Amritsar: The cost of no apology

Earlier this month India paused from its election campaign to mark the centenary of one of the darkest deeds in the history of the British Empire — the massacre at Amritsar.

On April 13, 1919 British-led troops fired on hundreds of unarmed people in a walled garden in the Punjab city of Amritsar. They were ordered to fire until their ammunition ran out.

No attempt was made to allow the crowd to disperse. The troops were firing from the only exit. There was no means of escape.

Officially the death toll was 379; Indians put it at closer to 1000. 

Historians believe that incident and the fact the perpetrators were never properly punished, provided the impetus that eventually forced the British from India 28 years later.

Before the massacre Indian independence had largely been the subject of debate among a small group of intellectuals.

Even activist Mahatma Gandhi, who later led the campaign for independence, had believed the British could still be absorbed into a free India in much the same way as past conquerors, such as the Mughals, had been.

All that changed after 1919.

Fast forward 100 years and the United Kingdom, long stripped of its overseas possessions and preparing to leave the European Union, is desperately casting about for partners to fulfil its hopes of becoming a ‘global’ trading nation.

One would assume that India, now a rising superpower with a population of more than 1.3 billion, would figure large in this new global strategy. Time to mend fences, with the Amritsar anniversary providing the ideal opportunity.

A heartfelt and sincere apology for the atrocity, delivered on site by a royal personage was in order. Instead the UK was left asleep at the wheel.

It was represented at the anniversary ceremony by its High Commissioner, Dominic Asquith who laid a wreath and mouthed a few words about being unable to rewrite history, but the need to learn its lessons.

What the UK has not learnt is the depth of feeling and resentment that continues in India about the massacre. It has not been forgotten and for many Indians, Britain can never be a true friend.   

In London, Prime Minister Theresa May did pause from the Brexit crisis to tell Parliament that the massacre was “a shameful scar on British Indian history.”

“We deeply regret what happened and the suffering caused,” she said.

However, in diplomatic speak “regret” falls short of an apology, as was noted by the Chief Minister of Punjab State, Amarinder Singh.

“An unequivocal official apology is needed for this monumental barbarity,” Singh said.  

  

Sadly May is not the first UK leader in modern times to stumble over this highly sensitive and emotional issue.

When David Cameron became the first serving British Prime Minister to visit the site in 2013 he defended his decision not to say sorry.

“It happened 40 years before I was born…I don’t think the right thing is to reach back into history and to seek out things you can apologise for,” Cameron said.

History may well come back to bite the UK as it seeks to replace the trading relationships it has lost with Europe.

Happy days for dictatorship

What a wonderful time to be a dictator.

Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping will be reviewing the world with some satisfaction this Easter. Their rivals are in disarray, democracy everywhere is under challenge, while their own power and influence is expanding.

The United States, once the unchallenged superpower, is led by a president who makes war on his own people; who purges his staff at the first sign of any disagreement and promotes his own family with a ruthless efficiency not seen since the days of the Borgia Popes.

Obsessed with internal issues such as ending migration, and continually lashing out at those who would question him, President Donald Trump’s ventures into foreign policy have only underlined his ineffectiveness.

Much heralded summits with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un have done nothing except boost Kim’s standing on the international stage.

Despite a barrage of threats, Nicolas Maduro is still firmly in place as President of Venezuela, while his US backed opponent, Juan Guaido remains in limbo.

Moving the Israeli Embassy to Jerusalem and recognising the country’s annexation of the Golan Heights has destroyed any hope of a two-state solution to the long-running Middle East crisis and wrecked Washington’s reputation through much of the Arab world.

Repudiating the Iran nuclear deal has done nothing to blunt the Islamic Republic’s support for dissident groups throughout the region.

Having engineered the collapse of American international influence, Trump’s domestic agenda is in tatters.

As the country gears up for another election next year, the wall on the Mexican border has not been built, much less paid for by Mexico, illegal immigration continues at high levels, jobs have not been repatriated.

Yet incredibly, Trump’s support base has suffered little, with many voters insisting, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, that he is a man “who does what he says”.

In Beijing and in the Kremlin there is growing hope that Trump might actually win a second term, and plans are no doubt being made to help him along that path.

Putin and Xi might also look with some optimism at the European Union, beleaguered with a Brexit crisis that seems likely to go into a fourth year, still grappling with an influx of refugees, largely of Putin’s making, and with the possibility of a new surge of migrants as Libya descends into civil war.

The EU has been distracted and weakened by the United Kingdom’s long-running departure, while the distinct possibility of a no-deal ‘Global Britain’ cast adrift and friendless, will present more intriguing possibilities for both dictators.

Meanwhile Xi’s Belt and Road initiative is drawing more countries into its orbit, and may even make headway in Europe, while Putin now has a firm foothold in the Middle East having rescued his Syrian ally, and will have high hope of advancing its cause further in Ukraine and other countries of its ‘near abroad’.

No doubt about it: Authoritarianism is in this year.

Courageous leaders who did what was right

Earlier this month Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras visited Skopje, the capital of neighbouring North Macedonia to be welcomed by his counterpart, Zoran Zaev.

In a relaxed setting in front of Government House, the two men chatted and even posed for a selfie.

Nothing unusual about that it would seem. After all, the countries share a common border and would appear to have a great deal to offer each other.

In fact, it is the closeness of their geography that has kept the nations apart for almost three decades — a row over what many people would call semantics, but which has fired up nationalist fervour on both sides of the border.

If it had been left to their respective populations, the meeting of the Prime Ministers would never have taken place.

North Macedonia borders the Greek Province of Macedonia and ever since the break-up of Yugoslavia, of which it was a part, the Balkan country has wanted ‘Macedonia’ as its name.

‘No’ said Greeks on the other side of the border. Macedonia has always belonged to Greece and the name cannot be stolen by another sovereign state.

Such a dispute might have been settled by international arbitration, but the United Nations didn’t want to get involved and for decades there was a compromise whereupon Skopje was landed with the ridiculous name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) which pleased no one.

The dispute was having serious consequences as Greece was blocking FYROM’s bid to join the European Union and NATO. European unity was at stake and in today’s fraught international environment, there were dangers that unfriendly powers could exploit the situation.

Last year Tsipras and Zaev hammered out the compromise name of North Macedonia. Nationalists on both sides erupted in fury and a referendum in the Balkan State failed when a boycott reduced participation to below the required 50 per cent.

At that point the two men displayed a quality that is sadly lacking among leaders around the world — courage.

Tsipras forced recognition of the name through the Greek Parliament and Zaev decided that as around 90 per cent of those who did vote in the referendum were in favour of North Macedonia, he would ignore the 50 per cent requirement and declare it passed.

This led to their historic meeting earlier this month at which both hailed a new chapter in economic and political cooperation.

The two Prime Ministers know they may have to pay a political price. It is quite possible that nationalists on both sides of the border will turn on them when next they face elections.

What they did may not have been popular, but it was right — for European unity, the defence of the Western way of life, and most importantly, for the long-term prosperity of their respective peoples.

In taking the course they did they showed true leadership, something in short supply in a democratic world obsessed with the next opinion poll or focus group.