Why Winston Churchill Doesn’t Deserve His Place On The British £5 Note
In April 2013 a ludicrous decision was made. Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, 41st prime minister of the United Kingdom, was chosen to replace Elizabeth Fry's rightful place on the five-pound note. This great privilege has not only been honoured to the wrong Briton but a dogmatic and evil man with high bigotry. Here in the west, we know Churchill to be a man who hungered and thirsted for freedom, a bold and judicious man who destroyed Nazism and protected Britain forevermore. His perfectly polished reputation has been left untouched for decades since we seem to carelessly ignore and forget his horrific behaviours. However, there's disparate side to Churchill, different from what we have been told to believe. His successful politics career mustn't be made an excuse. In his endless list of eulogies, there is a vital small print that many overlook. For many outside the west, this man remains nothing more than a cruel, despicable beast with grotesque racist views. Churchill's acts bring utter shame to this country; the rest of the world ceaselessly develops, supporting more freedom and withstanding prejudice, yet we choose to openly advertise this evil man's repulsive past. Are we going to all this man's faults to define our nation today? This is why his face needs to be replaced.
During his time in the office, India was still colonised by Britain (this isn't good for a countries development). This allowed Churchill to fully express his pure contempt and shocking callousness towards these innocent civilians in utterly inhumane ways. This nation was no enemy to Britain but was instead captured and abused. He simply believed that, after the Germans, Indians were the next most inferior humans in the world. He had valid reasons to attack the Germans (enemies) but his only reason for the starvation of Indians (whose land he forcefully controlled) to death was because of their 'own foolishness and violence'. This shows his complete lack of respect towards these people, who showed no signs of his racist depictions. Furthermore, Churchill once trumpeted to the Leopold Amery ' I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits'.
Churchill was also an eager follower of physicist Fredrick Lindemann, who considered colonial citizens as 'helots' (a status between slaves and citizens), meaning to him their only purpose in life was to provide service to racial superiors (Caucasians). Lindemann also supported mass lobotomies of Indians so that they would've 'no thought of rebellion or votes so that one would end up with a perfectly peaceable and permanent society, led by supermen and served by helots.'
When Churchill realised that the local people were fighting back because of the British troops who had settled on their land (just like any other nation would when being controlled), Churchill was proud to be involved in raids that produced waste to valleys and destroyed houses and crops. He then later went reconquer Sudan, where he bragged that he personally shot at least three 'savages'.
Some may say that his racism is acceptable due to society's common views and the mindset taught in schools. Churchill, unlike the average Briton, was able to visit India (for 19 months). There is absolutely no proof of Indians being uncivilised or wild- simply different to Britons (except protest for independence which still can't be an excuse since many violent protests took place in Britain such as the votes for women, by the suffragettes) and Churchill got to see that first-hand. If the problem really was that he was afraid of the Indians due to the horrific images engraved into his mind by the society, then that should've surely been forgotten about after his harmless visits. But this clearly isn’t the case, Churchill was unreasonably racist meaning the innocent Indians had no impact on him and his pure hatred for Asians.
In 1943, India experienced a disastrous famine in the region of Bengal (provoked by the Japanese occupation of Burma the previous year). A total of three million people died - and Churchill's inaction is the main subject of criticism. Churchill refused to provide India with the required wheat as he insisted on exporting rice only to fuel Britain's war effort. 170,000 tons of wheat bypassed starving Indians even though they were only intended for storage. Churchill even went on to blame the Indians themselves for the famine for' breeding like rabbits'- this is completely disrespectful. His inaction clearly shows that he thought Indian lives were cheaper than the lives of the British.
Nevertheless, others argue against this. Many often believe that Churchill's racist views shouldn't detract from his glorious reputation. This is because Churchill was a product of his time. Nearly all Britons were racist towards the Asians, this was just a norm it would've been even stranger if he didn't have this mindset. If we look back with a rational view, he would have stood out massively if his views were otherwise. At school (Harrow School and then Sandhurst) he was taught that the superior white men were conquering the 'primitive, dark-skinned natives, and bringing them the benefits of civilisation.' This shows that Churchill was neither the first or last to promote this mindset, this was simply part of society and culture. It was only after the war that the world began to be more united and in harmony (especially with the introduction of the declaration of human rights in 1948) but this was mostly amongst European nations. After the breakdown of the British Empire, South Asian immigration to the UK increased – in the large city of Birmingham there were only 1000 Indian residents, in 1945, which rapidly increased to 27,206 in 2011 and 4.9% of the overall UK population. At the time Europe and Asia were completely separated, by social means as well. These ideas would've been engraved into their memory from a young age. It would be bizarre for him not to have the views that he had then, which we only today consider racist. Furthermore, without these views, his chances of even being elected as the prime minister would've been significantly lower (this may be because the society then was internecine and if you were thought to help other countries it may have looked like you were supporting them instead of your own nation – you would've been spurned and looked down upon). All of Britain had that view and him going completely against them could've taken away his 'British identity'.
Moreover, without Churchill, the famine would have been even more heartbreakingly disastrous. Once he was fully aware of the famine's extent, ‘Churchill and his cabinet sought every way to alleviate the suffering without weakening the war effort’ says Arthur Herman (author of Gandhi & Churchill and a Pulitzer Prize nominee). Furthermore, if he did spare money and resources to India the people of Britain would be been extremely furious, as they too were going through challenging times which would’ve made them insensitive; to them, India was just an insignificant colony. Churchill would be treating them better than the Britons who themselves had worked hard to obtain the Indian land. It doesn't make it any better that it was wartime, resulting in lack of empathy on all sides. It could've been interpreted as poor leadership and favouritism instead of sympathy and providing aid.
Despite Churchill's noble character which is popularised in the west, for many people in the Indian subcontinent (his detractors), Churchill has a reputation that is parallel to that of Hitler's in Europe. Hitler was given a chance to take his racist views further due to a policy that many European nations followed called appeasement (this means taking no action to stop Hitler to keep friendly with him). What we can't underestimate is Churchill's power. This warmonger could've easily neglected his mighty right to rule (but he was voted out). What would've Churchill done if he was given a chance, especially after the war? Could he have triggered another heart-breaking event similar to the Holocaust have occurred? Especially after such a brutal war surely no one would dare to act (in fear of another catastrophe-that is war).
Overall, I think neither Churchill or another war fighters/ military commanders and leaders should have a place on the £5 notes. Particularly in a racially diverse country like Britain, these types of characters are going to be very controversial. Of course, Churchill helped tremendously with the war effort and with winning the war for England but he severely harmed other countries along the way. How is this going to make immigrants in the UK feel? This is not a way to welcome a person whose oppression shattered country still may be going through the struggles Churchill caused. They'll be living in this country knowing that their countries pain and sorrow is being brazenly celebrated. Churchill also failed with prioritisation. Understandably Britain's resources were a paucity yet the fact that it would have taken small efforts to alleviate the problem is unacceptable. When controlling a country one mustn't forget to take responsibility when a disaster occurs, however, Churchill did just the opposite. He just took advantage of the resources and left the people to suffer when not needed. I think that this quote said by Lord Alanbrooke sums my thoughts well: 'The wonderful thing is that 3/4 … Winston had ten ideas every day, only one of which was good... England has been on the verge of disaster time and again... Never have I admired and despised a man simultaneously....'. This suggests that even though he played a major role in Britain's victory he caused a lot of unnecessary destruction that ruined innocent civilian lives. He almost used the method of trial and 'improvement'- not considering the lives he was putting in danger.
