Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have reread this several times, and suspect I am misunderstanding you post, as it sounds like you think General Dyer was assassinated. Instead he died a rich old man without any regrets for killing thousands of innocent people.
So am I missing something?
History aside, what is your view of soldiers and/or their commanders who were responsible for killing innocent people in NI, being brought to trial?
`
I take a rather unusual position, give all of them amnesty,draw a line in the sand and move on .
That's not me being pro Republican, loyalist or state security forces
Northern Ireland is already divisive enough, if you convict British army members , you have victims of other violent men who then want never ending trials
I have reread this several times, and suspect I am misunderstanding you post, as it sounds like you think General Dyer was assassinated. Instead he died a rich old man without any regrets for killing thousands of innocent people.
So am I missing something?
History aside, what is your view of soldiers and/or their commanders who were responsible for killing innocent people in NI, being brought to trial?
`
I was thinking of o Dwyer who was a punjab regional lieutenant governor at the time, he himself was involved at some level and an Indian nationalist assassinated him many years later
Regarding your point about soldiers being in their 70's or having passed away, does time really matter?
Put another way, should potential crimes be excused because delay tactics and not having the political spine to do the right thing rule the day?
Given that the terrorists were allowed out under the Good Friday Agreement, then to try soldiers would be wrong.
The commanders are all just about dead, as you have to be of a certain age to become a commander, whilst there is a total lack of clarity and evidence, which means these cases are rejected by the courts.
Furthermore as pointed out new legislation is set to put an end to this charade.
As for going on about events in India, just remember that the US has caused untold death and misery.
As for India, Britain never had more than 70,000 troops in a country of 400 million, and the Indians could have sent us packing any time they wanted.
The Indians were complicit with the British as they had been slaughtered and killed by the Muslim Mughals before Britain ever set foot in India, and even today there is tension between largely Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan.
Britain largely left the rule of India to the local princes, the Maharajah, who had their own regional armies, and later to the Indian Army and Indian Police.
Britain, a naval power sought as much trade as possible, and in this respect improved infrastructure such as crop irrigation, transport such as ports and railways and many other areas. This made India's ruling class wealthy and brought jobs and prosperity, as well as allowing the Hindu nation to recover from the centuries of the Mughals brutality.
The Hindu's divided there own people through the caste system, and had some barbaric practices such as burning widows alive on their husbands funeral pyre and burying lepers alive, whilst the British also put an end to slavery.
So to just start citing this and that against Britain, does not take in to account the full picture or historical context.
Here's the view of an actual Indian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nirpal Dhaliwal
Despite the country's vast population, there were never more than 70,000 British troops in India; the running of the country required an enormous infrastructure of native troops, police and bureaucrats.
As Hitler observed, Indians merely had to spit all at once and every Briton in India would have drowned.
Indians assisted with Empire because it brought them unprecedented order and civility. Indians were no strangers to outside rulers; for eight centuries before the Raj, the sub-continent had been subjected to the plunder and depravity of the Mughals - Muslim rulers who came from as far west as Turkey.
Delhi was razed eight times in that period and great pyramids were constructed with the skulls of its inhabitants.
Because Islam permits the enslavement of non-Muslims, Indians were sold across the Islamic world in such quantities that the international price of slaves collapsed. The Afghan mountain range of the Hindu Khush (which translates as the 'Hindu Slaughter') is named after the huge numbers who died there while being marched to the markets of Arabia and Central Asia.
For all the artistic refinement and opulence of India's past rulers - and their poetry, music, and the magnificence of the Taj Mahal are testament to that - they oversaw a period of general barbarism in which the ordinary Indian was no more than a starving chattel.
The rebellions which eventually arose against the Mughals - such as the Sikhs in Punjab and the Marathas in the south - fractured the rulers' power, and enabled the British to get their own foot in the door.
At this point, it's important to remember that the British did not arrive in an idyllic sub-continent full of happy, contented Indians, but in one in extreme turmoil.
And, though primarily motivated by profit, they sought to apply humane values - even if at gunpoint.
In 1846, the British commissioner, John Lawrence, told the local elite that Punjabis could no longer burn their widows, commit female infanticide, nor bury their lepers alive.
When they protested, saying that he had promised there would be no interference in their religious customs, Lawrence steadfastly replied that it was British religious custom to hang anyone who did such things.
In addition to combating these barbaric practices, the British also outlawed slavery in 1843 at a time when an estimated 10 million Indians were slaves - up to 15 per cent of the population in some regions.
Yes, British rule was exploitative and took away more than it provided, but compared to what Indians had known previously, there was much to be thankful for.
This gratitude expressed itself in 1939 when, at the height of the independence movement led by Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi, two million Indians nonetheless enlisted in the fight against fascism - the largest volunteer army in history.
It's no overstatement to say that, without the British, Indians would not even know what it is to be Indian.
After 800 years of Mughal rule, Hindu culture was in terminal decline and it was the likes of Warren Hastings and William Jones, the founders of the Asiatic Society, who began the collection and renewed study of India's ancient texts, educating Indians about their own rich and unique past.
And it was a Briton, Allan Octavian Hume, who helped found the Indian national Congress - the political party that would eventually lead the country to independence.
Thousands of Indians died building the railways of the Raj, but countless more died building the Taj Mahal and other useless baubles for their earlier rulers.
For all they extracted from India, the British left behind a practical network of transportation, governance and values without which India would not be the dynamic democracy it is today.
It is a mark of India's quiet appreciation as well as its great self-confidence that it asks for no apology for the past.
Out of respect, no Briton should be condescending enough to offer one.
I was thinking of o Dwyer who was a punjab regional lieutenant governor at the time, he himself was involved at some level and an Indian nationalist assassinated him many years later
Ok, that makes sense, as General Dyer was treated like a hero by some, and they put together a fortune for him to live on. Frankly, everyone involved should have been ashamed to support such a monster.
If I recall correctly, he made some comment about knowing if what he did was wrong when he met his maker.
I suspect he is not very happy where he is currently staying for eternity.
I take a rather unusual position, give all of them amnesty,draw a line in the sand and move on .
That's not me being pro Republican, loyalist or state security forces
Northern Ireland is already divisive enough, if you convict British army members , you have victims of other violent men who then want never ending trials
Horrible for victims families but necessary
I know there are many who think that way. However I wonder if their relatives were the victims of having their loved ones murdered for no reason, would they accept it.
Frankly, I have no problem with an amnesty for soldiers, provided they stand trial, and at least have to spend a month in jail(assuming they were found guilty).
To my pleasant surprise even Ullish Rab feels the same way.
After all, as others point out, many a British and Irish paramilitary member were released, some from multiple life sentences. My point has been that at least they were arrested, brought to trial and made to feel some shame and regret for what they did.
So to not even bring the forces of the government (who are expected to act within the law and decency) to trial, is a miscarriage of justice.
Hence the reason you have groups still pushing for trials to this very day.
The article at the link is a long read with many embedded links to take you down rabbit holes and requires careful reading. The author is a Haavad law grad *** (<Cmu) Laude, and Max Planck researcher. It focuses heavily but not exclusively on the UK Overseas Operations Act as it applies to N.I.
ive said it before but im well aware its a minority view but we in the republic of ireland should rejoin the commonwealth , brexit or no brexit , this country will always have a close relationship with the UK , no different than Canada and the USA or New Zealand and Australia.
I dont think that would make a huge amount of difference in terms of attitudes amongst Ulster Unionists , I dont think it would do any harm but we should do it anyway
its a minority view however and a lot of people here are instinctively against it
ive said it before but im well aware its a minority view but we in the republic of ireland should rejoin the commonwealth , brexit or no brexit , this country will always have a close relationship with the UK , no different than Canada and the USA or New Zealand and Australia.
I dont think that would make a huge amount of difference in terms of attitudes amongst Ulster Unionists , I dont think it would do any harm but we should do it anyway
its a minority view however and a lot of people here are instinctively against it
What benefits to RoI would accrue?
What are the obligations of membership?
What benefits to RoI would accrue?
What are the obligations of membership?
It's a very loosely connected club but with Brexit now a reality, it would be a useful way of strengthening ties
If it also helps our relationship or helps us build a relationship with ulster unionists, that can only be a good thing in my opinion
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
