British Prime Minister David Cameron (R) along with Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal (C) visit the Sikh Shrine Golden Temple in Amritsar, India. PHOTO: AFP/ NARINDER NANU
AMRITSAR, INDIA: British Prime Minister David Cameron visited the site of the colonial-era massacre in Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar on Wednesday, describing the episode as "deeply shameful" while stopping short of a public apology.
On the last leg of a three-day trip aimed at forging deeper economic ties, Cameron took the bold decision to visit the city of Amritsar and tackle an enduring scar of British rule on the subcontinent, which ended in 1947.
Dressed in a dark suit and bowing his head, he laid a wreath at the memorial to the victims at the place, where British troops opened fire on thousands of unarmed protesters in 1919.
In a message in the visitors' book, he wrote: "This was a deeply shameful event in British history and one that Winston Churchill rightly declared at the time as monstrous".
"We must never forget what happened here. And in remembering we must ensure that the United Kingdom stands up for the right of peaceful protest around the world," he said.
The number of casualties at the Jallianwala Bagh garden is unclear, with colonial-era records showing about 400 deaths while Indian figures put the number killed at closer to 1,000.
Bhusan Behl, who heads a trust for the families of victims, has campaigned for decades on behalf of his grandfather who was killed at the entrance to the walled area.
He said he was hoping that Cameron would say sorry for the slaughter ordered by General Reginald Dyer, which was immortalised in Richard Attenborough's film "Gandhi" and features in Salman Rushdie's epic book "Midnight's Children".
The incident, in which soldiers under Dyer's command opened fire on men, women and children in the enclosed area is one of the most dangerous episode of Britain's rule in India and helped spur the independence movement.
"A sorry from a top leader would change the historical narrative and Indians will also feel that in some way they can forget the past and move on," Behl told AFP before Cameron made his written remarks.
The move is seen as a gamble by Cameron, who is travelling with British-Indian parliamentarians, and could lead to calls for similar treatment from other former colonies or even other victims in India.
It immediately invited a debate in India about why Cameron was opening up old wounds and was stopping short of saying sorry.
Cameron is the first serving prime minister to visit the site, diplomatic sources said, but not the first senior British public figure.
In 1997, the Queen also laid a wreath at a site during a tour of India, but her gaffe-prone husband Prince Philip stole the headlines by reportedly saying that the Indian estimates for the death count were "vastly exaggerated".
Cameron has made several official apologies since becoming prime minister, saying sorry for the official handling of a football disaster at Hillsborough stadium in 1989 and 1972 killings in Northern Ireland known as "Bloody Sunday".
In 2006, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed his "deep sorrow" for the slave trade in a move that was also seen as stopping short of a full apology.
COMMENTS (18)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
only Science made this world so peaceful & illuminated the minds of people not England nor france...mind it..!!
@Yasin: keep dreaming............. y dont u recogonise the difference between india and pakistan?
@Yasin: Please give names of these leaders & examples of their jailing & execution.
@John B: "In many ways, British colonial rule was good for the populace, who saw their poverty and misery and traditional subservient work to their land lord masters disappear,"
Not sure a milluion people dying in the Great famine of Bengal even as Britain EXPORTED food for its war effort was a good thing.
Also poverty increased - not decreased during British empire.
British should also apologise to Pakistan for putting our great Muslim leaders in jail and sending some to gallows who were fighting for independence from British.
@SkyofBlue: "Winston Churchill was an imperialist, and believed that the native people weren’t capable enough to run their own governments. Sounds quite racist to me. " All the names you have called him would have gladdened his heart. Why? Because it was the call of his times. Were the French, the Germans, the Portuguese, the Spaniards any better? By today's standards, all you have said is correct but can we really be fair in judging them by a standard not of their times? "Churchill was a pain in the back for the British government then who wanted to pull out of India." While Churchill was certainly a diehard imperial colonialist of Britain then and so opposed divestiture of colonies (look at how Portuguese tried to hold on to Goa, calling it "the overseas province of Portugal" even after the British had left. The French held on to Puducherry even longer.)., it would be wrong to say that but for him Britain would have quit India. If WWII had not seared Britain and taken away its ability to hold on to its colonies, it would not have quit India even with the burgeoning independence movement in India. In such a case, no one would speak of Gandhi today as much and as glowingly as of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. The character of the Indian independence movement would have taken a diametrically opposite turn. Pakistan would have never come into being which would have been a greater tragedy for India.
@John B: I agree with all of what you have said. But what I meant was that Winston Churchill would have had more of an authority to speak on behalf of the British people and would not have had to defend himself at home. Just saying that Jalianwallah massacre was " a monstrous tragedy of English psyche' just characterized the great tragedy which his current forebear has also done. It could also be considered to be thus characterized more to repair his own "English psyche" rather than express contrition for an immense injury done to Indian psyche. It cannot be considered to be an apology. To be fair to him he had also said on his death bed that opposing Indian independence was a great blunder he had committed and he deeply regretted that.
@FaiselH: who wrote " Feudal ‘elite’ of Pakistan can also feel “deeply shameful” for their treachery in the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy " Faisel Sahib, Feudal and all other Elite of Pakistan was always SHAME PROOF. Otherwise they would have felt DEEPLY SHAMEFUL for what they and did in East Pakistan. Remember that CHARLATAN who said " Idhar Hum, UDHAR tum"
“This was a deeply shameful event in British history and one that Winston Churchill rightly declared at the time as monstrous”.......?!?!?!?! Did he really write that? Did Winston Churchill really say that? Winston Churchill was an imperialist, and believed that the native people weren't capable enough to run their own governments. Sounds quite racist to me. Churchill was a pain in the back for the British government then who wanted to pull out of India.
@G. Din: You have to read our own history well.
Churchill did say it was "monstrous tragedy of English psyche". Not sure whether he meant to express the solidarity with the Indian grief or expressing the remorse and guilt of the English psyche.
Churchill wanted to maintain the British Empire and his words "the Crown Jewel of India" and in many ways he stood in the way of India independence and he was an architect of Pakistan who wanted to use the area of Pakistan, his own words " as a spring board to access the middle eastern oil as shores of India are no longer available".
Churchill said in 1942, "have not become the King’s First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire." He was a racist, always was of contempt towards Indians. He was typical Colonial Master in mind, body and soul, whereas people of Britain and Ireland (with republic spirit) were in love with India and Indians and everything of India.
Now, it is also high time that some one in India acknowledges the massacre of innocent women and children of English in the early days of 1858, when the fighting petty Sultans funded their mercenary army who released the convict criminal prisoners from jail to create anarchy and set fire to the boats when they were escaping even though they were given safe passage by Nana Sahib, who was commanding the revolt at later time.
All said and done, like in every history, blood is on both hands-in this case British had Indian blood and in Indians case the Maharajas mostly Indian blood on their hands for centuries, and later British blood.
All maharajas later joined together-held two Darbars for crowning British queen and king as Empress or Emperor of India.
In many ways, British colonial rule was good for the populace, who saw their poverty and misery and traditional subservient work to their land lord masters disappear, and the petty land lords and maharajas saw their wealth and power disappear. British crown took over at a time when industrial revolution was coming and India was the direct beneficiary of everything modern.-education, technology and industry,money, banking, and commerce.
INC brought the concept of Republic to common Indian minds who were repressed socially and economically by the age-old system of Maharaja rule which the British were protecting and perpetuating under English crown.
@RAW is WAR: "thanks." @Dr Dang: "see a sorry always works. Good job David." Thanks for what? Good job? It is quite unfair to expect any prime minister to apologize for a national shame because he/she will be hounded by his/her opposition at home. Now, if it had been Winston Churchill it would have been acceptable because he had an unassailable national stature. As a rule such apologies must come in the form of a resolution passed in the parliament. This applies for Pakistan's atrocities in Bangladesh, too.
I hope the Feudal 'elite' of Pakistan can also feel "deeply shameful" for their treachery in the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy. And return to State the fortunes accumulated against their services rendered to the Colonial Occupation.
proud moment for india,pakistan
well , we appreciate it... actualy almost everyone are already moved on , but it's still there when we look back...
Queue someone here demanding an apology from the US for their drone strikes...
To the point, an apology decades later...? Hmm, khair, good gesture nonetheless. Better than dismissing atrocious behavior and trying to pretend it never happened or claiming it was justified somehow. Cheers.
see a sorry always works. Good job David.
thanks.