[Rockingham]

Is it really so surprising or condemnable that a British statesman should defend the British empire and disparage its opponents? Churchill, who before holding office soldiered on the Northwest frontier of India, fought an insurgent Muslim army at Omdurman in the Sudan, and reported on the Boer War was hardly the stuff of an anti-imperialist.

Also, can it really be said that Churchill and the British are to blame for the brutality of the Indian partition and continuing animosities between Hindus and Muslims? After nearly seventy years of independence, they remain much at odds, with India's small Christian communities often persecuted by both.

Is Churchill truly to blame for India's sectarian violence today? Or might it be taken as supporting his pessimism about Indian self-government?

[Dansong]

Thus article does the opposite of what it wishes to do.It reminds us how right Winston was..