"It is our duty to guard those millions from that fate." - Winston Churchill

The argument between England and India during the 1900’s is an important subject that continues to be studied today. It has become a controversial topic, with some siding with the British and the rest supporting Gandhi’s protest (notice my use of the False Dilemma fallacy). However, who would have thought that this renowned conflict was based on lies? Oh yes, it was, because both Gandhi and Winston Churchill were experts on rhetoric. And what is rhetoric if not a bunch of lies appearing to be telling the truth?

In “Our Duty in India” Winston Churchill speaks of the necessity of keeping India under British control, as he clearly tries to convince the audience of the vitality of this. If even the retelling of an experience uses fallacies, then of course this persuasive speech will use them as well. Although they were well hidden, these fallacies were definitely there throughout the speech. Among them is the fallacy of false dilemma, which is clearly evident when Churchill says: “But win or lose, we must do our duty.” Based on only this statement, Britain can either win or lose the conflict with India. However, there are other possible endings to this conflict. What about making an agreement? Then they wouldn’t be losing or winning, would they?

Winston Churchill also clearly uses a fallacy when he says: “Gandhi stands for the permanent exclusion of British trade from India. Gandhi stands for the substitution of Brahmin domination for British rule in India. You will never be able to come to terms with Gandhi.” This can be understood in two different ways: Either he means that the two first sentences prove the third, or he simply wants the third sentence to be understood on its own. Either way, it’s a fallacy. The fact that Gandhi wants to impede British trade and rule in India in no way proves that it is impossible to come to terms with Gandhi. This then, is a fallacy of misinterpreting the evidence. However, what if someone argued that that final sentence was meant to be understood on its own and not as an effect of the previous two? Then it is still a fallacy: The fallacy of bad example. In this case, then, there is nothing even pretending to prove that it is impossible to come to terms with Gandhi. But then again, barely anybody notices it anyways. I do thanks to Heinrichs. That’s one of the perks of knowing about rhetoric.