Re: Churchill
by sanjoy basu on Oct 09, 2010 09:19 PM
He did not evolve. Till the end he remained a pompous buffon. WWII was such a huge event that even pompous speeches seemed realistic, so his speeches which normally would have been laughed at seemed timely. The real reason is a hero is that Brits need a hero to personalize their contribution in WW II. You cant grudge a people who have suffered in a war trying to cover up that their leader during that moment was a buffon and a racist. Look at China today - they rejected communist theories, know Mao is a mass murderer (even young Chinese in mainland China will whisper this). But to the world they will not admit this as it questions 50 years of their history.
Re: Re: Churchill
by Neo Indian on Oct 10, 2010 11:54 AM
Pertinent point Sanjay. India must be the only exception which hides the genuine history with great shame and projects their conquerors with undeserving greatness.
Is it not true that Rabindranath Tagore had also rejected the Noble prize he had won as a resent for the British attrocities in India? Sorry, not very clear about the history in this case...
Re: Rabindranath Tagore
by vanishing race on Oct 08, 2010 02:07 PM
He had rejected Knighthood in protest against the Jallianwalabagh massacre...not the Nobel Prize.
Re: Rabindranath Tagore
by Roy on Oct 08, 2010 02:09 PM
No.he rejected a brtish award like "some crown of glory,or star of brtish' and his Sir degree(/) aganist the attrocities in Jalianwallabauag.Nobel prize is given by Sweedish Academy
Re: Re: Rabindranath Tagore
by palanki narayana on Oct 08, 2010 05:57 PM
Nobel prize is decided by the Norweigian parliament and awarded by the Nobel foundation,neither are connected to the British empire. Tagore renounced his knighthood (the only honour he was awarded by the British) protesting against the Punjab massacre. He personally clarified that "Jana Gana Mana" was not in praise of King Edward,but the controversy refuses to die.
