<b>6. Christianism knows no Democracy, Freedom of Speech or Human Rights (and can't/won't honour its word)</b>
<i>All the excerpts from Will Durant, The Case for India (1930), Chapter <b>3</b>:</i>
<i><b>6.1 Dying for the christian empire: Indian soldiers forced to fight and die elsewhere to win christianism's wars</b></i>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The suspension of the Revolutionary movement enabled England to reduce the Indian army to 15,000 men.6 The total number of <b>Hindus who were persuaded, often by means amounting to compulsion, to fight for England in the war, was 1,338,620, being 178,000 more than all the troops contributed by the combined Dominions of Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.</b>7 None of the Hindu soldiers was granted a commission, however brave he might have proved himself to be.8 Yet they gave a good account of themselves in France, in Palestine, in Syria and Mesopotamia; a British historian speaks of "the brilliant performances of the Indian contingent sent to France in 1914 at a critical time in the Great War";9 and some say that it was the Hindu troops who first turned back the Germans at the Marne.10 Indian soldiers were sent even to China to fight unwillingly against their Asiatic brothers; the Legislature at Delhi questioned the Government about this, but the Government refused to answer.11 <b>It has been one of the many misfortunes of the Hindus, who are called unfit for selfdefense, that they have been considered admirable military material to fight for any others except themselves.</b> Never had a colony or a possession made so great a sacrifice for the master country. Every Hindu conscious of India looked forward hopefully now, as a reward for this bloody loyalty, to the admission of his country into the fellowship of free dominions under the English flag.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i><b>6.2 'Democracy' in christianism </b></i>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Never had a colony or a possession made so great a sacrifice for the master country. Every Hindu conscious of India looked forward hopefully now, as a reward for this bloody loyalty, to the admission of his country into the fellowship of free dominions under the English flag.
Indeed, in 1917, when the position of England in the War was critical, and enthusiasm for the cause of democracy needed stimulation, Mr. Edwin Montagu, Secretary of State for India, made the following announcement in the House of Commons:
"The policy of His Majesty's Government, with which the Government of India are in complete accord, is that of the increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire. They have decided that substantial steps in this direction should be taken as soon as possible, and that it is of the highest importance as a preliminary to considering what these steps should be that there should be a free and informal exchange of opinion between those in authority at home and in India. His Majesty's Government have accordingly decided, with His Majesty's approval, that I should accept the Viceroy's invitation to proceed to India to discuss the matters with the Viceroy and the Government of India, to consider with the Viceroy the views of local Governments, and to receive with him the suggestions of representative bodies and others. I would add that progress in this policy can only be achieved by successive stages. The British Government and the Government of India, on whom the responsibility lies for the welfare and advancement of the Indian peoples, must be judges of the time and measure of each advance, and they must be guided by the co-operation received from those upon whom new opportunities of service will thus be conferred and by the extent to which it is found that confidence can be reposed in their sense of responsibility."
Shortly thereafter Mr. Montagu visited India, and in collaboration with the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, drew up the "Reforms" known by their names. The Secretary wished to carry out his promises liberally, but the Viceroy proved to be an obstinate conservative; 12 these things might do, he said, a generation or two hence. Nor did the Government in London encourage Montagu; the War over, it regretted his promise and sought devices and phrases that would break it while seeming to keep it. Lloyd George, then Premier, declared with unstatesmanlike clarity that Britain intended always to rule India, that there must always remain in India a "steel frame" of British power and British dominance.13 Some time previously, Lord Curzon had written: "British rule of the Indian people is England's present and future task; it will occupy her energies for as long a span of the future as it is humanly possible to forecast."14 And Lord Birkenhead was to say, in 1925: "I am not able in any foreseeable future to discern a moment when we may safely, either to ourselves or India, abandon our trust."15 The last word observed the best traditions of imperialistic hypocrisy.
Therefore the reforms fell far short of what Montagu had hoped for. They established, first, the system of "Dyarchy," by which each province would have two ministries, one responsible to the provincial legislature, and having no powers of any account, the other responsible only to the British authorities, and having all the fundamental powers.16 Any act of the provincial legislature could be overruled by the Governor, and any act of the Governor, if he considered it necessary to the interests of the Empire, could be passed by decree over the heads of the legislature.17
A similar arrangement castrated the Central Assembly; here too the only right was to speak; all authority remained with the Viceroy. He was empowered to enact any measure which might seem necessary to him, even if it must be over a unanimous adverse vote of the Assembly; he could collect taxes which the Assembly had refused to vote; he controlled the expenditures, taxation and defense, and was free to pay salaries and pensions denied by the Assembly. When this remarkable form of progressive self-government reached England, a member of Parliament, Dr. Rutherford, said of it: "Never in the history of the world was such a hoax perpetrated upon a great people as England perpetrated upon India, when in return for India's invaluable service during the War, we gave to the Indian nation such a discreditable, disgraceful, undemocratic, tyrannical constitution.18
The Tories19 have answered that it would have been unwise to give more power to legislatures elected by so illiterate a people-forgetting that one-fifth of the Assembly, and one-half of the upper house, the Council of State, were named by the British Government; that the lower house was elected by a franchise open to one out of two hundred and fifty in the population, and the Council was (half) elected by a franchise still further whittled down.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i><b>6.3 Christianism's earlier slumdog propaganda: pretending Hindus are the aggressors and muslims the victims</b></i>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Finally, the voters were divided into sectarian groups- Hindus, Moslems, Christians, Europeans, etc.; they were given representation bearing little relation to their numbers; and each candidate presented himself not to all the citizens in his community, but only to his fellow sectarians. As Josiah Wedgwood, then a Member of Parliament, said of the Reforms, "<b>The very idea of India vanished from the Bill, to be replaced by the disunited communities of Hindu</b>, Muslim, Sikh, Mahratta, Brahmin, non-Brahmin, Indian Christian, Anglo-Indian, and English."20 <b>It was claimed that such a plan was necessary to protect the Moslems from the Hindus, who outnumber them almost: five to one; in practice, however, it is the Hindus who need protection from the Moslems.</b> The actual result was the increasing division of India into a score of hostile groups. It was a result admirably suited to an alien ruler, who no doubt had not intended it. It is only a coincidence that Lt.-Col. John Coke, Commandant at Moradadad, advised the British Government, shortly before it took over India from the Company: "Our endeavors should be to uphold in full force the (for us fortunate) separation which exists between the different religions and races, not to endeavor to amalgamate them. <i>Divide et impera</i> should be the principle of Indian Government"; to rule your subjects, divide them. It was another coincidence that the British Governor of Bombay, in 1859, sent to his Government this word of counsel: "<i>Divide et impera</i> was the old Roman motto, and it should be ours." It was also a coincidence that Sir John Strachey wrote: "The existence, side by side, of hostile creeds among the Indian people is one of the strong points in our political position in India."21 A government must not be held responsible for the inadvertent honesty of its representatives.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i><b>6.4 'Freedom of speech' and 'human rights' in christianism: Britain enacts the rules of the christian Spanish Inquisition in India</b></i>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Against the Reforms no Hindu could do anything except protest by tongue or pen. But that was a right not guaranteed to him; <b>the Reforms "did not insure to the Hindus freedom of speech, or of assembly, or of the press; or the right of trial in open court; or the privilege of <i>habeas corpus</i>; or any other of the essential rights and privileges which are the foundations and indispensable guarantees of liberty, justice, and law.</b>"22
When protests were tried, and the Hindu press began to voice its suspicion that India had been deceived, the Government at Delhi issued, in 1919, the <b>Rowlatt Acts</b>, re-imposing upon India all those restrictions of assembly, press and speech that had been in effect during the War. The Acts proclaimed that hereafter the Government might arrest without notice or warrant any suspected person, and detain him without trial as long as it liked; that such trial as might be given, was to be in secret, before not a jury but three judges appointed by the Government; that the accused need not be told the names of his accusers, nor of the witnesses against him; that these should not be required to confront him; that the accused must not be allowed the right of engaging a lawyer to defend him; that he must not call witnesses in his behalf; that usual legal procedures might be abrogated; and that no appeal would be permitted. 23 An Indian scholar showed that these <b>were almost precisely the rules of the Spanish Inquisition.</b>24 The Acts were later repealed.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i>All the excerpts from Will Durant, The Case for India (1930), Chapter <b>3</b>:</i>
<i><b>6.1 Dying for the christian empire: Indian soldiers forced to fight and die elsewhere to win christianism's wars</b></i>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The suspension of the Revolutionary movement enabled England to reduce the Indian army to 15,000 men.6 The total number of <b>Hindus who were persuaded, often by means amounting to compulsion, to fight for England in the war, was 1,338,620, being 178,000 more than all the troops contributed by the combined Dominions of Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.</b>7 None of the Hindu soldiers was granted a commission, however brave he might have proved himself to be.8 Yet they gave a good account of themselves in France, in Palestine, in Syria and Mesopotamia; a British historian speaks of "the brilliant performances of the Indian contingent sent to France in 1914 at a critical time in the Great War";9 and some say that it was the Hindu troops who first turned back the Germans at the Marne.10 Indian soldiers were sent even to China to fight unwillingly against their Asiatic brothers; the Legislature at Delhi questioned the Government about this, but the Government refused to answer.11 <b>It has been one of the many misfortunes of the Hindus, who are called unfit for selfdefense, that they have been considered admirable military material to fight for any others except themselves.</b> Never had a colony or a possession made so great a sacrifice for the master country. Every Hindu conscious of India looked forward hopefully now, as a reward for this bloody loyalty, to the admission of his country into the fellowship of free dominions under the English flag.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i><b>6.2 'Democracy' in christianism </b></i>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Never had a colony or a possession made so great a sacrifice for the master country. Every Hindu conscious of India looked forward hopefully now, as a reward for this bloody loyalty, to the admission of his country into the fellowship of free dominions under the English flag.
Indeed, in 1917, when the position of England in the War was critical, and enthusiasm for the cause of democracy needed stimulation, Mr. Edwin Montagu, Secretary of State for India, made the following announcement in the House of Commons:
"The policy of His Majesty's Government, with which the Government of India are in complete accord, is that of the increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire. They have decided that substantial steps in this direction should be taken as soon as possible, and that it is of the highest importance as a preliminary to considering what these steps should be that there should be a free and informal exchange of opinion between those in authority at home and in India. His Majesty's Government have accordingly decided, with His Majesty's approval, that I should accept the Viceroy's invitation to proceed to India to discuss the matters with the Viceroy and the Government of India, to consider with the Viceroy the views of local Governments, and to receive with him the suggestions of representative bodies and others. I would add that progress in this policy can only be achieved by successive stages. The British Government and the Government of India, on whom the responsibility lies for the welfare and advancement of the Indian peoples, must be judges of the time and measure of each advance, and they must be guided by the co-operation received from those upon whom new opportunities of service will thus be conferred and by the extent to which it is found that confidence can be reposed in their sense of responsibility."
Shortly thereafter Mr. Montagu visited India, and in collaboration with the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, drew up the "Reforms" known by their names. The Secretary wished to carry out his promises liberally, but the Viceroy proved to be an obstinate conservative; 12 these things might do, he said, a generation or two hence. Nor did the Government in London encourage Montagu; the War over, it regretted his promise and sought devices and phrases that would break it while seeming to keep it. Lloyd George, then Premier, declared with unstatesmanlike clarity that Britain intended always to rule India, that there must always remain in India a "steel frame" of British power and British dominance.13 Some time previously, Lord Curzon had written: "British rule of the Indian people is England's present and future task; it will occupy her energies for as long a span of the future as it is humanly possible to forecast."14 And Lord Birkenhead was to say, in 1925: "I am not able in any foreseeable future to discern a moment when we may safely, either to ourselves or India, abandon our trust."15 The last word observed the best traditions of imperialistic hypocrisy.
Therefore the reforms fell far short of what Montagu had hoped for. They established, first, the system of "Dyarchy," by which each province would have two ministries, one responsible to the provincial legislature, and having no powers of any account, the other responsible only to the British authorities, and having all the fundamental powers.16 Any act of the provincial legislature could be overruled by the Governor, and any act of the Governor, if he considered it necessary to the interests of the Empire, could be passed by decree over the heads of the legislature.17
A similar arrangement castrated the Central Assembly; here too the only right was to speak; all authority remained with the Viceroy. He was empowered to enact any measure which might seem necessary to him, even if it must be over a unanimous adverse vote of the Assembly; he could collect taxes which the Assembly had refused to vote; he controlled the expenditures, taxation and defense, and was free to pay salaries and pensions denied by the Assembly. When this remarkable form of progressive self-government reached England, a member of Parliament, Dr. Rutherford, said of it: "Never in the history of the world was such a hoax perpetrated upon a great people as England perpetrated upon India, when in return for India's invaluable service during the War, we gave to the Indian nation such a discreditable, disgraceful, undemocratic, tyrannical constitution.18
The Tories19 have answered that it would have been unwise to give more power to legislatures elected by so illiterate a people-forgetting that one-fifth of the Assembly, and one-half of the upper house, the Council of State, were named by the British Government; that the lower house was elected by a franchise open to one out of two hundred and fifty in the population, and the Council was (half) elected by a franchise still further whittled down.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i><b>6.3 Christianism's earlier slumdog propaganda: pretending Hindus are the aggressors and muslims the victims</b></i>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Finally, the voters were divided into sectarian groups- Hindus, Moslems, Christians, Europeans, etc.; they were given representation bearing little relation to their numbers; and each candidate presented himself not to all the citizens in his community, but only to his fellow sectarians. As Josiah Wedgwood, then a Member of Parliament, said of the Reforms, "<b>The very idea of India vanished from the Bill, to be replaced by the disunited communities of Hindu</b>, Muslim, Sikh, Mahratta, Brahmin, non-Brahmin, Indian Christian, Anglo-Indian, and English."20 <b>It was claimed that such a plan was necessary to protect the Moslems from the Hindus, who outnumber them almost: five to one; in practice, however, it is the Hindus who need protection from the Moslems.</b> The actual result was the increasing division of India into a score of hostile groups. It was a result admirably suited to an alien ruler, who no doubt had not intended it. It is only a coincidence that Lt.-Col. John Coke, Commandant at Moradadad, advised the British Government, shortly before it took over India from the Company: "Our endeavors should be to uphold in full force the (for us fortunate) separation which exists between the different religions and races, not to endeavor to amalgamate them. <i>Divide et impera</i> should be the principle of Indian Government"; to rule your subjects, divide them. It was another coincidence that the British Governor of Bombay, in 1859, sent to his Government this word of counsel: "<i>Divide et impera</i> was the old Roman motto, and it should be ours." It was also a coincidence that Sir John Strachey wrote: "The existence, side by side, of hostile creeds among the Indian people is one of the strong points in our political position in India."21 A government must not be held responsible for the inadvertent honesty of its representatives.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i><b>6.4 'Freedom of speech' and 'human rights' in christianism: Britain enacts the rules of the christian Spanish Inquisition in India</b></i>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Against the Reforms no Hindu could do anything except protest by tongue or pen. But that was a right not guaranteed to him; <b>the Reforms "did not insure to the Hindus freedom of speech, or of assembly, or of the press; or the right of trial in open court; or the privilege of <i>habeas corpus</i>; or any other of the essential rights and privileges which are the foundations and indispensable guarantees of liberty, justice, and law.</b>"22
When protests were tried, and the Hindu press began to voice its suspicion that India had been deceived, the Government at Delhi issued, in 1919, the <b>Rowlatt Acts</b>, re-imposing upon India all those restrictions of assembly, press and speech that had been in effect during the War. The Acts proclaimed that hereafter the Government might arrest without notice or warrant any suspected person, and detain him without trial as long as it liked; that such trial as might be given, was to be in secret, before not a jury but three judges appointed by the Government; that the accused need not be told the names of his accusers, nor of the witnesses against him; that these should not be required to confront him; that the accused must not be allowed the right of engaging a lawyer to defend him; that he must not call witnesses in his behalf; that usual legal procedures might be abrogated; and that no appeal would be permitted. 23 An Indian scholar showed that these <b>were almost precisely the rules of the Spanish Inquisition.</b>24 The Acts were later repealed.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->