CHURCHILL, FREEDOM & DEMOCRACY

By Inder Dan Ratnu

Ever since the inception of civilization on the planet Earth, one model of human behavior has dominated the world: "Might is right." This was a concept under which the mightiest person rules a society through the use of sheer physical force, unmindful of the plight of the common man. Scientists believe that man was created on this planet about 300,000 years ago, but the reign of civilized man likely does not exceed 20000 years, and the known history of man -- whether it be ancient Indian civilization or Babylonian or Egyptian or Chinese civilization or the Red Indian civilization of the American continents -- is only 6000 years old. And throughout these 6000 years the concept of "might is right" has prevailed in all these civilizations.

The concept of democracy

But for the past 3 to 4 centuries, a revolutionary concept of freedom and democracy has evolved -- one established in England, transplanted to the USA and France, and stabilized there. This concept stressed equality of every citizen as well as equal "opportunity" for all, and would strive to create conditions that would allow the common man to uplift himself, to enjoy certain individual rights and liberties, and not to spend his life merely in the "service" of his "master." This system provided for three branches of the Government --executive, legislature, and judiciary -- which were independent of each other. The concept of the "ballot" was introduced as a means of changing governments (administrations) at regular intervals to replace the previous "bullet" (force) method. The governments those were responsible not only for the governance but also for the welfare of the people. Thus was introduced the concept of the "welfare State" and "representative government" -- a government composed of representatives of the people themselves – a government, as described by the great American President Abraham Lincoln, "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Through political evolution, the concept of democracy slowly gained ground in countries adjacent to the aforementioned three nations, and also among the people of the countries where these nations interacted through trade and the regions that they colonized or established their "empires" at. These interactions led to the spread of the knowledge of this new concept in various parts of the world, leading to the expression of aspirations of self-rule and representative governments in those parts, and ultimately giving rise to independence movements. With the advancement of science and technology in the first quarter of the twentieth century, the people saw a great opportunity to lift themselves up if they could establish governments composed of their own representatives who could take decisions regarding their welfare and implement them. But this concept and the movement suffered a setback when the old concept of "rule by force" once again raised its ugly head in the 1920s -- this time in the form of extreme nationalism at the centre of Europe at a time when the world was poised to take a leap forward through the instrument of science and technology. In Germany, a leader named Adolph Hitler advanced the concept of a superior German race and a German nation that could conquer the world by force and rule it forever. Unfortunately, through an extraordinary and inexplicable psychological mastery, he was able to make rule by force an appealing thing to the German masses. In doing so, he molded them to his will and maddened them to his calls of violence and war to advance the cause of the "great German nation." His actions were the antithesis of the new concept of freedom and democracy, as he sought not only to rule other peoples by force but also the German people themselves as a single man -- an unquestionable dictator as head of state. This upsurge at the instance of Hitler and his like-minded dictators naturally was to lead to a confrontation between these two concepts – a confrontation that lent a voice to a prominent British MP named Winston Churchill. In fact, it was Churchill, more than anybody else of his nation or any other nation in the world, who was able to foresee this conflict of concepts more distinctly right at the outset and exhibit the "honour" to highlight it as Prime Minister of Britain during the War.

There is a need for us to examine the differences between the quality of life we are leading and the life that our grandfathers led -- differences that reflect a sea change across this relatively brief period. Our grandfathers and all preceding generations led a life of bare survival: utter poverty, utter illiteracy, barely a roof to cover their heads. In those days, nearly 99% of the population had this kind of life. But now, except for the 35% of the populace that is still below the poverty line (which highlights the ongoing need to do more), the rest of the people are enjoying all those facilities reserved for a privileged few in past centuries. They have enough to eat, to cover their bodies, decent houses to live in, education for their children, and healthcare for their families, in addition to freedom of expression, movement, and settlement anywhere in the country. Most of them either own or can avail themselves of all the modern facilities of life, such as transport by buses, cars, bicycles, trains and airplanes, electricity in their houses, modern electronics and means of communication & entertainment like telephone, TV, radio, and even the Internet. This all has come about not merely because there has been development of technology, but also because people have the freedom to acquire these means and facilities that they did not have earlier. In fact, there has been an explosion of freedom, knowledge, and population during the 20th century -- and all three compliment one another. This phenomenon of "explosion" was more pronounced during the later half of the century because of the great monument at the middle of it -- World War II -- that served to free "freedom" itself from the hands of a few.

Freedom in India

We in India are enjoying full freedom. But funny thing is we fail to recognise or "identify" it in our day-to-day life .In order to make this more distinct and perceptible in my lectures, I ask the young people to pick up just one example that is quite relevant to them -- i.e education. They have the privilege to come to school at this young age and get education as per their ability to any standard and in any faculty depending upon their own merits, choice, financial status etc. There is a school on every street corner in the cities, in every village and hamlet in the countryside, even in the most backward areas. But did the fathers or grandfathers of today's schoolchildren have this blessing? They lived in a time when throughout India there was not a single school of education. We simply did not have the system of education through schools. What we had were a number of schools established by the British either for their own children or to include the privileged few of the Rulers, the royal, and the rich. We had a few schools in the ancient times at Varanasi which gave only religious teachings or rudimentary knowledge of letters. That was all. In order to have one letter read or written, one often had to go around to hundreds of villages to find one person capable of doing so. Such was the state of affairs of literacy, what to talk of in-depth education on various subjects that can be undertaken today by students hailing from common cadres!

Similarly, any of us can go anywhere within the country and settle there, and enter the business of our choice. We can join and support any political party, undertake any religious practice or social activity. In fact, we can go anywhere in the world and do our jobs as per our professional ability and personal convenience. Whereas earlier most of the common people spent their entire lives within a radius of 100 miles or so, we find that there has been a large-scale interstate movement of people in terms of business and settling since Indian independence -- and so has been the movement on the international level. These blessings were not available to our forefathers. Indeed, they were impossible for a common man to undertake in this country only 50 years ago. This is how "freedom" is identifiable in their day-to-day routine. In fact, we are all living in an "age of freedom" that has come about since World War II.

All this change has come about because there is freedom being enjoyed in this country by her citizens through democracy -- a system that was "introduced" to the people of this country by the British in the "pre-independence" period. It was adopted as a system of governance by our own wise political leadership in the post-independence era --which in a way was a continuance of the previously introduced system. But it would have been impossible to adopt or continue it in the post-independence era (after 1947) if it had been destroyed in Britain, the mother of democracy, through defeat at the hands of Hitler. And it was saved in Britain, it is universally acknowledged, largely because of the vision, vigilance, determination, extraordinary power of expression, and inspirational leadership of one man -- Winston Churchill.

Churchill has been acknowledged as the "Man of the Century" by the intelligentsia of the world. In other words, among all those billions of people who lived through the20th century he has been considered as the most important man -- or at least one among the top 3-4 such men like Einstein and Gandhi. Still, we Indians, particularly the younger generation, do not even know who this man was, what he did, and how was it relevant to us; which is why I go to the schools and speak to the young people there on this issue.

Independence vs. Freedom

While explaining it I also highlight the distinction between "independence" and "freedom," since both are often confused to mean the same thing thus leading to further confusion in respect to Churchill's contribution to the "freedom" of Indians. "Independence" in respect to India simply meant deliverance from the British yoke, whereas "freedom" is a concept that is passed on to every citizen through the adoption of democracy as a system of governance. If India had gotten her "independence," that didn't necessary mean that her common citizens would have gotten their "freedom." On the contrary, it is a foregone certainly they would never as the privileged ruling classes not allow it. They would not tolerate a common man sitting on a chair at a level with them, what to talk of his "ruling" them or deciding their welfare policy. Who is the PM of India today? A son of a "teacher." The earlier one – a son of a "trader." Still earlier – a son of a "peasant." And who is the President of India? The son of a person who was denied basic human rights hailing from the community of so called "untouchables." This is the miracle of freedom. Could they ever even "dream" of rising to these high seats of power and prestige if there was no freedom through democracy in this country? NO, NEVER. In all likelihood, they wouldn't have if freedom had been destroyed in Britain. Thus Churchill's role has been only to save the seeds of freedom which were to spread all over the world, and not in granting independence to India. But that is good enough, because without his defense freedom simply would not have survived in the world, much less in India.

Winston Churchill

Churchill has been acknowledged not only as a great war leader, but also as one of the greatest literary figures of the 20th century. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1953 for his contribution to English literature, and it was his literary quality that contributed most to making him a great war leader. The world remembers the Churchill of World War II who delivered mind-electrifying, thought-provoking speeches during the War which inspired millions of people in the English speaking world to come forward and offer their sweat, blood, and even life in defense of the cause that he stood for and so laboriously highlighted: FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY. His speeches served to awaken both the oppressed and the oppressors, and through these speeches he moved men and nations to speed across continents and oceans to rescue the cause he championed. It is therefore of utmost importance for us all to learn what precisely he had spoken during the War. Fortunately, we know his language -- English. Had it been German or French or Spanish or any other language, we would need a translator to understand it. But English we can directly and easily understand .As an example I quote the effective paragraph of his maiden speech in the House of Commons as PM of Britain, which is an example of how he had acted as a spokesman of the whole world and of mankind against a tyranny bent to destroy the very concept of freedom. But first I quote its Hindi (local language) translation so that the audience can reach the very depth of it in their mother tongue, and then I recite the original words of Churchill (which are at my command) without mimicking him in anyway.

"........We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many many long months of struggle and suffering. You ask what is our policy...You ask what is our aim. I can answer it in one word -Victory; Victory at all costs.... without victory there is no survival; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for ALL THAT THE BRITISH EMPIRE HAS STOOD FOR (implying freedom & democracy) and no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages that MANKIND WILL MOVE FORWARD towards its goal...Come then let us go forward together with our united strength."

Adolph Hitler

Besides forestalling the later carnage of so-called inferior races at the hands of Adolph Hitler, thus saving the world from a later greater turbulence by ensuring Hitler's defeat, another important contribution of Churchill to the world was his role as one of the mooters and founding fathers of the UNO, which has had a great contribution in maintaining, by and large, peace in the world by averting another world war. This is largely based upon the principle of democracy AMONG the nations of the world, and can serve as a step forward towards establishing a democratic "world govt." (which it practically already is or whatever the semblance) at any time in the future. This is also a leap forward for mankind in terms of international relations and global security. Therefore, in spite of many controversies about him, Churchill remains one of the greatest figures not only of the 20th century -- which is undoubtedly the greatest century -- but of all centuries of the known history of mankind.

The question arises as to whether Hitler really had the intent and the power to subjugate the world and destroy freedom, or if this was a mere propaganda tool of his antagonists the Allied powers. This may be noted that by 1940 Hitler, through a systematic and sustained effort over several years, had raised an armed force of 4000 tanks and 5000 fighter/bomber aircrafts along with rockets (flying bombs), at a time when in the most populous countries like India and China no one had heard of a "tank" or "fighter/bomber aircraft." There was not a single one in those countries even to display as a specimen, much less deploy in the field. This force of arms and air power was to be used by four million (2 million regular and 2 million reserve) battle hardened strong German soldiers uniformly trained, galvanized, and maddened by the Nazi philosophy of "war and superiority," all the time ready to do anything at the order of the Fuehrer. At that time the total population of Germany was only 65 million; we in India, a billion strong and half a century later, do not have this kind of force at our command. This was supplemented by a large fleet of submarines capable of neutralizing the superiority of the then-great naval powers like Britain and France. This was the greatest armed force on the earth. By 1940 France had already fallen, and only Britain was left to fight against Germany. If she too had surrendered and subsequently the entire British and French Empires had fallen along with the surrender of the Royal and French Naval Fleet, then Hitler would have acquired an unmatchable power capable of overwhelming any other country or any military alliance in the world, including those of the USA and USSR. Germany's capability was decisively demonstrated when she overwhelmed almost the entire western and central Europe within a few weeks' time. Therefore it is not wrong to conclude that Hitler, with his aims of world conquest, did have the power to subjugate the whole world in the due course of time. It took 5 long years for the four great powers -- Britain, France, the USA and USSR -- and millions of men and women to break the power of Hitler; such was the proportion of his power.

The Second World War was the greatest man-made event in the entire history of mankind. It involved the people of almost all the inhabited continents of the globe: Europe, Asia, Africa, and North and South America. It was fought on all the major oceans of the world -- the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, and Arctic. It lasted for 5 long years and took the lives of 70 million people of all races, regions, and religions, including 6.5 million Jews. It involved unprecedented atrocities of gas chambers, concentration camps, and furnaces to kill people. These were the dimensions of the event; therefore, it was bound to be a decisive event in history. It resulted in the defeat of tyranny and totalitarianism, and paved the way for freedom to spread all over the world. Now the people of the remaining pockets of the world too are keenly observing the free world and are bound to join it one day, following its great inspiration and their own endeavours to realize it. Therefore when we look back, we realize that Winston Churchill was quite right in emphasizing that it was freedom that was at stake during World War II. As he put it (FREEDOM) was the cause of ALL THE PEOPLES OF ALL THE LANDS. It was not a mere hypothesis or theoretical assumption but the most practical political system ever to emerge in the world.

 What Young People Can Do

We must preserve this priceless system, not only in our own country but also in communities all over the world. The question arises as to how the young people particularly can contribute toward this cause. They can do so in the following ways:

1. They must never adopt a cynical approach -- pointing out only the shortcomings, flaws and defects of the system -- without realizing the appreciation of its benefits to the common people. They should try to use the systems' checks and balances to correct its maladies rather than suggesting to replace the system itself by a civil dictator or a Martial Law administrator to remedy it, as sometimes occurs among the frustrated citizens of democracies. Since as Churchill put it, " democracy was the worst system of governance except all those other systems which have been tried from time to time." In other words, in spite of its flaws, it is the best system for any people in the world.

2. If they happen to join the police or Armed forces, they must learn to respect one basic cornerstone of democracy, i.e. that the authority of the Armed forces is always "subordinate" to political authority. Inflated by their egos, many a military leader in the past have violated this principle only to destroy democracy in their country.

3. If they happen to join politics, they must be conscious of their duties as political workers towards the system of democracy. If they are elected a "representative" -- whether a member of the local village body/city municipality, a State legislator, or a member of national parliament -- they must learn to express their views -- whether on the floor of the House or outside -- always in a PEACEFUL, NONVIOLENT WAY WITH DECENCY AND DECORUM, unlike the rowdy and ruffian scenes of recent times as have been witnessed at some State Assemblies and in the national parliament. They must NEVER, EVER indulge in showdowns through shouting, physical violence, and standoffs on the floor of the House, defying the orders of the Speaker and making a mockery of the system. This sends a very bad signal to the people of the nation, who watch it on TV, and in fact erodes faith in democratic institutions and diminishes respect for democracy and freedom in the minds of the onlookers -- the common people of the country. Thus by showing discipline, they will serve to strengthen the system. And inculcation of discipline and its training starts right from their classes. For that (education), separate institutions shall not be opened. They should never be carried away by the teachings of some terrorist movement, whether in the name of any religion, region, caste, community, race, or ethnic group; for that is basically AGAINST democracy.

4. If they join neither the armed forces nor politics, they at least will become citizens of their nation armed with the power to vote. They should exercise this power very wisely indeed in favor of those candidates who understand and respect the above values. If they do this, the nation and the system shall automatically be in safer and more secure hands.

We must preserve this precious system that was saved through the sacrifices of the unknown millions and through the vision and resolve of Sir Winston Churchill during World War II. The fight is not over with that War; we have to maintain an "eternal vigilance" to preserve this system in the world. As we have seen ourselves, the latest and the greatest challenge to the existence of this system after the Nazis has come from the modern terrorists who like their predecessors seek to destroy the peaceful, democratic life of the people. Like Nazis they seek to impose their will through violence and war. We all have to be on guard against such elements raising their heads in our communities.

Dictatorship Vs. Democracy

In a dictatorship one man is at the top of the nation -- a single-man system. No one can speak or act against him. Once a dictator takes over he never hands over the power to anyone until his death. He keeps himself in power through repression of others and tyranny through war and violence. This leads to the generation of HATRED in the mind of the oppressed. Power changes hands only through bloodshed under dictatorship.

But in the case of democracy, the candidates contest every five years elections. In the heat of the elections there are accusations and counter-accusations; but following the elections the contestants gracefully accept their defeat and congratulate the winners for enjoying the confidence of the people. There is a peaceful transfer of power from one regime to another. The spirit of goodwill and friendliness is preserved among the contestants. This breeds LOVE. Hence the difference between democracy and dictatorship basically is the same as that between "love" and "hatred." And which one is greater between them?

"Hatred is a despot, destroying, wreaking drought,
Love is a thunderous downpour that washes out the rout.
 Hatred is an arrow, sword, dagger thrown in motion,
Love is a fragrant flower, flashing diamond, roaring ocean.
Hatred is chilling uproot of thriving colonies killing celebration,
Love is a dome of caring home the uprooted’s rehabilitation.
Hatred deprives children of the laps of their mothers,
Love weaves nuptial bonds between the unknown and the others.
Hatred severs ties between brothers, between friends,
Love forges new bonds among foes of hearts and minds.
What love can do, hatred never tries,
For love is immortal, love never dies."

“Therefore, so long as the rise of good against evil is considered a virtue, so long as the inner crave for democracy as a political way of life stir and agitate the minds of men, so long as the lamps of liberty burn bright in the hearts of human beings, so long as the stars twinkle bright in the darker nights and the Moon and the Sun keep rising on the horizon of the Earth the name of Sir Winston Churchill and the story of his defeating Hitler will remain immortal in the world."

Visit the website of Inder Dan Ratnu

www.terraplanepub.com/inderdanratnu