 Don't look. Okay. Not looking. Okay. Go. Indian film. Yes. Okay. Um, Amir Khan. Yes. Lagann. No. Okay. Dil Dahak Nadoo. No. Oh, I was sure you'd go that route if I said Amir Khan. Three idiots. No, PK. No. Stars. No. Are we gonna be here a long time? Yes. Yes. I've seen it? Yes. Does he have a mustache? No. He's not a cop? No. We've seen it? Yes. Dungle? No. We've seen it. It's a buddy film. Saif Ali Khan. Yes. There's a song? Same title. Yes, I know. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Also has Akshay Khanna? I know. That's the three buddies. Mm-hmm. Akshay Khanna. Saif Ali Khan. Yes. Amir Khan. Yes. And we've seen it. A lot of stupid silly we have seen it. Dil Chaat the High. Juice! Hey, welcome back to our stupider. I actually did some Corbin. That's the high school I went to, by the way. Dil Chaat the High? Dil Chaat the High. Interesting. And you can follow us on Instagram and Twitter for more juice content. Thanks on Patreon. Follow us on Twitter to subscribe if you haven't. Hit the like button. I don't want this to break. Did you get the other one? Put it away, too? No, I'll have to put it up there. I'll put it up there. The video is called Why... Churchill's Legacy is Still Painful for Indians. Well, yes. We know. Obviously, we know why. But this is going to go into a little more depth. And Indians, I feel like they actually talked to some Indians about what they feel. We obviously know... I've heard people compare them to Hitler, the Indians, Hitler. We know why, the famine, what he did, how he talked about Indians, all that kind of stuff. Awful, awful, awful person. This is one of the things I've always wanted to know. Like, why not teach history correctly, regardless of if he's yours or not? Like, American presidents. Teach the good they did, but also teach that they were slave owners. They raped their slaves. The awful stuff they did. You can still teach the good stuff. It's not like we're all, they're here and we're related to them. You can teach people for who they actually were. Churchill saved Britain in World War II, essentially. He also murdered millions of Indians. Correct. We both. I agree. It's called truth. Yeah. I don't understand why we have to sugarcoat history. It's because people want to paint pictures so that they can hide their shame. Yeah. I just don't understand it. I was like, why do you have to... Me too. You're not him. Why do you have to have shame? He's part of me, so that's why the... I don't understand. I don't understand it either. Anyways, I agree with you. In London, he stands tall. For millions here, Winston Churchill is a hero and one of the greatest Britons of all time. But in a colony he once presided over, many point to a dark legacy. Is this the same... He might be an addict in Britain. But in India, he is seen actually as the precipitator of mass killing because of the policies that he advocated and the policies that he followed in Bengal in 1943. Correct. At the heart of the anger against him, a famine in Bengal. It was triggered by a cyclone and flooding. But many blame Winston Churchill and his government for making the situation worse. They did. Hmm. Mr. Shamonto has lived through it. Oh, wow. What is it? Oh. I wish and Johnny was in here. I hold the British government responsible for these millions dead and still sort of pushing me here. British officers in India sent telegram after telegram describing how grave the situation was. But for months, Mr. Churchill's government turned down requests to urgently export food that could have saved lives. They feared it would reduce stockpiles in the UK and take ships away from the war effort. He felt more could be done by local politicians to help the starving. What I found in researching the Bengal famine was that Churchill did several things that greatly aggravated the death toll. India was being used extensively for the war effort. Indian resources, Indian soldiers. And Churchill repeatedly refused to acknowledge the fact that the extent to which India was used could lead to famine. Vice Roy to India Archibald Wavell called the Bengal famine one of the greatest disasters to have befallen people under British rule and said the reputational damage was incalculable. And that's British. They've done a lot of bad stuff. It's a man-made famine. It's because of global conditions during the war. But I don't think we can blame Churchill for causing it. What we can say is that he didn't alleviate it or send relief when he had the ability to do so. We can blame him for prioritising white lives and European lives over South Asian lives and which was discriminatory and which was really kind of unpleasant given that millions of Indian soldiers at the same time were also serving the Second World War. A Bengali artist went from village to village documenting the disaster. Nearly all copies of his book were destroyed by the British government. Hiding the shame. A generation of Indians more confident about our place in the world are questioning why there hasn't been more widespread condemnation of the dark chapters in our colonial history. Judging leaders of the past through the lens of the present might leave the world with no heroes at all. But there's likely to be little progress on equality without accepting the full truth of their lives. Why do you need old heroes? That's... Why? I think tell history correctly. That is all that it's there for. They're not here anymore, they're dead. One of the most beautiful things about film is its capacity and power when done correctly to... It's also a power that gets abused and done in the opposite direction to tell history as it occurred. It's one of my favorite reasons for touting the greatness of Schindler's List is because it's accurate and it's a segment of what transpired and you get the feeling for the whole by looking at that segment. Exactly, exactly. I would like to see a movie made that had international appeal that actually represented it the way it really transpired. To have a film be made that kind of accolades that Gary Oldman's Churchill got of telling the other side of what was going on at the same time and getting that kind of attention, getting Oscar attention, getting international attention so that people... I think that's the fastest, easiest, and most powerful way for people to learn the truth is a motion picture depicting what really transpired. Absolutely, because I don't know that there is one. Yeah, it's just... I know we've seen quite a few films already and I know there are films that take place during the famine and the partition and stuff like that, but I want one that's Sardar Udam level of how graphic and awful and just a vile of a thing that humans can do to another people because they wanted, like she said, prioritize white lives over South Asian lives. It's just... I hate watering down of history and I don't understand it from any angle. Yeah, or even more, it isn't the watering down. It's the straight reframing and retelling. There's only one reason the British destroy the art depicting the famine. They want that history to go away because the knowledge of it is shameful and rather than admit the shame and apologize, I just destroy it, pretend it never happened. I also still don't understand why it takes countries so long to... how we just apologize for some genocide that America... one of the many genocides that America's done. Why is it taking so long to actually say these things? Well, because... I just don't understand. You know why? For the same reason we have racist problems in the world still. When Barack Obama went to Japan and apologized for the bombs, a lot of people were really angry at him for having done that because they felt the bombing was justified. And a lot of the people, not all, but a lot of the people who felt the bombing was justified had the same mindset that they had back in the 1940s about the Japanese in World War II when the headlines said Japs bomb Pearl Harbor. They were the Japs. They were the slant eyes. Every other insult you can think of and that's why they put them in camps here in America. And it's the same reason why after 9-11 anybody who had a turban on their head was considered a terrorist because there is a deep undercurrent. That whole issue in Bengal stems to the fact that Winston Churchill considered those brown people to replicate like rabbits. He considered them animals. So why do anything to help the animals? I just don't understand. I don't understand either. Because it's so easy. It's evil and awful. The evidence is there. And be like, we're so sorry of what our past leaders and people did. Why can't we acknowledge it? And also give back the stuff you stole. We're barely... We have barely begun to accept what we did to African-Americans during slavery. We haven't even started getting the Native Americans a sense of sorry for what we did to you. I don't understand it either. Because it's just... You notice it, it's wrong, admit it was shameful and do something to... Don't need to sugarcoat history. Exactly. Tell history for what it is. That's what it's there for. Exactly. And I'm this well done, more stories like it. Absolutely. And we need some movies made about this. Anyway, so let us know if there's other videos, informational videos we can react to down below.