The Brutish Brits

PLAINTIFF
Lakshita Paidipati, esquire, speaking on behalf of India, South Africa, Kenya, Pakistan,
Ethiopia, Uganda, Ghana, Nigeria, Benin, Egypt, Jamaica, Belize, the Maori, etc.

Defendant
Boris Churchill, Esquire, on behalf of the British government.

Charges - Crimes against Humanity: Forced deportation, ethnic persecution, rape, multiple
accounts of first degree theft, torture, inhumane treatment of prisoners (concentration camps),
perjury, obstruction of justice, desecration of a human corpse, extermination, political
repression, enslavement, etc.

Defense - They brought modern medicine to colonies, enforced order, already paid reparations,
abolished slavery, warded off “terrorists, insurgents” (rebellions),

OPENING STATEMENTS BY:

Emmanuel Zois
Anne Cleves

EXHIBITS: Artwork that glorifies British colonialism

PRESENTED BY:
Edward Murphy

THE CLERK: All rise.

ZOIS: The British government is accused of crimes against humanity during their occupations of

several nations in Africa and Asia.

CLEVES: The British Empire was the largest empire to ever exist, consisting of various

dominions, colonies, and protectorates. It was so large that it was known as the “empire on

which the sun never sets.”

ZOIS: It began with the age of exploration, with the discovery of the new world, which began

around the 1500s. European countries began to search for land, goods, and resources in order

to expand their respective empires and broaden their wealth. They landed in various regions

across the world, including the Americas, Asia, and Africa, and had them under their control for
many decades. Britain was the largest of these colonizing empires, and exerted much power

and dominance over their territories.

CLEVES: But their power was not to last. In the mid to late 1900s, colonies began to demand

independence and freedom from Britain. The first was India, who broke away from the British in

1947. Then many other colonies in Africa and Asia followed suit, and many of them succeeded.

The British Empire was no more, but a new organization, the Commonwealth of Nations was

created in its place, consisting of various former colonies of the crown. Most former colonies

now operate independently, but colonialism had an influence that resonates across generations,

and lasts even to this day.

ZOIS: The question is, was that influence beneficial or destructive?

JUDGE: We shall find out soon. The Plaintiff may rise. Ms. Paidipati, please present your case.

PAIDIPATI: Thank you, your honor. I speak on behalf of the nations and people of India, South

Africa, Kenya, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Uganda, Ghana, Nigeria, Benin, Egypt, Jamaica, Belize, and

many others, as we present our charges against the government of the United Kingdom,

formerly the administrative state of all these countries.

THE CLERK: What are your proposed charges?

PAIDIPATI: We believe that the British committed Crimes Against Humanity, which include

forced deportation, ethnic persecution, rape, multiple accounts of first degree theft, torture,

inhumane treatment of prisoners, perjury, obstruction of justice, desecration of a human corpse,

extermination, political repression and more during the era of colonialism. This is because

countless lives were destroyed through colonialism, and millions of innocent people suffered

and many even died because of their cruelty.

JUDGE: Thank you, Ms. Paidipati, that is all. And how does the defendant, Mr. Boris Churchill,

respond to these accusations?

CHURCHILL: They are completely unfounded, your honor. The era of colonialism was a golden

age for Britain and for the nations privileged enough to come under the rule of the crown.
THE CLERK: Thank you sir. The trial shall convene. The Plaintiff shall present her evidence

first.

PAIDIPATI: Thank you, your honor.

PAIDIPATI: I would like to share with you all a quote by the German philosopher, Walter

Benjamin, “There is no document of civilization which is not at the same time a document of

barbarism.” Such is the case with colonialism and the British Empire. They built their success at

the expense of many other nations. It is estimated that during their time in India, the East India

company and the British Raj stole at least 45 trillion pounds from the country. They bought

goods and resources for a fraction of the price that they were later sold for. Goods like tar, iron,

textiles, rice, silk, timber, steel and cotton, which aided the industrialization of Britain, were

brought over from India. In addition to India, many countries in Africa were and still are being

stripped of their raw resources such as gold, platinum, diamonds, copper, oil, gas and coal. The

British government protects UK mining companies and the result is that these companies now

have access to resources that are worth a trillion dollars. And people suffered because of all of

this.

CHURCHILL: How so? Perhaps we did take a few dollars from the ruffians, but it was all for

their own benefit, and we redistributed that wealth all around.

PAIDIPATI: In the region of Bengal, a 200-year old prosperous industry of weaving collapsed

when the markets were filled with cheaper textiles from England. The weavers were left

impoverished when nobody wanted to buy their products. These “ruffians” had lost their

livelihood because the British government interfered with the local economy. And what’s more,

the government hardly did anything to distribute the wealth. Throughout the reign of the British

Raj, do you know how much the per capita income increased in India for over two hundred

years? None. In fact, the income dropped by half by the time India gained its independence.

This theft practically left thousands–no, I’m sorry, millions, of people impoverished and that led

to starvation and destitution, amongst other things. If you need any proof, please consider the
fact that the life expectancy of the average person in India was slashed by a fifth between the

years 1870 and 1920.

JUDGE: Mr. Churchill, what do you say?

CHURCHILL: I still think that the gentlelady is completely unfounded in her accusations. Britain

brought peace and order like no empire before. We brought modern medicine that saved many

lives, had slavery abolished, and enforced order. In 1919, rioters in the city of Amritsar, India,

caused chaos and confusion. The brave Brigadier, Reginald Dyer, led the effort to quell the

crowd and we neutralized the threat within ten minutes. As a thank you, the good British citizens

gave him 26,000 pounds from their pockets. And in Kenya, a group of rebel insurgents known

as the Mau Mau, led an uprising against their rightful rulers, from 1951-1960. They were

powerless however, and like the Amritsar rioters, we soon quelled them to silence and

obedience. In addition to that, we also recognized when we needed to step in and solve conflict

within as well as without. India, at the time of its independence, was dealing with religious

tensions, especially with Hindus and Muslims. I personally do not think that India was prepared

to handle independence, especially after the unruly way these two religious groups conducted

themselves, and I think that is why in 1947, we decided to partition the country. Muslims could

be with Muslims, Hindus with Hindus. So all in all, I would certainly think that India has much to

thank us for, long after the end of our glorious reign. We brought peace and order during the

time of the Empire and long afterwards.

JUDGE: And what does the plaintiff have to say about that?

PAIDIPATI: Plenty, your honor. First of all, those so-called “rioters” in the city of Amritsar were,

in actuality, peaceful protestors, who were demonstrating for greater rights and political power.

Peaceful assembly is considered to be a human right by both the British law, the Human Rights

Act and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from the United Nations, and they violated it.

They responded by firing recklessly into the crowd, murdering more than a thousand and

injuring a thousand more. In addition, the partition of India and Pakistan was not in actuality, a
so-called “blessing in disguise”. Part of the reason why religious and ethnic tensions were at an

all-time high, is because the British exacerbated and exaggerated the differences between

these groups by isolating and stratifying them. It was known as divide-and-rule, a tactic which

would come handy in many other colonies as well. And let’s not forget that over 10 million

people were uprooted from their homes and lives and up to a million were killed in the violence

that ensued during what is considered to be one of, if not the most, bloodiest and violent

partitions in human history, no thanks to our dearest British colonizers. No, we do not have

much to thank you for.

CHURCHILL: How gracious of you.

PAIDIPATI: You’re welcome, my good sir.

CHURCHILL: How do you justify the Mau Mau Uprising then? The insurgents acted like

terrorists.

PAIDIPATI: They weren’t terrorists, they simply fought for independence after they were treated

like second-class citizens in their own country.

CHURCHILL: Oh really? You know, for a group that fought for independence, they failed to earn

the popular support of their own countrymen. On top of that, they killed many of the people

whom they were trying to “free”, and many of our own men. They were terrorists, not freedom

fighters. Our empire bought stability to Kenya, and they certainly needed that protection after all

of that violence caused by the Mau Mau, like we protected countless innocent people against

the Nazis during the second world war.

PAIDIPATI: You hardly did anything to protect them. During the uprising, thousands of innocent

Kenyans were forcibly raped and many of them were tortured by yours truly. Not to mention,

there were members of the Kikuyu tribe that were detained in camps. They were described by

many survivors as concentration camps, where torture, rape, and death were in every direction.

Some historians estimate that the death toll could’ve been anywhere between 20,000 to
100,000 people. And since you so conveniently brought up the Nazis, were you folks really any

better than them? Apparently, only a select-few people to the British were worth saving.

CHURCHILL: How dare you? You dare compare us to the Nazis?

PAIDIPATI: Why not? You know, Winston Churchill once said: “I hate Indians. They are a

beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.”

He was talking in particular about the Bengal famine, where an estimated 4 million people died

of starvation, as the food that they had grown was given to the British army. Who are the real

beasts, Mr. Churchill? The same people who complained about the horrific acts of the Nazis,

which were certainly worth acknowledging mind you, were committing atrocities of their own.

They were racist and bigoted hypocrites, just like you.

CHURCHILL: Your honor, I object. She has gone too far!

JUDGE: Order, order! Objection sustained. Ms. Paidipati, please act in accordance with the

rules of conduct.

PAIDIPATI: Sorry.

CLERK: Moving on, we shall see the exhibitions of evidence, the pieces of art that Ms. Paidipati,

herself, and various others have collected, presented to us by Edward Murphy.

MURPHY: Thank you, your honor.

MURPHY: As you all know, the British Empire was the largest empire in existence, but it also

lasted for quite some time before it eventually fell. It consolidated power by commodifying

resources and suppressing people and voices, but it also survived due to the consistent support

of the British public. The government managed to win their approval in part by using art as

propaganda: they portrayed the peoples of other countries with caricatures and racist imagery;

they depicted colonialism as a noble quest to spread christianity and civilization, and they

evokes sympathy for the army rather than for the subjugated overseas. This was effective and

the rest I suppose, is history.

(APPLAUSE)
CLERK: Thank you, sir. Now, for the final argument. As Mr. Churchill was last to present an

argument, you may present the final one, Ms. Paidipati. However, please be respectful and

follow the rules of conduct which you have been given at the beginning of the trial. Doing

otherwise would be detrimental to your case.

PAIDIPATI: Thank you, your honor. For the final argument against the British, I would like to

reference the various thefts from the aforementioned nations. The British Museum contains

most of those thefts. Of all the items in their collection—approximately 8 million–it is estimated

that 99 percent of them were stolen. In Nigeria, there was a kingdom known as Benin, and

Benin was home to several exquisite bronze sculptures. When rebels in Benin fought against

British rule in 1897, the British responded by massacring an unknown number of people and

taking thousands of the bronzes. In addition to the bronzes, the Kohi-noor Diamond eventually

landed in British hands after they colonized India, and the precious jewel now lies on the crown

of Queen Elizabeth II. There’s also the Rosetta Stone of Egypt, the Maqdala Manuscripts of

Ethiopia, not to mention the Maori heads of the Maori people, which were used in several

religious ceremonies before their forced removal. All of these artifacts, prized and treasured by

the various cultures they originated from, are now objects of commodification and mockery.

CHURCHILL: The Benin bronzes were taken in a war of defense, so they are now legally ours

to keep. In addition, the Kohi-noor Diamond is more of a national treasure to the United

Kingdom than it ever was to India. If it was so precious, then how come nobody bothered to take

care of it as it had been stolen more times in India than it ever was in the UK? All of these

artifacts are better under the care of our great nation and for the record, most of them were

obtained legally.

PAIDIPATI: Is that so? Well, then how do you explain Sarah Baartman? You know, she was an

actual human being, but was treated like an artifact. As a young woman, she was taken forcibly

from her tribe in South Africa, and was used as a freak show exhibit from 1810 onwards. She

endured a lifetime of abuse, humiliation, and commodification before she died at the young age
of 25 or 26. There was a caricature of her, actually, on the art pieces that were shown earlier.

And what’s more is that even after she died, her remains were displayed at a museum all the

way up until the 1970s. She was only given a proper burial after Nelson Mandela requested her

return in the 1990s. Her body became a foundation for scientific racism and sexism. How do you

justify that?

CHURCHILL: Sarah was one woman, just one! Our empire benefited more lives than it

destroyed!

PAIDIPATI: It destroyed the lives of millions of people and continues to destroy many more.

India suffers from religious tensions and a dependence on coal. Many languages became

extinct or endangered because of linguistic suppression, and let’s not forget that many countries

still remain impoverished decades after the end of colonialism.

JUDGE: Order, order! I think we’re ready for a verdict.

JURY: We hereby unanimously find the British guilty of all crimes of which they were accused.