’s missionary zeal to offer Churchill’s truth and wisdom for the consideration of his countrymen.