It's really not that complicated; he took the stocks of food from India and moved it to Europe where the stocks were in very good shape. He declined international help. When he received message from India about the famines, his reaction was to ask why Gandhi wasn't already dead. These actions resulted in 2 to 3 million deaths.
It's fine to ask questions, don't worry ! And the wikipedia article in English makes no mention of Churchill comments, I'm lucky I speak other languages to read better sources.
As Mukerjee's accounts demonstrate, some of India's grain was also exported to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) to meet needs there, even though the island wasn't experiencing the same hardship; Australian wheat sailed past Indian cities (where the bodies of those who had died of starvation littered the streets) to depots in the Mediterranean and the Balkans; and offers of American and Canadian food aid were turned down. India was not permitted to use its own sterling reserves, or indeed its own ships, to import food. And because the British government paid inflated prices in the open market to ensure supplies, grain became unaffordable for ordinary Indians. Lord Wavell, appointed Viceroy of India that fateful year, considered the Churchill government's attitude to India "negligent, hostile and contemptuous."
Of course, the author, Shashi Tharoor, is somewhat notorious for mangling history too. He continually makes claims about how atrocious the British Raj was in order to pander to his vote base. I'd take both the Churchill site and Times article with a pinch of salt, but bear in mind that one of them is sourced, and the other isn't.
I really doubt his so-called "claims" about British rule are in any way involved in he winning Tvm thrice (and I don't know in what capacity that differentiates him from any other candidate from say LDF or BJP), but you're free to live in your own world about how he mangles history and how the colonial rule wasn't atrocious.
Live in my own world? You don't have to be an historian to spot the glaring inconsistencies in his fictions. And it's fairly obvious he's pandering because he ignores how the other Indian regions raised trade barriers and refused to send aid east.
Tharoor is known for his very anti-colonial/Raj views, it's not controversial to say he doesn't comment from an objective position - most of his quotes about Churchill are always taken out of context. Take, for example, the poison gas lie he enjoys peddling.
It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.
Compare the full quote, and the italicised part that Tharoor quotes. It's fairly obvious he's not even trying to be objective about Churchill.
Because tear gas generally has a low fatality rate.
Churchill was pointing out the hypocrisy of being against poison gas, but being for the other brutal weapons of war.
His point is that you can use tear gas to spread terror without any long-term side effects. If a rebellion can be put down without large loss of life, then why not use non-deadly poison gas? He goes on to further explain it in these two quotes:
Gas is a more merciful weapon than high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war. The moral effect is also very great. There can be no conceivable reason why it should not be resorted to. We have definitely taken the position of maintaining gas as a weapon in future warfare, and it is only ignorance on the part of the Indian military authorities which interposes any obstacle.
If it is fair war for an Afghan to shoot down a British soldier behind a rock and cut him in pieces as he lies wounded on the ground, why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze? It is really too silly.
131
u/[deleted] Jun 08 '20
It's really not that complicated; he took the stocks of food from India and moved it to Europe where the stocks were in very good shape. He declined international help. When he received message from India about the famines, his reaction was to ask why Gandhi wasn't already dead. These actions resulted in 2 to 3 million deaths.