Make a documentary: Churchill the hidden Hitler 😅

@Shubham-pr9cq

Ай бұрын

Yes

@kratos71

Ай бұрын

He was even worse than Hitler

@Sticklemako

Ай бұрын

Churchill wasn't hitler. Their entire bureaucracy and empire was culpable. Just putting it on one person let's them off too easily

@comradeleppi2000

Ай бұрын

​He is evil but not worse as Hitler d​@@kratos71

@arnabmandal2950

Ай бұрын

​@@kratos71yeah

Approximately 45 million people died from just famines under British rule in India during 1765-1945 and yet they're the saviours of Bharat.

India stands with Russia ❤ Because of winston Churchill 3 million people dead in india 😡😡 It's not something for celebration Sunak should apologise for doing this 😡

@ROHITGUPTA-wd2me

Ай бұрын

Rishi is British Citizen,he does as British do

@benbim540

Ай бұрын

Sir Winston Churchill arguably saved civilisation as we know it. Had Britain signed a peace treaty with Germany after the fall of France, the Nazis would have been able to dedicate their entire force to the invasion of the Soviet Union, probably taking the entire Eurasian front. North Africa would have become fascist Italy’s playhouse, with the United States isolated. So it is perhaps no surprise that those who despise Great Britain, its institutions and values, have done their utmost to attack Churchill he is accused of being a genocidal tyrant who deliberately starved millions of Indians in the Bengal famine. Nothing could be further from the truth. When facing the serious allegation Churchill has been painted as a racist who deliberately worsened the Bengal famine, but it is essential to look at the primary sources: what was actually said at the time, and what the actual policies were. All of this is available at the Churchill Archives in Cambridge. And the truth is very different to what is frequently peddled by outlets like the Guardian and the BBC. In October 1942, a cyclone struck Bengal and Orissa in British India, wiping out much of the rice crop in the region. Transportation of food and other resources were hindered as southern railways were washed away. The cyclone threw part of the subcontinent’s weather system out of sync, ruining the normal winter harvest in Northern India. Previously, this could have been alleviated by the authorities purchasing grain in the surrounding territories of Burma, Malaya, Thailand and the Philippines. But these territories were all under Japanese occupation. Constitutionally, the famine was a matter reserved to local provincial governments run by Indians. However, once the news of the severity of the situation reached Westminster, the Churchill administration did all it could to alleviate the famine. Churchill summoned the war cabinet on many occasions to discuss aid. Hundreds of thousands of tons of grain were shipped to India to try to make up the shortfall. The minutes of a 1944 January War Cabinet meeting show that from mid-October 1943, about 80,000 tons of wheat were shipped from Australia to India, with 130,000 tons of barley sent from Iraq. In the same memo, another 100,000 tons of wheat from Canada were ordered to be shipped during the first two months of 1944. Generally though, Churchill was struck with two fundamental problems: the shipping crisis and the Japanese fleet. Allied shipping was severely overstretched, and there were not enough ships for its current missions. Not only would these key ships have to be diverted from their objectives to send grain to India, but from April 1942 onwards, the Japanese maintained a powerful fleet of submarines and battlecruisers in the Bay of Bengal. These were a great threat to merchant shipping and were posted there throughout the famine period. A government paper for the Chiefs of Staff Committee of the War Cabinet, of which Churchill had a copy, demonstrated the grave Japanese threat in the region. Marked ‘Strategy for the War against Japan’ on the 1 March, 1944, it showed that the ‘estimated area into which a Japanese Battleship/Carrier raiding force might penetrate’ was devastatingly far inside the Bay of Bengal. From near the coast of the Maldives to South Burma, Japanese submarines and battlecruisers wreaked havoc on the East Indian shipping routes. Nevertheless, the British administration still managed to send about a million tons of grain to India between August 1943 and December 1944. Many of Churchill’s detractors point to declining grain being sent from Canada as evidence of him deliberately refusing aid for India. What it actually demonstrates is that Churchill was strategic - and sent grain from closer places to reduce any logistical issues and allow food to reach starving Bengalis quicker. If you read the full November 1943 telegrams between Churchill and Canadian Prime Minister, Mackenzie King, Churchill is clearly exonerated from the charge that he starved Indians in Bengal. In these telegrams Canada offered India 100,000 tons of wheat. Shipping wheat from the Canada’s West coast was impractical, given that Canada was already inadequately trying to transport timber goods for aeroplane manufacturing and Chilean nitrate to Egypt. And, as Churchill noted, it was a nightmare shipping from eastern Canada given that the journey would take at least two months. He instead had the wheat ordered from Australia where it would take three to four weeks to arrive. Winston, and the war cabinet, chose the most practical and quick option. Those who refuse to accept this and pretend that Churchill simply refused to aid India are completely wrong. Later in April 1944, a rather distraught Churchill telegrammed President Roosevelt, pleading for American aid. He wrote that: ‘I am seriously concerned about the food situation in India’ and ‘by cutting down military shipments and other means, I have been able to arrange for 350,000 tons of wheat to be shipped to India from Australia during the first none months of 1944. This is the shortest haul. I cannot see how to do more.’ In the same message he asked the United States for a ‘special allocation of ships to carry wheat to India from Australia.’ Roosevelt’s response was depressing - America could not divert any ships without hindering its military operations. There was to be no American aid. Of course, we must remember that throughout all of this, not only was Japan attempting to invade India but it was bombing coastal cities. This damage worsened the crisis. In December 1943, a bombing raid over the Calcutta docks caused major port backlogs. Accidents didn’t help either, such as when a ship caught fire and blew up in April 1944 at the Bombay docks. Not only was the port not fully functional for six months but that one explosion destroyed over 36,000 tons of food. So where do the false accusations of Churchill engineering or prolonging the famine come from? Partly from conspiratorial works which neglect many of the facts referenced above. But the primary reasoning is based on alleged quotes Churchill made in private, that Indians were ‘a beastly people with a beastly religion’. This quote though is actually taken from Amery’s diaries (the secretary of state of India). If one looks at the full context, Churchill was at the time under immense pressure, with the Quit India Movement refusing to compromise with the British government over independence. In doing this, they were helping the Japanese, as the independence movement encouraged mass disobedience at a time when Japan was invading the country. Can we not forgive Churchill, a man bearing the weight of the world on his shoulders, whilst being ill for much of the war (he had a heart attack in December 1941, multiple bouts of pneumonia and more)? If Churchill’s detractors actually bothered reading Amery’s diaries, they would see that Churchill often had quick bursts of rage to blow off steam. Yes, these comments were awful and racist, but to pretend that this represented his view on Indians is dishonest. Winston was a paternalistic imperialist. He was condescending, yes. But he was not genocidal. His opposition to Indian self-government in the 1930s was out of fear of the Brahmins abusing the Untouchables. He was extremely concerned that premature independence would cause the subcontinent to partition, but Churchill on many occasions professed concern for the wellbeing and protection of Indians. He once said, ‘I want to see a great shining India, of which we can be as proud as we are of a great Canada or a great Australia.’ And recounted that, ‘The unsurpassed bravery of Indian soldiers and officers, both Moslem and Hindu, shine for ever in the annals of war…The response of the Indian peoples, no less than the conduct of their soldiers, makes a glorious final page in the story of our Indian Empire.’ To paint Churchill as an unapologetic racist, responsible for the Bengal famine is a gross distortion of history.

@kanapathyuthayamoorty5153

Ай бұрын

Rishi Sunak is an anglicized British citizen and therefore he would try to outshine the other Britishers in showing his praise for any colonial leaders just like the converted Christians try to show off their newly found faith to people around them!

@user-jb6vj1dp4k

Ай бұрын

INDIA stands with USA, not russia. India is using russia. Just to get oil, nothing else

@nafisfuadayon6832

Ай бұрын

10 million in Bengal.

This is why India and Russia are good friends. 🇮🇳🤝🇷🇺

As a Bengali, I will never forgive Churchill. He destroyed our lives

@KitJBenn

Ай бұрын

And he wasn't much good for the brave Irish people either!! It's a sad shame that many people forget the Evils of Evil leaders and their Tory political party!

@ricespiceandme8541

Ай бұрын

True

As far as India was concerned he was worse than Hitler for us

Thanks Russian🇷🇺 at last someone saying truth

THATS KILLER CHURCHILL,... WIPED OUT OVER 5 MILLION INDIANS!!!!😱😱😱

@riyas9905

Ай бұрын

I think number goes to 6 million people who were left to die intentionally knowing well by snatching their food reserves the same time as this war - a decision by Churchill who was worse than Hitler.

This is the reason why we love Russia 🇷🇺

The entire world is a vast area. Only for Europe is the assertion true. For British colonies, Winston Churchill is Adolf Hitler 2.0.

Identity crisis with Rishi ! Kudos to Russia. India should have given a befitting reply as well !!!!

@vibhac5403

Ай бұрын

I live in the UK. It is good Indian government did not say anything. The UK media is already pumping out anti India news on an almost daily basis. If anything is said it will add more fuel to the fire and it is a very fragile dangerous situation in India due to election in India. Sometimes silence is golden

@samikshagoyal7707

Ай бұрын

@@vibhac5403 Imo, self respect and national pride is always above petty politics. UK media badmouthing India is a permanent thing, nothing new.. we mustn’t stay silent. Churchill killed millions of Indians and not to forget his racist comments. 🥺🥺

@KomalD-cb2bu

Ай бұрын

I mean he is a British, he was born in UK and as the PM , he has to follow British values.

@user-dg2dm8xg4u

Ай бұрын

It took but one call to Russia.

@cliff311976

Ай бұрын

Rashi sanook is another brown economic refugee working for his British masters 😅😅😅

Bengal will never forgive Churchill n Sunak.Afterall Sunak u cannot deny ur Indian roots

Poor Rishi, blissfully ignorant 🙄

@sujoydutta6260

Ай бұрын

His job is to praise Winston Churchill. Afterall he is the PM of UK.

@varun2250

Ай бұрын

Nope, it comes with the job and the kind of regressive society England is!

@defence3355

Ай бұрын

Brown coolie will serve his white masters.

@coolspagamingandtech9302

Ай бұрын

​@@sujoydutta6260 true. He won't stand a chance in the next elections. People openly say he is indian so no vote for him.

@user-kg1ei7wv5y

Ай бұрын

​@@coolspagamingandtech9302 Yeah because pure Britishers are rascals 😂😂😂😂

a true statesman is one who knows history of his country and the world.

Its like how Maculay Said, "Brown from outside and True Englishman from Inside" Really Brits, thanks for changing the dynamics of the indian society as well as mentality. Truly Amazing....

The picture of the little kid holding his infant brother/sister while they both die of starvation...... is heart wrenching. Our people had to suffer through so much just for liberty and independence. Let us cherish and remember our ancestors who suffered through and withstood the depredation of numerous tyrants for milennia, for us to even exist here 😢 🙏

@abooswalehmosafeer173

Ай бұрын

And to Condemn too especially those who have betrayed the Fundamentals of Humanity to some Humankind. To condemn. And Keep informing us that History lies too,and big time.Thanks God Internet is revealing to us what we did not know.

A country since its origin only did crime think itself as hero 😂😂

India should ask UK to pay $20T. No FTA with GB - Garbage Bin.

@himalaya_putr

Ай бұрын

minimum estimated amount is 45Trillion brother, but i like your enthusiasm.🤝🙏

@sangitaagrawal6008

Ай бұрын

GB😂😂😂😂😂

@godhaninisarg1570

Ай бұрын

noo not only 20 T but 45T or above

@radjen5948

Ай бұрын

What's the estimate price one want to put on each single life and that of infants too? It was not 5 million, because look at how long we had to suffer, weakened and congress with desh-drohi supporters brought us lots of unthinkable problems.

@PoliticalSeer-ii3wh

Ай бұрын

$60 Trillion Now 🤗 Inflation Bhi Hai 😊

Sunak trying save his a*s

Winston Churchill called Mahatma Gandhi "The half naked fakir"

Speak the truth LOUDER!!!!....👏🏿👏🏿👍🏿👍🏿

The US/UK didn't do jack against Germany in WW2 except fight what scraps the Russians left them, the fall of Germany was squarely a Russian victory while Western Europe couldn't do more than surrender”. ... US and UK had trouble dealing with 13 German divisions of middle aged men. USSR had to deal with over 200 German divisions of their best ... the Werhmacht still got their butts kicked all the way to Berlin.

Any sunak is PM of UK, he will have to speak that language... I wont expect him to be an Indian thought speaker, though Russia pointed it rightly.

Hey RT, you need to make an India documentary telling the world of 200yrs England occupation, incl WC feats. Truth only. And count the dead during that time.

Sunak totally forgets the colour of his skin since he's blind to the very core of his heart becoz of the UK prime minister post he's holding !

🇮🇳🇷🇺 ✔❤

Ukraine and Nato to wave white flag.

Gentle reminder: Britain voted Churchill out after the war.

I hate when instead of talk there's only music.

@NefetariMoonRay

Ай бұрын

INSTEAD OF TALK, THERE IS ONLY EVER FINGER POINTING AND CRITICISM FROM PUTIN. HES LIKE THE BOY IN THE PLAYGROUND WHO ONLY STICKS OUT HIS TONGUE AND BLOWS RASPBERRY'S AT EVERYBODY . OR PUTS HIS FINGERS UP AT THE TEACHER. HES NEVER DIPLOMATIC, ONLY EVER BLAMING. ONLY EVER HATING.

Russia India a Bad time friend

@deensingh

Ай бұрын

No one is friend everyone has own interests

@MOM-jo7vs

Ай бұрын

@@deensinghbut still they manage good relations and are not like usa

@user-kg1ei7wv5y

Ай бұрын

​@@deensingh But he helped us in bad times only and a true friend will stand with you in your bad times and not in good times because they are best friends other hand not like Selfish america 😂😂😂

Correction: May 9th and not May 8th

@asselutepova5556

Ай бұрын

For the West, Victory day is the 8th, for USSR is the 9th.

Sunak is a Briton. He has done his duty. Nothing to comment on this. People who think sunak is an Indian only must cry 😅😅

@bhanuchandrakarisetty9718

Ай бұрын

He can do his duty. No objection for that. The words he chose "The world owes an enormous debt" was the issue. He could have limited to the countries affected by Nazis. Not entire world owes to Churchil, especially India.

@theBishopmzts

Ай бұрын

Sunak:"the britons owe an enormous debt to Winston Churchill....,bla bla, bla..." 🎉

😅sunak doesnt know his own indian history how many indians were killed by churchill wat sort of a politician is he

Churchill freed Europe but the world owes enormous debt. Outside of Europe, a vast majority were suffering due to Western colonialism than World War 2.

@taraashlin

Ай бұрын

And not to mention so many IndiA soldiers fought in the war on behalf British empire. British owe gratitude to all the people who were forced to fight on their behalf.

@realnapster1522

Ай бұрын

Churchill didn’t do anything. 😅

@surabhikashyap241

Ай бұрын

@@realnapster1522 He did but for his country and people. Europe might owe some debt. But saying the world owes him debt is hilarious.

What can you expect from a colonial culture?..it breeds the same colonial apologists......so sad for India...

His family should have been in India during the famine in Bengal caused by his so called champion of freedom

Knowledge is Power. History lies too. "The Lord said Worship No One But Me".

@firujmiah7781

Ай бұрын

Who is your, Lord one out of trinity. Isho or the Greek roman who chosen your Lord.

A coolie will always be a coolie.

Both my grandfathers were in the British Army in the first WW one a captain the other was his seargent I only had the pleasure of knowing one the captain my maternal grandfather when he died in 1964 i was 7yrs old but i still remember some of the things that was done by the british before 1900 in india austrailia and parts of africa too he knew who and what churchill was and its not all nice as mr Sunak is lead to believe

Can you blame him..he is british. For british people churchill is saviour ...so natural for him to say that. He is a UK man a UK prime minister. His roots have nothing to do with it

@plusultra7258

Ай бұрын

But he used the term "whole world" which is complete ignorance. He could've kept that till Europe

@azadkhan4294

Ай бұрын

Sunak is British but this does not justify him praising Churchill. The fact is Churchill was racist and caused deaths of millions of Indiand British or not British no one can justify the actions of racist Churchill resulting in deaths of millions of innocent civilians. Sunak should apologise the Bengalis and Indians

2.5 million Indians fought for d 2 ND world War which was no way related to indians

This is geo politics. Russia played the right card at the right time. Awaiting for a response from the lndian side.

हमारे लोग ऐसा गुणगान करते हैं बरतानिया का जैसे स्वर्ग है। तभी तो वह भाग के जाते हैं यहां से।

@bhavendrajyoti1655

Ай бұрын

Rishi Sunak कोई ऋषि नहीं है : दिन भर नाक को सिनकने से कोई ऋषि नहीं बन जाता. वो एक ओछी प्रवृत्ति का तालुवे चाट प्राणी है, जो कि अपने Viking आकाओं की नजरों में अपना मान बढ़ाकर अनुगृहीत होने के लिए, वैदिक भारत और वैदिक रूस अर्थात ऋषीक देश के प्रति दुर्भावनावश दुरभिसंधि और दौर्मनस्‍यस को कार्यान्वित कर रहा है. उसके कर्म, अति निकृष्ट होते हुए भी उसकी बूढ़ी सास को सम्मोहित कर गए हैं, और उस सास को ऐसा भ्रम हो गया है कि उसकी पत्नी ने ही उसे इंग्लैंड का प्रधान मंत्री बना डाला है....Rishi Sunak को "हमारा" समझने की भूल न करें, वो तो अपने feudalist Viking handler आकाओं का चपरासी मात्र है.

Rishi is now Richard..

Russia won wwII not England or the gringos

@Y_U_K_A

Ай бұрын

exactly! only USSR not Russia but anyways..

Wow!

Little rishi is ignorant on history as a plank of wood.

Sunak forget his origin, he thought he was white. How pathetic is that 😹😹

@comradeleppi2000

Ай бұрын

He is a UK man pathetic of you to think about his origin . He is UK man ruling UK people. He doesn't care about his origin then why do you care. Think about our own nation why looking at a man who has nothing to do with us

And more. In Egypt and many other countries.

our government still seems helpless against UK . For some reason our government naver stand with our own people's . our government should raise that churchill was a murder. thank you Russia for stand with facts and trust

@benbim540

Ай бұрын

Please read this it may explain .Sir Winston Churchill arguably saved civilisation as we know it. Had Britain signed a peace treaty with Germany after the fall of France, the Nazis would have been able to dedicate their entire force to the invasion of the Soviet Union, probably taking the entire Eurasian front. North Africa would have become fascist Italy’s playhouse, with the United States isolated. So it is perhaps no surprise that those who despise Great Britain, its institutions and values, have done their utmost to attack Churchill he is accused of being a genocidal tyrant who deliberately starved millions of Indians in the Bengal famine. Nothing could be further from the truth. When facing the serious allegation Churchill has been painted as a racist who deliberately worsened the Bengal famine, but it is essential to look at the primary sources: what was actually said at the time, and what the actual policies were. All of this is available at the Churchill Archives in Cambridge. And the truth is very different to what is frequently peddled by outlets like the Guardian and the BBC. In October 1942, a cyclone struck Bengal and Orissa in British India, wiping out much of the rice crop in the region. Transportation of food and other resources were hindered as southern railways were washed away. The cyclone threw part of the subcontinent’s weather system out of sync, ruining the normal winter harvest in Northern India. Previously, this could have been alleviated by the authorities purchasing grain in the surrounding territories of Burma, Malaya, Thailand and the Philippines. But these territories were all under Japanese occupation. Constitutionally, the famine was a matter reserved to local provincial governments run by Indians. However, once the news of the severity of the situation reached Westminster, the Churchill administration did all it could to alleviate the famine. Churchill summoned the war cabinet on many occasions to discuss aid. Hundreds of thousands of tons of grain were shipped to India to try to make up the shortfall. The minutes of a 1944 January War Cabinet meeting show that from mid-October 1943, about 80,000 tons of wheat were shipped from Australia to India, with 130,000 tons of barley sent from Iraq. In the same memo, another 100,000 tons of wheat from Canada were ordered to be shipped during the first two months of 1944. Generally though, Churchill was struck with two fundamental problems: the shipping crisis and the Japanese fleet. Allied shipping was severely overstretched, and there were not enough ships for its current missions. Not only would these key ships have to be diverted from their objectives to send grain to India, but from April 1942 onwards, the Japanese maintained a powerful fleet of submarines and battlecruisers in the Bay of Bengal. These were a great threat to merchant shipping and were posted there throughout the famine period. A government paper for the Chiefs of Staff Committee of the War Cabinet, of which Churchill had a copy, demonstrated the grave Japanese threat in the region. Marked ‘Strategy for the War against Japan’ on the 1 March, 1944, it showed that the ‘estimated area into which a Japanese Battleship/Carrier raiding force might penetrate’ was devastatingly far inside the Bay of Bengal. From near the coast of the Maldives to South Burma, Japanese submarines and battlecruisers wreaked havoc on the East Indian shipping routes. Nevertheless, the British administration still managed to send about a million tons of grain to India between August 1943 and December 1944. Many of Churchill’s detractors point to declining grain being sent from Canada as evidence of him deliberately refusing aid for India. What it actually demonstrates is that Churchill was strategic - and sent grain from closer places to reduce any logistical issues and allow food to reach starving Bengalis quicker. If you read the full November 1943 telegrams between Churchill and Canadian Prime Minister, Mackenzie King, Churchill is clearly exonerated from the charge that he starved Indians in Bengal. In these telegrams Canada offered India 100,000 tons of wheat. Shipping wheat from the Canada’s West coast was impractical, given that Canada was already inadequately trying to transport timber goods for aeroplane manufacturing and Chilean nitrate to Egypt. And, as Churchill noted, it was a nightmare shipping from eastern Canada given that the journey would take at least two months. He instead had the wheat ordered from Australia where it would take three to four weeks to arrive. Winston, and the war cabinet, chose the most practical and quick option. Those who refuse to accept this and pretend that Churchill simply refused to aid India are completely wrong. Later in April 1944, a rather distraught Churchill telegrammed President Roosevelt, pleading for American aid. He wrote that: ‘I am seriously concerned about the food situation in India’ and ‘by cutting down military shipments and other means, I have been able to arrange for 350,000 tons of wheat to be shipped to India from Australia during the first none months of 1944. This is the shortest haul. I cannot see how to do more.’ In the same message he asked the United States for a ‘special allocation of ships to carry wheat to India from Australia.’ Roosevelt’s response was depressing - America could not divert any ships without hindering its military operations. There was to be no American aid. Of course, we must remember that throughout all of this, not only was Japan attempting to invade India but it was bombing coastal cities. This damage worsened the crisis. In December 1943, a bombing raid over the Calcutta docks caused major port backlogs. Accidents didn’t help either, such as when a ship caught fire and blew up in April 1944 at the Bombay docks. Not only was the port not fully functional for six months but that one explosion destroyed over 36,000 tons of food. So where do the false accusations of Churchill engineering or prolonging the famine come from? Partly from conspiratorial works which neglect many of the facts referenced above. But the primary reasoning is based on alleged quotes Churchill made in private, that Indians were ‘a beastly people with a beastly religion’. This quote though is actually taken from Amery’s diaries (the secretary of state of India). If one looks at the full context, Churchill was at the time under immense pressure, with the Quit India Movement refusing to compromise with the British government over independence. In doing this, they were helping the Japanese, as the independence movement encouraged mass disobedience at a time when Japan was invading the country. Can we not forgive Churchill, a man bearing the weight of the world on his shoulders, whilst being ill for much of the war (he had a heart attack in December 1941, multiple bouts of pneumonia and more)? If Churchill’s detractors actually bothered reading Amery’s diaries, they would see that Churchill often had quick bursts of rage to blow off steam. Yes, these comments were awful and racist, but to pretend that this represented his view on Indians is dishonest. Winston was a paternalistic imperialist. He was condescending, yes. But he was not genocidal. His opposition to Indian self-government in the 1930s was out of fear of the Brahmins abusing the Untouchables. He was extremely concerned that premature independence would cause the subcontinent to partition, but Churchill on many occasions professed concern for the wellbeing and protection of Indians. He once said, ‘I want to see a great shining India, of which we can be as proud as we are of a great Canada or a great Australia.’ And recounted that, ‘The unsurpassed bravery of Indian soldiers and officers, both Moslem and Hindu, shine for ever in the annals of war…The response of the Indian peoples, no less than the conduct of their soldiers, makes a glorious final page in the story of our Indian Empire.’ To paint Churchill as an unapologetic racist, responsible for the Bengal famine is a gross distortion of history.

Sad

I advise Rishi Sunak to read the new book entitled "Winston Churchill: His Time and His Crime" in which the true nature of of the person is clearly depicted.

Sunak shock pay to both India and US for UK’s victory of 2 nd world war!!

Rishi sunak desperately trying to show he snot indian even if by directly supporting the most notorious character in india s freedom fight! He s disgusting

@elle7739

Ай бұрын

He's not an Indian. Never was, never will be. Wasn't even born in India. Just because he's of Indian origin and married to one doesn't make him one.

Sunak the coconut , he's so pathetic !

ऋषि sunak हिंदू है, भारतीय नहीं

Now people realize that winston churchill is a phut outside england. The glory of a phut by sunak. His indian phut

Rishi Sunak is a kattar hindu 🕉️

Our media is calm on it, pathetic.

Eak documentary Winston Churchill sala par bhi banini chahiye jiske wajhe se 60000 log bhukhmari se mar gye west Bengal me

@coolspagamingandtech9302

Ай бұрын

You are missing some zeroes

@neerajbhardwaj9014

Ай бұрын

@@coolspagamingandtech9302 yes uncle my silly mistake

@coolspagamingandtech9302

Ай бұрын

@neerajbhardwaj9014 I mean it's million not thousands

They were allies of the NAZI'S and they started WW2 together by invading Poland, Hitler from the west and Stalin from the east and they also invaded Finland they only switched when Hitler turned on them in 1941.

Are all these Indian media stations controlled by the government?

British barely fought in WW2. Majority of the soldiers who bared the brunt of the fighting were the non-white colonial subjects. Sunak is a tool. His favorite movie is probably Gunga Din.

Churchill more like Shithill

Oups ...

Sunak needs to go back to school 😂😢😂 😂😂

Instead of Russia, PM of India should have condemned Britain, but Russia had done the job. Same on Modi ji. He should openly condemn Winston Churchill...

@NefetariMoonRay

Ай бұрын

MODI IS ONE OF THE WISEST OF ALL HINDU'S. HE ONLY EVER MAKES FRIENDSHIPS WITH THE WORLD, HE IS NEVER NEGATIVE TO ANYBODY. THIS IS THE REASON WHY HE HAS THE CORRECT WISDOM TO MAKE HIS COUNTRY PROSPEROUS. IT IS IN A GLOBAL FRIENDLINESS AND UNITY .

S 400 POINTS❤❤🎉🎉

Churchill was equally worst as Hitler.

@benbim540

Ай бұрын

Sir Winston Churchill arguably saved civilisation as we know it. Had Britain signed a peace treaty with Germany after the fall of France, the Nazis would have been able to dedicate their entire force to the invasion of the Soviet Union, probably taking the entire Eurasian front. North Africa would have become fascist Italy’s playhouse, with the United States isolated. So it is perhaps no surprise that those who despise Great Britain, its institutions and values, have done their utmost to attack Churchill he is accused of being a genocidal tyrant who deliberately starved millions of Indians in the Bengal famine. Nothing could be further from the truth. When facing the serious allegation Churchill has been painted as a racist who deliberately worsened the Bengal famine, but it is essential to look at the primary sources: what was actually said at the time, and what the actual policies were. All of this is available at the Churchill Archives in Cambridge. And the truth is very different to what is frequently peddled by outlets like the Guardian and the BBC. In October 1942, a cyclone struck Bengal and Orissa in British India, wiping out much of the rice crop in the region. Transportation of food and other resources were hindered as southern railways were washed away. The cyclone threw part of the subcontinent’s weather system out of sync, ruining the normal winter harvest in Northern India. Previously, this could have been alleviated by the authorities purchasing grain in the surrounding territories of Burma, Malaya, Thailand and the Philippines. But these territories were all under Japanese occupation. Constitutionally, the famine was a matter reserved to local provincial governments run by Indians. However, once the news of the severity of the situation reached Westminster, the Churchill administration did all it could to alleviate the famine. Churchill summoned the war cabinet on many occasions to discuss aid. Hundreds of thousands of tons of grain were shipped to India to try to make up the shortfall. The minutes of a 1944 January War Cabinet meeting show that from mid-October 1943, about 80,000 tons of wheat were shipped from Australia to India, with 130,000 tons of barley sent from Iraq. In the same memo, another 100,000 tons of wheat from Canada were ordered to be shipped during the first two months of 1944. Generally though, Churchill was struck with two fundamental problems: the shipping crisis and the Japanese fleet. Allied shipping was severely overstretched, and there were not enough ships for its current missions. Not only would these key ships have to be diverted from their objectives to send grain to India, but from April 1942 onwards, the Japanese maintained a powerful fleet of submarines and battlecruisers in the Bay of Bengal. These were a great threat to merchant shipping and were posted there throughout the famine period. A government paper for the Chiefs of Staff Committee of the War Cabinet, of which Churchill had a copy, demonstrated the grave Japanese threat in the region. Marked ‘Strategy for the War against Japan’ on the 1 March, 1944, it showed that the ‘estimated area into which a Japanese Battleship/Carrier raiding force might penetrate’ was devastatingly far inside the Bay of Bengal. From near the coast of the Maldives to South Burma, Japanese submarines and battlecruisers wreaked havoc on the East Indian shipping routes. Nevertheless, the British administration still managed to send about a million tons of grain to India between August 1943 and December 1944. Many of Churchill’s detractors point to declining grain being sent from Canada as evidence of him deliberately refusing aid for India. What it actually demonstrates is that Churchill was strategic - and sent grain from closer places to reduce any logistical issues and allow food to reach starving Bengalis quicker. If you read the full November 1943 telegrams between Churchill and Canadian Prime Minister, Mackenzie King, Churchill is clearly exonerated from the charge that he starved Indians in Bengal. In these telegrams Canada offered India 100,000 tons of wheat. Shipping wheat from the Canada’s West coast was impractical, given that Canada was already inadequately trying to transport timber goods for aeroplane manufacturing and Chilean nitrate to Egypt. And, as Churchill noted, it was a nightmare shipping from eastern Canada given that the journey would take at least two months. He instead had the wheat ordered from Australia where it would take three to four weeks to arrive. Winston, and the war cabinet, chose the most practical and quick option. Those who refuse to accept this and pretend that Churchill simply refused to aid India are completely wrong. Later in April 1944, a rather distraught Churchill telegrammed President Roosevelt, pleading for American aid. He wrote that: ‘I am seriously concerned about the food situation in India’ and ‘by cutting down military shipments and other means, I have been able to arrange for 350,000 tons of wheat to be shipped to India from Australia during the first none months of 1944. This is the shortest haul. I cannot see how to do more.’ In the same message he asked the United States for a ‘special allocation of ships to carry wheat to India from Australia.’ Roosevelt’s response was depressing - America could not divert any ships without hindering its military operations. There was to be no American aid. Of course, we must remember that throughout all of this, not only was Japan attempting to invade India but it was bombing coastal cities. This damage worsened the crisis. In December 1943, a bombing raid over the Calcutta docks caused major port backlogs. Accidents didn’t help either, such as when a ship caught fire and blew up in April 1944 at the Bombay docks. Not only was the port not fully functional for six months but that one explosion destroyed over 36,000 tons of food. So where do the false accusations of Churchill engineering or prolonging the famine come from? Partly from conspiratorial works which neglect many of the facts referenced above. But the primary reasoning is based on alleged quotes Churchill made in private, that Indians were ‘a beastly people with a beastly religion’. This quote though is actually taken from Amery’s diaries (the secretary of state of India). If one looks at the full context, Churchill was at the time under immense pressure, with the Quit India Movement refusing to compromise with the British government over independence. In doing this, they were helping the Japanese, as the independence movement encouraged mass disobedience at a time when Japan was invading the country. Can we not forgive Churchill, a man bearing the weight of the world on his shoulders, whilst being ill for much of the war (he had a heart attack in December 1941, multiple bouts of pneumonia and more)? If Churchill’s detractors actually bothered reading Amery’s diaries, they would see that Churchill often had quick bursts of rage to blow off steam. Yes, these comments were awful and racist, but to pretend that this represented his view on Indians is dishonest. Winston was a paternalistic imperialist. He was condescending, yes. But he was not genocidal. His opposition to Indian self-government in the 1930s was out of fear of the Brahmins abusing the Untouchables. He was extremely concerned that premature independence would cause the subcontinent to partition, but Churchill on many occasions professed concern for the wellbeing and protection of Indians. He once said, ‘I want to see a great shining India, of which we can be as proud as we are of a great Canada or a great Australia.’ And recounted that, ‘The unsurpassed bravery of Indian soldiers and officers, both Moslem and Hindu, shine for ever in the annals of war…The response of the Indian peoples, no less than the conduct of their soldiers, makes a glorious final page in the story of our Indian Empire.’ To paint Churchill as an unapologetic racist, responsible for the Bengal famine is a gross distortion of history.

Sunak didn't study history at school or studied scripted history who knows. Maybe his in laws can teach him proper history

Why such dramatic music? You should add narration instead. What's the point of watching a video when you will end up reading the news and keeping the volume off because of the stupid music? We can read articles instead.

ONE MORE JOKER

Now Lindus will cry more 😂😂😂

@Ghost_7070

Ай бұрын

? what are you trying to say?

Rishi sunak is mad .

Hindu 🕉️ Churchill Sunak

Churchill the racist colonial man. He maybe British and European figure but not Worldwide figure. In fact he is a villain in the eyes of those who were colonized in Asia and Africa

@benbim540

Ай бұрын

Sir Winston Churchill arguably saved civilisation as we know it. Had Britain signed a peace treaty with Germany after the fall of France, the Nazis would have been able to dedicate their entire force to the invasion of the Soviet Union, probably taking the entire Eurasian front. North Africa would have become fascist Italy’s playhouse, with the United States isolated. So it is perhaps no surprise that those who despise Great Britain, its institutions and values, have done their utmost to attack Churchill he is accused of being a genocidal tyrant who deliberately starved millions of Indians in the Bengal famine. Nothing could be further from the truth. When facing the serious allegation Churchill has been painted as a racist who deliberately worsened the Bengal famine, but it is essential to look at the primary sources: what was actually said at the time, and what the actual policies were. All of this is available at the Churchill Archives in Cambridge. And the truth is very different to what is frequently peddled by outlets like the Guardian and the BBC. In October 1942, a cyclone struck Bengal and Orissa in British India, wiping out much of the rice crop in the region. Transportation of food and other resources were hindered as southern railways were washed away. The cyclone threw part of the subcontinent’s weather system out of sync, ruining the normal winter harvest in Northern India. Previously, this could have been alleviated by the authorities purchasing grain in the surrounding territories of Burma, Malaya, Thailand and the Philippines. But these territories were all under Japanese occupation. Constitutionally, the famine was a matter reserved to local provincial governments run by Indians. However, once the news of the severity of the situation reached Westminster, the Churchill administration did all it could to alleviate the famine. Churchill summoned the war cabinet on many occasions to discuss aid. Hundreds of thousands of tons of grain were shipped to India to try to make up the shortfall. The minutes of a 1944 January War Cabinet meeting show that from mid-October 1943, about 80,000 tons of wheat were shipped from Australia to India, with 130,000 tons of barley sent from Iraq. In the same memo, another 100,000 tons of wheat from Canada were ordered to be shipped during the first two months of 1944. Generally though, Churchill was struck with two fundamental problems: the shipping crisis and the Japanese fleet. Allied shipping was severely overstretched, and there were not enough ships for its current missions. Not only would these key ships have to be diverted from their objectives to send grain to India, but from April 1942 onwards, the Japanese maintained a powerful fleet of submarines and battlecruisers in the Bay of Bengal. These were a great threat to merchant shipping and were posted there throughout the famine period. A government paper for the Chiefs of Staff Committee of the War Cabinet, of which Churchill had a copy, demonstrated the grave Japanese threat in the region. Marked ‘Strategy for the War against Japan’ on the 1 March, 1944, it showed that the ‘estimated area into which a Japanese Battleship/Carrier raiding force might penetrate’ was devastatingly far inside the Bay of Bengal. From near the coast of the Maldives to South Burma, Japanese submarines and battlecruisers wreaked havoc on the East Indian shipping routes. Nevertheless, the British administration still managed to send about a million tons of grain to India between August 1943 and December 1944. Many of Churchill’s detractors point to declining grain being sent from Canada as evidence of him deliberately refusing aid for India. What it actually demonstrates is that Churchill was strategic - and sent grain from closer places to reduce any logistical issues and allow food to reach starving Bengalis quicker. If you read the full November 1943 telegrams between Churchill and Canadian Prime Minister, Mackenzie King, Churchill is clearly exonerated from the charge that he starved Indians in Bengal. In these telegrams Canada offered India 100,000 tons of wheat. Shipping wheat from the Canada’s West coast was impractical, given that Canada was already inadequately trying to transport timber goods for aeroplane manufacturing and Chilean nitrate to Egypt. And, as Churchill noted, it was a nightmare shipping from eastern Canada given that the journey would take at least two months. He instead had the wheat ordered from Australia where it would take three to four weeks to arrive. Winston, and the war cabinet, chose the most practical and quick option. Those who refuse to accept this and pretend that Churchill simply refused to aid India are completely wrong. Later in April 1944, a rather distraught Churchill telegrammed President Roosevelt, pleading for American aid. He wrote that: ‘I am seriously concerned about the food situation in India’ and ‘by cutting down military shipments and other means, I have been able to arrange for 350,000 tons of wheat to be shipped to India from Australia during the first none months of 1944. This is the shortest haul. I cannot see how to do more.’ In the same message he asked the United States for a ‘special allocation of ships to carry wheat to India from Australia.’ Roosevelt’s response was depressing - America could not divert any ships without hindering its military operations. There was to be no American aid. Of course, we must remember that throughout all of this, not only was Japan attempting to invade India but it was bombing coastal cities. This damage worsened the crisis. In December 1943, a bombing raid over the Calcutta docks caused major port backlogs. Accidents didn’t help either, such as when a ship caught fire and blew up in April 1944 at the Bombay docks. Not only was the port not fully functional for six months but that one explosion destroyed over 36,000 tons of food. So where do the false accusations of Churchill engineering or prolonging the famine come from? Partly from conspiratorial works which neglect many of the facts referenced above. But the primary reasoning is based on alleged quotes Churchill made in private, that Indians were ‘a beastly people with a beastly religion’. This quote though is actually taken from Amery’s diaries (the secretary of state of India). If one looks at the full context, Churchill was at the time under immense pressure, with the Quit India Movement refusing to compromise with the British government over independence. In doing this, they were helping the Japanese, as the independence movement encouraged mass disobedience at a time when Japan was invading the country. Can we not forgive Churchill, a man bearing the weight of the world on his shoulders, whilst being ill for much of the war (he had a heart attack in December 1941, multiple bouts of pneumonia and more)? If Churchill’s detractors actually bothered reading Amery’s diaries, they would see that Churchill often had quick bursts of rage to blow off steam. Yes, these comments were awful and racist, but to pretend that this represented his view on Indians is dishonest. Winston was a paternalistic imperialist. He was condescending, yes. But he was not genocidal. His opposition to Indian self-government in the 1930s was out of fear of the Brahmins abusing the Untouchables. He was extremely concerned that premature independence would cause the subcontinent to partition, but Churchill on many occasions professed concern for the wellbeing and protection of Indians. He once said, ‘I want to see a great shining India, of which we can be as proud as we are of a great Canada or a great Australia.’ And recounted that, ‘The unsurpassed bravery of Indian soldiers and officers, both Moslem and Hindu, shine for ever in the annals of war…The response of the Indian peoples, no less than the conduct of their soldiers, makes a glorious final page in the story of our Indian Empire.’ To paint Churchill as an unapologetic racist, responsible for the Bengal famine is a gross distortion of history.

Churchill is hero of his motherland,Sunak is british. He's loyal and patriotic to his own motherland

@bhanuchandrakarisetty9718

Ай бұрын

He can. No objection for that. The words he chose "The world owes an enormous debt" was the issue. He could have limited to the countries affected by Nazis. Not entire world owes to Churchil, especially India.

@ar_l_rvo.o5356

Ай бұрын

@@bhanuchandrakarisetty9718 have you read the comments below😅 tons of people do not get he's actually british Let's leave the choice of words aside,we get it- but that ain't the actual issue for tons of these people in the comment section.

@plusultra7258

Ай бұрын

@@ar_l_rvo.o5356 But still it is wrong to use the term "whole world"

@benbim540

Ай бұрын

@@bhanuchandrakarisetty9718 The thing is UK was close to signing a peace treaty with Germany after France fell and it was only Winston Churchill who stopped this arguably saving civilisation as we know it. Had Britain signed a peace treaty with Germany after the fall of France, the Nazis would have been able to dedicate their entire force to the invasion of the Soviet Union, probably taking the entire Eurasian front. North Africa would have become fascist Italy’s playhouse, with the United States isolated. So it is perhaps no surprise that those who despise Great Britain, its institutions and values, have done their utmost to attack Churchill he is accused of being a genocidal tyrant who deliberately starved millions of Indians in the Bengal famine. Nothing could be further from the truth. When facing the serious allegation Churchill has been painted as a racist who deliberately worsened the Bengal famine, but it is essential to look at the primary sources: what was actually said at the time, and what the actual policies were. All of this is available at the Churchill Archives in Cambridge. And the truth is very different to what is frequently peddled by outlets like the Guardian and the BBC. In October 1942, a cyclone struck Bengal and Orissa in British India, wiping out much of the rice crop in the region. Transportation of food and other resources were hindered as southern railways were washed away. The cyclone threw part of the subcontinent’s weather system out of sync, ruining the normal winter harvest in Northern India. Previously, this could have been alleviated by the authorities purchasing grain in the surrounding territories of Burma, Malaya, Thailand and the Philippines. But these territories were all under Japanese occupation. Constitutionally, the famine was a matter reserved to local provincial governments run by Indians. However, once the news of the severity of the situation reached Westminster, the Churchill administration did all it could to alleviate the famine. Churchill summoned the war cabinet on many occasions to discuss aid. Hundreds of thousands of tons of grain were shipped to India to try to make up the shortfall. The minutes of a 1944 January War Cabinet meeting show that from mid-October 1943, about 80,000 tons of wheat were shipped from Australia to India, with 130,000 tons of barley sent from Iraq. In the same memo, another 100,000 tons of wheat from Canada were ordered to be shipped during the first two months of 1944. Generally though, Churchill was struck with two fundamental problems: the shipping crisis and the Japanese fleet. Allied shipping was severely overstretched, and there were not enough ships for its current missions. Not only would these key ships have to be diverted from their objectives to send grain to India, but from April 1942 onwards, the Japanese maintained a powerful fleet of submarines and battlecruisers in the Bay of Bengal. These were a great threat to merchant shipping and were posted there throughout the famine period. A government paper for the Chiefs of Staff Committee of the War Cabinet, of which Churchill had a copy, demonstrated the grave Japanese threat in the region. Marked ‘Strategy for the War against Japan’ on the 1 March, 1944, it showed that the ‘estimated area into which a Japanese Battleship/Carrier raiding force might penetrate’ was devastatingly far inside the Bay of Bengal. From near the coast of the Maldives to South Burma, Japanese submarines and battlecruisers wreaked havoc on the East Indian shipping routes. Nevertheless, the British administration still managed to send about a million tons of grain to India between August 1943 and December 1944. Many of Churchill’s detractors point to declining grain being sent from Canada as evidence of him deliberately refusing aid for India. What it actually demonstrates is that Churchill was strategic - and sent grain from closer places to reduce any logistical issues and allow food to reach starving Bengalis quicker. If you read the full November 1943 telegrams between Churchill and Canadian Prime Minister, Mackenzie King, Churchill is clearly exonerated from the charge that he starved Indians in Bengal. In these telegrams Canada offered India 100,000 tons of wheat. Shipping wheat from the Canada’s West coast was impractical, given that Canada was already inadequately trying to transport timber goods for aeroplane manufacturing and Chilean nitrate to Egypt. And, as Churchill noted, it was a nightmare shipping from eastern Canada given that the journey would take at least two months. He instead had the wheat ordered from Australia where it would take three to four weeks to arrive. Winston, and the war cabinet, chose the most practical and quick option. Those who refuse to accept this and pretend that Churchill simply refused to aid India are completely wrong. Later in April 1944, a rather distraught Churchill telegrammed President Roosevelt, pleading for American aid. He wrote that: ‘I am seriously concerned about the food situation in India’ and ‘by cutting down military shipments and other means, I have been able to arrange for 350,000 tons of wheat to be shipped to India from Australia during the first none months of 1944. This is the shortest haul. I cannot see how to do more.’ In the same message he asked the United States for a ‘special allocation of ships to carry wheat to India from Australia.’ Roosevelt’s response was depressing - America could not divert any ships without hindering its military operations. There was to be no American aid. Of course, we must remember that throughout all of this, not only was Japan attempting to invade India but it was bombing coastal cities. This damage worsened the crisis. In December 1943, a bombing raid over the Calcutta docks caused major port backlogs. Accidents didn’t help either, such as when a ship caught fire and blew up in April 1944 at the Bombay docks. Not only was the port not fully functional for six months but that one explosion destroyed over 36,000 tons of food. So where do the false accusations of Churchill engineering or prolonging the famine come from? Partly from conspiratorial works which neglect many of the facts referenced above. But the primary reasoning is based on alleged quotes Churchill made in private, that Indians were ‘a beastly people with a beastly religion’. This quote though is actually taken from Amery’s diaries (the secretary of state of India). If one looks at the full context, Churchill was at the time under immense pressure, with the Quit India Movement refusing to compromise with the British government over independence. In doing this, they were helping the Japanese, as the independence movement encouraged mass disobedience at a time when Japan was invading the country. Can we not forgive Churchill, a man bearing the weight of the world on his shoulders, whilst being ill for much of the war (he had a heart attack in December 1941, multiple bouts of pneumonia and more)? If Churchill’s detractors actually bothered reading Amery’s diaries, they would see that Churchill often had quick bursts of rage to blow off steam. Yes, these comments were awful and racist, but to pretend that this represented his view on Indians is dishonest. Winston was a paternalistic imperialist. He was condescending, yes. But he was not genocidal. His opposition to Indian self-government in the 1930s was out of fear of the Brahmins abusing the Untouchables. He was extremely concerned that premature independence would cause the subcontinent to partition, but Churchill on many occasions professed concern for the wellbeing and protection of Indians. He once said, ‘I want to see a great shining India, of which we can be as proud as we are of a great Canada or a great Australia.’ And recounted that, ‘The unsurpassed bravery of Indian soldiers and officers, both Moslem and Hindu, shine for ever in the annals of war…The response of the Indian peoples, no less than the conduct of their soldiers, makes a glorious final page in the story of our Indian Empire.’ To paint Churchill as an unapologetic racist, responsible for the Bengal famine is a gross distortion of history.

They are all killer By using money.

I feel sorry for Rishi Sunak.. the fact that he has Indian and Hindu ancestry is often used against him.. give him a break guys- he is Prime Minister of Britian.. he has to do some things to keep his party and politics relevant for the Britishers..

@abooswalehmosafeer173

Ай бұрын

Do not feel sorry for those guys.He put himself there,brandishing the flag of Honesty,Accountability etc and it turns out it is all travesty. Asian or not,as a leader one has to be strong and steadfast and a believer of one's Conviction otherwise abandon the ship. At that ivory tower position,there is no place for sorry,just lead us hope,confidence,optimism and clean the mess other ship out.

A hero for one is a villain for another, india needs to stop crying over Winston Churchill

@shrisuryarathinam97

Ай бұрын

So according to your analogy hitler is an hero !!! 😂

Poor Rishi uncle , he can't b blamed as he has to b loyal to his country even if he has to praise a cruel colonialist like Churchill who even scoffed n predicted that Indian Democracy wldnt stand the test of time n wld disintegrate but BHARAT has proved him wrong. Rishi uncle is British now n must b loyal to his country. He isn't a citizen of BHARAT for BHARAT he's an alien, a foreigner a Brit n British PM at that so no emotions here. One must n shld b loyal to the salt of their country even if their origins r from elsewhere. Nice of khalifa Putin to stand up against Churchill he did it out of his bond of friendship for BHARAT n v appreciate it n will always stand by r friends but here Rishi uncle is a Brit first n a première at that n v shld respect him. Loyalty is v imp. Not like ppl who put their religion above their country. He spoke as a Brit n British PM. V BHARATIYAS appreciate loyalty above all. JAI BHARAT ! VANDE MAATARAM !

Sunak is a bum

Cannot Trust Britain, Rishi showed Bhakti, इनको और मालिश करनी चाहिए।

Maybe he has some skeletons in the closet

And we the people of India were feeling proud when he became UK pm😂

@arcaakvira

Ай бұрын

lol other than some cringy teens on the net on one is

@comradeleppi2000

Ай бұрын

Not we..it just you and some bjp members...no one with brain would proud because some UK man with Indian ancestory became PM in Uk

@sunnymitra6372

Ай бұрын

I never felt anything..........I always knew that British PM has No Power

@suneelsingh9580

Ай бұрын

Not me. He will obviously serve Britain

rishi is a sucker ...

Unelected leader and talks like a school boy !

I mean he is a British, he was born in UK and as the PM , he has to follow British values.

Poor Sunak ji is caught between what he knows is true and his party's stand 😂

Why do you have to make a 3 min video to show 2 tweets 🙄 Weird

@plusultra7258

Ай бұрын

I guess you are not Indian. So you won't understand how much wrong he is

@pratikkondekar2169

Ай бұрын

@@plusultra7258I completely understand it but it was just about the length of this video. I am an Indian bhai

Ignorant beta Sunak

Indians specially sanatanis celebrated Sunak's victory as India's victory over colonialism. What about now? 😂

What a crappie presentation

Rishi is now British Citizen

poor guy trying to save tory government somehow

GHANDI WAS A TOTAL HERO, BECAUSE HE TRULY KNEW THE POWER OF A PACIFIST STRENGTH. HE NEVER LOST HIS MINDS POWER TO CHILDISH ENMITIES OR NEGATIVITY. HOW MUCH YOU COULD LEARN FROM HIM 'PUTEY'. YES CHURCHILL COULD HAVE DONE BETTER TO ALSO LEARN FROM THIS GREAT MAN, BUT YOU 'PUTIN' COULD ALSO. BECAUSE GHANDI WOULD HAVE BEEN HANDS ABOVE YOU IN TERMS OF ANTI-RACISM.

# boycott uk 😂😂😂😂

He forgot his skin not his roots!

Rishi

Yes putin is a frightened leader.

@hathawayrose2183

Ай бұрын

What does he have to be frightened of? Russia is militarily and economically strong, the Ukrainian Nazis are losing, the west seems to be falling apart, China and most of the world is on Russia's side, and the Russian People are solidly behind Mr Putin.