Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
On this day: 13 April
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 13th April 2010
•1919: British soldiers kill hundreds of unarmed Indian civilians during a protest at Amritsar, IndiaÌý
Where the soldiers who took part in the massacre really 'British'?
The commanding officer was a Briton, for sure. He was, however, an officer in the Indian Army and the soldiers under his command were also Indian Army soldiers - mainly Gurkha and Baluchi. -
Message 2
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 13th April 2010
Vizzer
Most of them were subjects of the King-emperor, which made them British by the definitions of the day. All of them, including the Gurkhas (Who were subjects of the King of Nepal) had sworn allegiance to the King-Emperor and served in his Indian Army. They were, therefore, British soldiers.
If they were British soldiers in the trenches of Ypres, at Gallipoli, Kut and Megiddo, then they were still British at Amritsar.
Incidentally, Dyer was born in India, so you could disown him as well if origin is your criteria.
I suppose, in similar vien, you would argue that Joan of Arc was executed by the French?
LW -
Message 3
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 13th April 2010
hello LongWeekend
Most of them were subjects of the King-emperor, which made them British by the definitions of the day.Ìý
That's fair enough. By the same definition, however, the entry should say:
'•1919: British soldiers kill hundreds of unarmed British civilians during a protest at Amritsar, India'
All of them, including the Gurkhas (Who were subjects of the King of Nepal) had sworn allegiance to the King-Emperor and served in his Indian Army. They were, therefore, British soldiers.
If they were British soldiers in the trenches of Ypres, at Gallipoli, Kut and Megiddo, then they were still British at Amritsar.Ìý
Fair point again. Needless to say, however, that there have been more than one thread in which Australian, New Zealand and Canadian etc posters have taken exception to troops from their countries being referred to as 'British soldiers' during the World Wars.
Incidentally, Dyer was born in India, so you could disown him as well if origin is your criteria.Ìý
'Disownership' isn't the issue here. It's a question of accuracy. That said - Brigadier Dyer, like Wellington, seems to have favoured jus sanguinis over jus solis when it came to law of nationality.
I suppose, in similar vien, you would argue that Joan of Arc was executed by the French?Ìý
Not really sure of the relevance here. This needs to be elaborated upon. -
Message 4
Posted by Wally (U14414065) on Wednesday, 14th April 2010
1919: British soldiers kill hundreds of unarmed British civilians during a protest at Amritsar, India'Ìý
This would not in fact be correct, whereas the soldiers whether for reasons of pay, honour or duty had sworn allegiance to the British Emperor the protesters had not and were disputing the right of the Emperor to rule India and were calling for independence. The Empire may have considered them as British Citizens but they would not. -
Message 5
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Wednesday, 14th April 2010
Vizzer
That's fair enough. By the same definition, however, the entry should say:
'•1919: British soldiers kill hundreds of unarmed British civilians during a protest at Amritsar, India'
Ìý
Exactly, but that would not suit the agenda of the Â鶹ԼÅÄ would it. History can be spun in any direction by the simple expedient of exchanging a few key words.
What can be gleamed from the Â鶹ԼÅÄ On this Day posting is the thought process of this particular bit of spin.
British Empire = Evil
British Army = British Empire and thus also Evil
Indian population not British thus good, so Indian troops must be called British to associate them with the British = evil tag rather than the Indian = good tag.
Easy to simply ignore that all were citizens of the British Empire, soldier and civilian. -
Message 6
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Wednesday, 14th April 2010
englishvote,
Yeah, it's a bit complicated innit. All Empire people subjects of the British Empire, voluntary or not, until they tried to come to Britain as British subjects. Definitely Empire=Evil.
But you see the point of journalism -
1919: Empire soldiers under command of a British officer(although born in India)kill hundreds of subjects of the Empire who had the effrontery to argue their legal status in Amritsar, India ... doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?
Although, I suppose that the Beeb were trying to lay the blame where the responsibility lay. -
Message 7
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 14th April 2010
Vizzer
I'm with Wally on this one. The description of the troops as British is correct, because they were representing British authority. The description of the demonstrators as Indian is correct, because it identifies who they were and what they represented.
I don't think there is a "Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation " agenda here. (By the way, whatever became of that Young Conservative speaker?
). Amritsar is recognised to have been an appalling event, and over a hundred people (on the very lowest estimate) died. This oneliner seems a perfectly reasonable description to me.
After all, it is not as if the only references to Britain in OTD are negative ones.
The relevance to Joan of Arc is that, although she fought against the English, she was tried and executed by a puppet French court. It would, however,be historically inaccurate to suggest that her death was not an English act.
LW -
Message 8
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Wednesday, 14th April 2010
Where (sic) the soldiers who took part in the massacre really 'British'?Ìý
Where they Viz? Where they were was Amritsar.
Were you really British then? Are you British now? Cornish perhaps? Anti-British always, I suspect. -
Message 9
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 14th April 2010
Where theyÌý
That's the question.
Where they were was Amritsar.Ìý
No-one on this thread has disputed that.
Were you really British then?Ìý
I wasn't alive in 1919.
Are you British now?Ìý
No - I'm English.
Cornish perhaps?Ìý
No - I'm English.
Anti-British always, I suspect.Ìý
You can suspect whatever you like. I'm pro-England. -
Message 10
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Thursday, 15th April 2010
Another thing to always remember with OTD is the need to convey meaning within a very limited word count (about 130 characters including spaces and punctuation). Where possible the entries always link to content on the History site that should expand on the topic raised.
Cheers
Andrew -
Message 11
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Friday, 16th April 2010
On April 10, 1919, a protest was held at the residence of the Deputy Commissioner of Amritsar, a city in Punjab, a large province in the northwestern part of the then unpartitioned India. The demonstration was held to demand the release of two popular leaders of the Indian Independence Movement, Satya Pal and Saifuddin Kitchlew, who had been earlier arrested by the government and removed to a secret location. Both were proponents of the Satyagraha movement led by Mahatma Gandhi. The crowd was fired on by a military picket, killing several protesters. The firing set off a chain of violence. Later in the day, several banks and other government buildings, including the Town Hall and the railway station were attacked and set on fire. The violence continued to escalate, culminating in the deaths of at least five Europeans, including government employees and civilians. There was retaliatory firing on the crowd from the military several times during the day, and between eighty and twenty people were killed.
The massacre was a consequence of this antefact (the Martial Law was declared on 6 of April). Some says that General Dyer ordered troops to open fire without warning or any order to disperse, and to direct fire towards the densest sections of the crowd other says the opposite. Hard to say where’s the truth.
I wasn’t here. I only know that British people aren’t evil (The paid a big blood tribute against the Nazi empire) and the war between Britain and India is finished (India is a member of the Commonwealth) . Nowadays they’ve other common problems like terrorism.
Bye to Brits and Indians -
Message 12
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Monday, 19th April 2010
"...The Empire may have considered them (the protestors) as British Citizens but they would not...."
The British never recognised native subjects of the empire as British. If they had, things just might have been different. Indians were never given equal rights or access to economic power, even locally. So the protestors were not protesting against 'being British', but about foreign imposition and about their own second class status in the ancient lands of their own people. -
Message 13
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Friday, 23rd April 2010
Hello Vizzer,
As for today (23. April) is St George´s day, I just would like to ask you what do you think about this:
I´ve read on wikipedia, that St George is the patron saint of several countries and even towns (also of Germany - which about I´ve never take notice before). We have no official celebrations here in Germany, and if there are some celebrations, they are just related to the Christian Churches, but with no link to the German nation.
I´ve also read that there was (and still is?) a tradition in England to celebrate that day, although it is not a bank holiday day.
It would be interesting to read about your opinions concerning the English traditions on St Georges day.
Regards,
Thomas -
Message 14
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Friday, 23rd April 2010
We English have always been rather attached to St George since medieval times. In modern times we haven't actually celebrated it as such, though we are starting to change that now. There is a parade in London today, and several events over the weekend.
Lack of parades, etc, never stopped us feeling an attachment to him. Nor is the fact that he was not English terribly important.
I suspect that a large part of the changes recently are the result of reactions to devolution in other parts of the UK. -
Message 15
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 24th April 2010
The British never recognised native subjects of the empire as British.Ìý
Not so. Virtually everyone born within the realms of the British crown was considered a British subject. When the British Empire was at its geographical height (i.e. at the time of the Amritsar Massacre) there was no distinction between someone who was born in Bombay or someone who was born in Belfast. All were British subjects. If someone from Belfast went to live and work in Bombay he was no different in law to someone who was born in Bombay. Similarly if someone from Bombay went to live and work in Belfast he was no different in law to someone born in Belfast.
The only difference is that (property and other qualifications permitting) someone resident in the UK could vote in UK elections and so have some say in the affairs of the imperial parliament and government. This, of course, was not the case for those resident in the imperial territories overseas.
Indians were never given equal rights or access to economic power, even locally.Ìý
Again, not so. There were plenty of examples of Indian people resident in England who enjoyed a privileged lifestyle and/or political influence while many ordinary English people did not. For example the Maharajah Duleep Singh of Lahore lived in luxury on his Elveden Estate near Thetford in Norfolk in the 1860s at a time when many ordinary English people were being incarcerated in workhouses by the UK government for the crime of being poor. Another example would be that of Gujarat-born Dadabhai Naoroji who was a member of the Legislative Council in Bombay in the 1880s and then MP for Finsbury in the 1890s. In other words he was an MP in the UK House of Commons at a time when many ordinary English Londoners did not even have the right to vote.
So the protestors were not protesting against 'being British', but about foreign imposition and about their own second class status in the ancient lands of their own people.Ìý
Well actually they were indeed protesting against being British. The protestors wanted out of the British Empire. They wanted independence for India - the most populous country within the empire whose population was greater in number than the rest of the empire put together.
-------------------------------------------------
hello Thomas
re Message 13. I’m not sure of the relevance of this question to this thread. It seems to be ‘off topic’ to use the preferred terminology. Perhaps it could have been posted on a relevant thread (or as a new thread) on the History Hub?
regards Vizzer
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.