Should David Cameron Apologise for Amritsar? by Sean Gabb

Should David Cameron Apologise for Amritsar?
By Sean Gabb

On Wednesday the 20th February 2013, I was asked by the BBC to comment on David Cameron’s “apology” to the Indians for the events at Amritsar in April 1919. A few hours later, I found myself on air with Keith Vaz MP, who was a Minister in the Blair Government. Without transcribing my words from the recording, here is what I said:

“I do not expect the Prime Minister to apologise for what happened at Amritsar. No more do I expect the Indians to apologise for the Black Hole of Calcutta, or for the bestial atrocities committed by the sepoys against British woman and children during the Mutiny.

“However, while there are doubtless Indians who get a thrill from watching the grandchildren of the white sahib grovel in the dust, this apology or semi-apology is really about British politics. Whether Conservative or Liberal or Labour, we are ruled by a cartel of cultural Marxists. Part of what they are about involves rewriting British history as a catalogue of shame. That alone explains why our leaders keep going about the world, apologising to every group of foreigners who may think they have a grudge against us. I am proud of my country and of its history. I want no part of this.”

To put it mildly, this is not an opinion heard very often on the BBC. But I was then asked about the principle of historic apologies. Instead of discussing the principle more than in passing, I took the opportunity to say this:

“Mr Blair may have apologised for the failure of the Irish potato crop. I wonder, however, when he and Gordon Brown and all the others will apologise for lying us into the war with Iraq, and when they will apologise for all the Iraqi people who were killed in that war, or who had their arms and legs blown off. I note that Mr Vaz was among the enthusiastic projectors of this war. When will he and his friends stand up and admit that they are liars and scoundrels?”

Mr Vaz had taken my earlier statement rather calmly. He now said that I was unwilling to apologise to the dead, but eager to defame the living. He insisted that no lies had been told to us before the Iraq War. He added that “people should not use radio in this way.”

I would like to have said more, but was not able. First, there was the scheduled length of the debate, which allowed only short statements. Second, there is the nature of the BBC. This is the main propaganda outlet for the British ruling class. Though it is required by law to go through the motions of providing balance in any debate, it made sure to give Mr Vaz twice as much air time as I got. Third, and partly in consequence, I knew that every sentence I uttered might be followed by an abrupt switching off of my microphone. This has happened on several occasions, and I needed to make sure that everything I was saying made sense in terms of what I had said already, and did not require further clarification. Fourth, I was contributing to the debate from abroad, in a place where my Internet connection might go down at any moment. These considerations made for a very abbreviated statement of belief. They also forced me into an apparent contradiction – a denunciation of apologies for past alleged atrocities, combined with a denunciation of alleged atrocities in the present. What I will do now, therefore, is give a more connected case in writing.

I will begin with the principle of historic apologies. Always considering the nature of the acts in question, and the time that has elapsed since they took place, I see nothing in itself wrong with the principle. It is often mistakenly applied. Take, for example, Pope John Paul’s apology in 2000 for the Crusades. Since these were a Byzantine and Latin response to a second wave of Islamic aggression that culminated in the taking of Constantinople and two sieges of Vienna, I see no reason for an apology – except, perhaps, for incidental atrocities such as the taking of Acre in 1191, which was followed by a general massacre: or perhaps, bearing in mind how long ago this was, and how many other massacres there have been, there may be no reason to apologise even for this.

Or, if – as in the case already given, of Acre – the principle may be correctly applied, the apology is unbalanced by apologies from the other side. Keeping with the example of the Crusades, I am not aware of any apology from any Moslem in or out of authority for the destruction of the Byzantine Empire, or for the massacre that followed the eventual taking of Constantinople in 1453. Islam has been spread mainly by the sword, and then by various forms of state discrimination against Christians until they converted. I do not think the average Moslem is even capable of admitting this fact. I do not agree with any of the British and American interventions in the Islamic world after about 1956. But I do accept that there is now a third wave of hostilities between Islam and Christendom; and unilateral apologies for past actions put us at a moral disadvantage in the present.

Now, I can almost hear the clatter of libertarian keyboards as the barest principle of historic apologies is dismissed. How can any of us be held responsible for things done by other people, and often long before we were born? The answer is that I am not a very orthodox libertarian, and I do accept that nations are corporate entities that exist over time. I do not accept this in a very strict sense. I do not, for instance, accept that the German people, between 1933 and 1945, were jointly and severally responsible for the actions of the Hitler regime, and were deserving of indiscriminate punishment – which means I do not regard the bombing of places like Hamburg and Dresden, or the ethnic cleansing of Germans from East Prussia and the Sudetenland, as acts of justice. But I do believe in a vague corporate identification of individuals with their nation. I am proud, therefore, of the suppression of the slave trade by the British State in the nineteenth century. I am proud that Bacon and Locke and Newton were Englishmen, and bask in their reflected glory among the principal architects of our modern civilisation. By the same reasoning, I feel a certain unease about our often questionable behaviour in Ireland. The lack of an effective response by the British State during the potato famine has been overstated. But there was probably more that could have been done after the scale of the crop failures became evident.

This being said, historic apologies can and sometimes should be made. Therefore, it was right for the German and Austrian States to apologise for the murder of all those Jews and others by the Hitler regime, and to make redress. I am not sure about the endless and exaggerated – and possibly self-interested – guilt of the German ruling class. I certainly do not think the actions of one dictatorial government, during fourteen generally troubled years, should blind us to the astonishing cultural and technological achievements of the German people since about 1700. In the modern world, German civilisation is comparable only to that of England. Where music is concerned, German greatness is in the same class among the other European nations as Everest is among the Himalayas. But those who take pride in the genius of their fathers cannot overlook their crimes. The Hitler regime is a blot on a shining record, and any balanced assessment of the Germans must take every fact into account.

I come now the events at Amritsar in 1919. The agreed facts are as follows. In 1919, the Punjab was in a state of serious unrest. The city of Amritsar was placed under martial law. On the 19th April, a crowd of between 5,000 and 20,000 natives gathered in the city. Brigadier Reginald Dyer went, with 150 mostly native troops, to disperse the crowd. He ordered his men to open fire, and they continued firing for ten minutes, leaving between 379 and over a thousand dead.

I do not regard myself as an expert on the history of British India. However, though not recently, I have read The Life of General Dyer, by Ian Duncan Colvin (W. Blackwood & Sons Ltd, London, 1929); and, more recently, The Amritsar Massacre: The Untold Story of One Fateful Day, by Nick Lloyd (I.B.Tauris, London, 2011); and I once looked through the seven volumes of the official report into the events (“The Hunter Report”). The truth appears to be that the Punjab was approaching the edge of insurrection. A few days earlier, there had been serious rioting in Amritsar, in which many natives and several Europeans were killed. In most places – and especially in South Asia – the difference between a peaceful gathering and a bloody riot is often one of time and internal provocation. Dyer had not expected the crowd he went to disperse to be so large. He and his men panicked.

This is not a defence of Dyer. Indeed, it is worth admitting that he seems to have changed his story more than once afterwards. But there is no reason to suppose that his actions were unusually wicked. As I have said, South Asian crowds are prone to rioting; and firm action at the outset is often the only way to prevent greater bloodshed later. This is the settled policy of the modern Indian and Pakistani and Bangladeshi Governments. It has been the policy of every power that has ruled any part of the Indian subcontinent for any length of time. If Dyer is to be condemned, so are innumerable other foreign and native military authorities. And most of these are much more to be condemned than Dyer. The condemnation of Dyer, therefore, should be seen less as a revulsion against the shooting of unarmed civilians than as part of the founding myth of the post-1947 Indian Republic. This requires British rule to be painted in the darkest shades possible, and for independence to be seen as an obvious blessing.

On this point, it is worth quoting Nick Lloyd:

“But looking at the violence in the Punjab in 1984, and at the scale of the action taken by the Indian Army, gives the lie to the accusation that the British ruled the Punjab with anything approaching the iron fist of legend. It was not just the events of 1984 in and around the Golden Temple that showed the level of brutality that the Indian state was capable of…. Even if one considers the British response to have been disproportionate or overly brutal, the number of dead and wounded from the disorders remains tiny when compared with the vast numbers who became victims of the struggles in the 1980s…. This was the reality of democracy in India, a far more volatile and unstable type of rule than the British imposed, and which showed its dark side in dealing with the Khalistan [Sikh  homeland] problem. But Congress won the battle of history and still distorts our view of the Punjab under British rule.”[p.62]

Having gone this far, I feel obliged to make some wider mention of the legitimacy of British rule in India. My view of the British Empire is that it was a misfortune for the British people. Between about 1660 and 1970, we paid higher taxes for its conquest and defence than would have been otherwise the case. Many of our ancestors died in its wars. It was always a distorting influence on British foreign policy. In the 1900s, it magnified our disputes with Germany so far as we made alliances with France and Russia. These were partly excessive reactions to the building of a big German fleet. They were also made necessary by the need to secure India and the Middle East once we had decided to concentrate our forces against a perceived German threat. The needs of Imperial security made it much more likely that we should eventually find ourselves in a European war with Germany. Though I regret our second declaration of war on Germany in 1939, the needs of Imperial defence prevented our full concentration of forces against Germany. This made war both more certain and more disastrous for all parties. After 1945, the slow collapse of the Empire was a continual drain on our national attention and other resources, and forced us into a much closer dependence on America than would have been required by fears of a Soviet threat to our own country.

The commercial advantages of the Empire were at best zero. Some people gained greatly from its conquest and defence. But the same can be said even of disasters like the Great War. It is the overall balance of enrichment that counts. In 1914, our trade with America and Germany, and even Argentina, dwarfed our trade with India and the white dominions. Against all this must be added the creation of an Imperial ruling class that corrupted the government of England, and, once the Empire was gone, then set to work on recreating England as another unaccountable despotism.

On the other hand, for the conquered peoples, British rule was an unparalleled blessing. For the first and only time in their histories, they had a government that tried – and generally tried with success – to be just and moderate. India in particular gained from British rule. It got a reasonably honest administration, and the benefits of English law and of western science and education. No one who looks at India under Aurangzebe and under Queen Victoria can regard the change as other than for the best for the great majority of the Indian people. Seen purely from the right of the conquered peoples to life, liberty and property, the only disadvantage of British rule was that it finally came to an end. And this is the truth even taking into account the bloodshed of the initial conquests and of the maintenance of British rule. Every imperial power that ever existed has governed by the sword. No other has ever unsheathed the sword so reluctantly and with so many compensating benefits.

I could rest my case here. There is no reason, on the principles I have stated, to apologise for the events at Amritsar. They do not rank with the holocaust, or even with the Irish potato famine. And they were now a long time ago. I do not think anyone who suffered there is alive or would otherwise be alive. But I did not speak on the radio only about these events. I accused the British Government of a purely domestic agenda in making these historic apologies. Briefly stated, my argument is that, at least during my lifetime, the British ruling class has been trying to insulate itself from any but an imaginary accountability to us. It has done this by ruling from behind a fig leaf of international treaties and multinational organisations. The European Union is its main current excuse for making laws without our consent, and enforcing them in ways alien to our traditions. But there is also the Council of Europe, and the United Nations, and NATO, among others. These bodies have no real powers of compulsion. Their workings are heavily influenced by the British ruling class. Their commands are taken as binding here with only a show of reluctance.

Our rulers have pre-empted opposition to these policies by a deliberate balkanisation of the country. In a free society, there would be some movement of peoples; and many incomers would be alien in their appearance and ways. At the same time, the incomers would have skills desired by the natives, and would find themselves under strong social pressure to conform to – or simply not to challenge – established ways of life. What we have had, however, is a state-sponsored mass-immigration, largely of profoundly alien paupers. State sponsorship has involved generous welfare benefits, and laws compelling association on terms almost wholly favourable to the incomers.

The natural result has been a gathering collapse of liberal democracy. One of the main reasons for this is that a reasonably homogenous nation state may not be democratic, but it can be democratic. People who have a common identity will often conceive common interests, and stand together against a government that does not respect these interests. They may also trust each other with political power – confident that differences over economic or other policies will not be carried to the point of civil war.

This is an argument accepted within a significant strand of classical liberalism. A century and a half ago, John Stuart Mill stated the argument about as clearly as it can be. In Chapter 16 of his essay On Representative Government, he says:

“Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist. The influences which form opinions and decide political acts are different in the different sections of the country. An altogether different set of leaders have the confidence of one part of the country and of another. The same books, newspapers, pamphlets, speeches, do not reach them. One section does not know what opinions, or what instigations, are circulating in another. The same incidents, the same acts, the same system of government, affect them in different ways; and each fears more injury to itself from the other nationalities than from the common arbiter, the state. Their mutual antipathies are generally much stronger than jealousy of the government. That any one of them feels aggrieved by the policy of the common ruler is sufficient to determine another to support that policy. Even if all are aggrieved, none feel that they can rely on the others for fidelity in a joint resistance; the strength of none is sufficient to resist alone, and each may reasonably think that it consults its own advantage most by bidding for the favour of the government against the rest.”

A further twist in the ratchet – and this has been applied by the cultural Marxists who only inherited a set of tendencies already set in motion by the previous ruling class – has been to make any expression of national pride by the native peoples of this country disreputable. This includes, as I have said, turning our history into a catalogue of shame for which we must endlessly apologise to the world. If they could do it with a straight face – or had any awareness of it, bearing in mind their usually piffling knowledge of history – I do believe our present rulers would apologise to the Italians for the burning of London by Boadicea.

It is for this reason that, while they remain valid in the abstract, there must be a strong presumption against any attempt to apply the principles stated above. Even where – as in the case of the Irish potato famine – there is some case for an apology, we must keep continually in mind the very sinister agenda that it may be serving. Staying with the Irish case, given the resources available in the 1840s, it was practically impossible to prevent great suffering in Ireland when the potato crops failed. There were also ideological constraints on the Peel and Russell Governments that prevented much help that could have been given – ideological constraints, I will add, that were wholly correct in the wider sense. Even so, no one can call the resulting horrors one of the finest passages in the history of England. But the apology that would be a noble thing from a normal state must be regarded with at least suspicion when it comes from the actual British State. It helps to legitimise a generation of Sinn Fein/IRA terrorism, and contributes to the demoralisation of the English. And, as with the Moslems, I am not aware of any reciprocal apology from the Irish Government for Irish atrocities.

I come finally to the Iraq War. This was a war projected and carried out by people who are still alive. It was projected on the basis of evident lies. It was carried out in a manner that amounts to one long atrocity. When we conquered India, the Indians got two centuries of better government than they could have managed for themselves. When we helped conquer Iraq, we enabled the wholesale looting of the country, and left the Iraqis with a failed state. With the example of Iraq still before their eyes, our rulers then did the same to the Libyan people, and seem eager to do the same to the Syrian people. And, though I have not yet mentioned it, I have not forgotten the earlier aggression against the Serbian people. When I suggested that Mr Vaz and his friends should apologise for Iraq, I may have been far too gentle. Given all the known and probable facts, I should have called for impeachments and stern punishments – and punishments by act of attainder, since the normal laws have been made inadequate.

I wish I could have said all this on the BBC last night. But spoken essays – and from people like me – are not part of public sector broadcasting in the modern age. I should simply be grateful that I was allowed to say what I did. I should also thank Mr Vaz for his moderation in the face of my deliberately inflammatory comments. Most other politicians would have exploded on air and had my microphone turned off before I could draw breath to finish saying my piece.

32 responses to “Should David Cameron Apologise for Amritsar? by Sean Gabb

  1. The very notion of apologizing for what long-dead people did is bizarre. In the U.S., somebody is always demanding one particular group or another apologize for the behavior of its forebears. It’s disheartening to see that the mania is worldwide. That means there’s nowhere we can go to escape from it.

    Far from fostering a sense of responsibility, it obscures the link between individual human agency and its effects. Slavery, for example, was the fault of those who had slaves. No matter how much breast-beating their great-great grandchildren may do, none of them has the ability to reach back into the past and free a single slave.

    I’d be very happy to see us apologize for something we, ourselves are doing — while we’re still doing it — and then stop doing it. Instead of owning and correcting our own mistakes, we obsess over our ancestors’ transgressions and give ourselves symbolic floggings that promote a false sense of virtue.

    Though this nonsense seems to happen all over the world, the grievance-mongers appear to target the U.K. about as often as they do the U.S. Perhaps that’s because it’s more fun for them to beat up on people with consciences highly-developed enough to help them out by beating up on themselves.

  2. Yes, the thing was all a little bit dissapointing, and tacky to say the least. Here we had a supposed trade tour that looked as if we ended up begging on our knees for forgiveness, firstly, I do recall from history. didn’t the Indians also slaughter the English, should they say sorry now? The whole thing ended with the impression Cameron was being pressured for visa’s, this comes of course,after, India. falsely alleged we were racist for trying to implement a sensible demise to the influx of migrants, do these people not understand, english for instance, as they told Jesus,there’s no room at the inn, we are full to capacity, most over populated country in Europe! Incidentaly India claims it’s one of the top three economies in the world now, the first thing on their menue should be the creation of their own colleages and universities! I do not hold the veiw we have to apologise for anything, especially the crusades as some are now suggesting, the situation has got out of hand, where anything is picked up to attack us and internationally sully the reputation of the english people in general. Firstly many people know nothing about this or played any part, such publicity stunts are retrospective and biased they upset people!

  3. Another piece of clear-headed thinking from a chap with already proven common sense credentials. Very well said, written and done DSG.

    Great comment too from Lori Heine.

    Moving a little off topic though, how sad it seems in my opinion that trips by our Prime Minister are being made largely in order to deflect necessary consideration of so many problems away from the minds of the general public. Other than his desire to encourage further immigration, I doubt anything at all will have been achieved. The comment the fool made regarding the blessing of having successful Indian car factories in the UK sickened me to my stomach. They were English once and sold off for a pittance due to a lack of investment and restructuring. It’s a UK force that’s in their working right now – working in what once was a British aeroplane factory by the way. He seems to know not a thing about Indian financial matters or best business practice.

    But then again, the current future course of the UK has been set by a largely white ruling class. What I believe is most desperately needed right now are several hundred more influential people like DSG. All with a similar grasp of the real social and economic facts and who are likewise able to articulate the need to alter and improve those facts which are most often highlighted. One being, where is our nation heading right now and when it gets to wherever it finds itself, what will it look like? Will we be merely a UK in a mighty USE – something along the lines of South Carolina within the USA but minus good weather and plenty of space? What will happen, eventually, when a fully multi-cult and largely female parliament begin to demand that the still largely white population toe the latest proposed USE line? What proposals will they or better yet, the EU, have in place to prevent or side in the inevitable bloody civil wars?

    Once again the BBC’s political role has proved crucial in allowing Vaz to have written up another win-win in his political diary. Whilst their charter obliges them to give equal debating opportunities for those engaged in broadcasting, very sadly, they came to realise fifty or so years ago that they could cut and shut broadcasts in order to suit their own political agenda. What little comeback or criticism they had to face seldom came from the press or government. After WW2 our beloved Auntie Beeb had become beyond reproach by anyone and largely remains that way today – in spite of all her obvious failings. What an enviable position to be in – a little like being Royalty I guess.

    “Thus the ruling and official classes in Britain became committed to the political unification of the states which belonged to the American Alliance on this side of the Atlantic. Public sentiment was in a condition which permitted this purpose, however cautiously, to be pursued. Britain, it seemed axiomatic, was no longer an island; Britain, since it could no longer defend itself, was no longer independent.

    It followed that Britain was no longer a nation: it was a part and not a whole; it’s only logical and intelligible destiny was to be absorbed into the new political entity which would conform with the scope and conditions of the American guarantee. This was the new, the final surrogate for lost empire; and if the British liked to tell themselves that they are going to ‘lead Europe‘ in a ‘special relationship‘ with the United States, the necessary bromides were obtainable on prescription.

    The chosen instrument of political unification was the European Economic Community, as Prime Minister Edward Heath confirmed when in October 1972, after the passage by Parliament of the European Communities Act, he declared there would be political unity by 1980.”

    Part of a speech written October 1987 and given by Professor E Powell MP.

    So why is Daft David over in India brown nosing for the EU? Why isn’t some other EU ‘leader‘ showing a lead? We are just another bankrupt EU state. India is none of our concern. We can’t afford her.

    • Facebook comments:

      Keith Farrington

      David Cameron cannot apologise for the actions of others hundreds of years ago becuae he is not connected to the actors on behalf of whom he purports to speak. Likewise I cannot apologise for the actions of Bomber Command in January 1945 when they created a firestorm in Dresden. I may deplore what they did but I have no locus standi to speak or act on behalf of those who planned and carried the raid out. It is a liberal device, loved by Tony Blair and Obama who love to raise issues that show our nation and western civilisation in a bad light. When they luxuriate in these crocodile tears they are really wanting to damage what they see is a privileged and rich nation against a poorer society. With India, nbow richer, mnore powerful and economically upwardly mobile this does not wash. Sure I can apologise for MY own transgresssions that I truly regret. When I lost my mother in 1987 I went into a funk and lost my way. Thanks to my wife’s forgiveness and my true sadness and regret my apologies for this mean something because it refers to my own actions that created pain and distress in my loved ones. I do not believe I can apologise for the acts of another e.g my father my perhaps I might in a lesser way for those whom I am locus parenti. These acts are to my mind nothing to do with ethics or re-establishing the true feelings between nations or when will it end? The Indian Mutiny in 1857 had the Black Hole of Calcutta incident that we might expect some kind of return apology but that does not obtain. Here we have the proof that these devices only go one way from the white western nations to the old Third World. Nothing more than flummery, trotted out by a lacky to the left wing doctrines that we see have total hold over our lives.

      John Ray General Dyer was cashiered for his actions so that is a pretty emphatic apology

      Gregory Lauder-Frost

      General Dyer was made a Liberal government scapegoat for acting correctly during a period of martial law when there had been serious and violent disturbances. At the government enquiry his lawyers produced a flawless case supported by the Governor of the Punjab and the local administrative authorities there. None of this was ever published. The film Gandhi was a 100% travesty of historical truth.

      John Ray

      Slaughtering unarmed people is correct? Opinion was of course divided in England at the time but many were critical of Dyer

      Gregory Lauder-Frost

      yes, there were plenty of people in England (not in the Punjab or Indian government) of the liberal-left persuasion who condemned Dyer. But then they would. To them the army is an instrument of oppression. Martial Law had been declared some time before this deliberately illegal demonstration was organised. How were the government forces to know whether or not these demonstrators were not armed under their robes? Why did they not disperse when asked? What did they expect would happen?

      Gregory Lauder-Frost

      The full reports are in the National Archives at Kew and have never been published. An abridged version was published by HMSO as part of their “uncovered editions” series in 2000. The editor was a liberal so the end result is obvious (as with their heavily edited version of War Office reports from Russia in 1919) and so therefore almost worthless to a historian who demands the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

      General Dyer’s report to the committee of enquiry is in this. Others too are quoted. Major-General Benyon: “The wisdom of General Dyer’s action has been fully proved by the fact that there has been no further trouble of any sort in Amritsar. The news had a decidedly sobering effect.” Sir Michael O’Dwyer, the Punjab’s Lieutenant-Governor stated: “I have no hesitation in saying that General Dyer’s action that day was the decisive factor in crushing the rebellion, the seriousness of which is only now being realised.” Even the investigating committee conceded that “The main object of the mob was certainly to destroy all government buildings and there is little room for doubt…etc….” You get the drift. Just a pity that schools/universities are so full of the liberal-left and biased against the British, their own people, that they deliberately don’t today teach the whole truth.

  4. Good stuff.

    Extending the topic, I would also like to hear an apology from the Supreme Pontiff for the work of the Church in its laying of the foundations for the Holocaust, beginning in the early 19th century and continuing up to and beyond 1939.

  5. I think much of this argument is retrospective, Like Jack Straw, trying to rake up the cold coals of the past, the ongoing debates about the Holocaust are particulary unfair and discriminating to a new generations of “Germans,” this new generation are not guilty of the crimes of their forefathers and should not be scared by attacks from the archives of history, Germany is now is a mordern democracy, they cannot be held guilty of crimes committed by totaliterain leaders of yesteryear, babies born today should not have to endure such arguments, their hands are clean, we must stop the historic attacks on germany, and enjoy good relations with them, we in the UK have much in common with them, we must never put barriers in the way of soical and economic trade progress!

  6. Here I am criticising the leaders of the Church, right up to today, for how they formed the public’s attitude to Jews over the last century and a half. What they did led directly to the Holocaust and they still equivocate about their responsibilities.

    Germany itself is another matter altogether.

  7. I think to be honest, we have to be realistic, what about during the crusades
    when pope and the churches spoke up for the lives of up for Jews. We must let such matters historically fade, it is not fare on the victims of the holocaust
    forced to relive their memories of torment.We must just make sure such things never repeat themselves in the future, that is our only worldly duty nothing more.

  8. Excellent piece, Sean. A well-written, well-argued article that deserves a much wider airing. I have criticised you in the past, but I can’t criticise this.
    Like Ireland and the Irish, India and the Indians have taken more from the ordinary people of this country than we ever took from them.

  9. I know what you mean. For the first time ever on this site, I had one or two slightly varying responses prepared and ready to go on any attack against your Indian post – but no target came out for me to fire one at. Shit!

    I noticed over the week-end, how plod are now claiming that the victim of the acid throwing attack – which the victim alleged had been thrown by a person wearing a mask – was in fact thrown by the victim herself at herself.

    Talking of firing, it sounds a little bit like the story of Oscar Pistorius not being able to quite figure out that cat burglars seldom choose to use the bathroom whilst working. And if they do and you decide to shoot them through the door they’ve just locked because they obviously enjoy a little privacy, it might not be a great idea to then go into a windowless room to check out how good a shot you are. The intruder might not be dead after all but you can be absolutely certain that he, or she, is going to be a touch pissed off.

    • I’ve been out of England for a while, and have missed out on the news. Tell me more about the acid woman. Since I did send her a little gift, I’d feel rather let down to hear that it wasn’t an assault.

  10. John, that’s a bit like the story of Edgar Stone, Edgar was an accomplished racing car driver who broke his back in a crash, he had to retire from racing and carved a career as a sucessfull author, Edgar met a beautiful woman and for a few years they lived happerly ever after, as the years passed Edgars partner, Tiffiny, started to become a success in her own right, enjoying the spotlight of her new found fame, she came home one night and told Edgar their relationship was over, Edgar in his shock rocked in his wheelchair, and yelled, Tiffiny, if I can’t have you, no one will, Tiffiny, stormed off to bed, leaving Edgar downstairs to boil, suddenly, Edgar, remembered his grandfathers war revolver in the sideboard draw, he removed the gun and loaded the chamber, suddenly he yelled, Tiffiny, Tiffiny, I have fallen from my chair, as Tiffiny came down the stairs Edgar in his rage discharged the gun, shooting Tiffiny six times, Edgar then in panic rang the police, I have been burgled, please come quick, the police were soon to arrive, initially they believed his story, and concluded there had been a terrible mistake, the burglar was in fact poor Tiffiny, one bright spark amongst the woddentops, decided to check up stairs, on he bedside dressing table there layed a letter to Edgar, signed Tiffiny. the letter indicated she was leaving him for good. Edgar was of course arrested and charged, he was tried at court before a jury and found guilty of murder, sentenced to 25 years he was taken to dartmoor prison, uopn incarceration, Edgar compained to the govenor his human rights had been violated on grounds of mobility. The prison authorities in thier fright decided to provided Edgar with a dissability scooter, Edgar, cunning as he was, made his escape disguised as a “Wheelie Bin,” news soon spread of ” Evil Edgars” escape, the mob’s called for his head, somehow Edgar on his scooter made it to Dover, captured by a mob, before making his escape to France, their anger thus unfolded, they tied poor Edgar to his scooter, set on full speed they pointed him in the direction of Dover cliffs, Edgar was last seen dissapearing over the horizon, never to be head of again, of course the story of Edgar highlights the failings and capabilities of man, thus we are but mear mortals, who sometimes fall from the path of grace!

  11. Well, Keith, I fully agree, why in god’s name are we giving India aid, this should stop with immediate effect, as should arranged marraiges, which are one of the biggest abuses of immigration nation has ever seenwitnessed, being true english I apologise for nothing, and would appreciate people like Cameron not speaking on my behalf. Does anyone apologise for the past slaughter of the English, No!

  12. If I was David Cameron’s War Secretary, and in his “train of persons” that he accompanied to India, I’d have had an invoice in my pocket, and not a crowd of sillybuggers trying to sell stuff. The sum mentioned would be enormous.

    The objective would not be to get money off the Government of India, although the odd few hundred billion would be at least warranting a formal letter of thanks. I might even accept, as a “gift”, showing their appreciation of my magnanimity, their “prepared MiG-29s (all of them, plus the servicing gear…and the advanced-trainers, and the manuals.)

    But it would be to make a point: that is to say – if we had not come there in 1603, and decided to stay, and _dealt with_ , by “servicing” the repellent precapitalist-barbarian bastards that the poor Indian Peoples (there were lots of peoples: socialists would have had a trying and confusing time deciding which peoples to dissolve and which to elect in their place) were saddled with for hundreds and hundreds of years, pre-our-arrival, then India would not be where it is today.

  13. You see, I don’t think that anybody (with the exception of the GramscoFabiaNazis, who have done _all_ this stuff to us on purpose, and know _absolutely everything_ about what they are doing and _why_ , and what they believe and what they _intend_) quite realises how appallingly angry people are getting.

  14. Sean: My information came from a report in yesterday’s Sunday Times. It seems that the attack took place on the December the 30th yet plod failed to bother looking for witnesses to the attack until February 5th. At the end of January, the victim’s (it matters not by whose hand – she’s still a victim) disabled mother handed over to the police a lap-top containing information regarding reported acid attacks and that this information had been recently googled by the victim. She was then accused of throwing it. She denies it. Her family and friends strongly support her denial.

    The police haven’t gone into detail about why she might have tried to disfigure herself. They have also said that they do not know precisely what chemical was used. One of the photographs used in the report does show signs of burning but both eyes seem to be ok. So it could not have been one of the stronger acids like sulphuric or nitric. She would still be in hospital I imagine if they had been used. Even with treatment those things continue burning for quite some time. I worked with both cyanide and sulphuric acid in various metal heat treatments – horribly agressive stuff.

    Nevertheless, if this young woman is seeking publicity this method of attracting attention does seem bizarre in the extreme. Any young person would have to be insane to want to risk disfiguring their face. Even a common household bleach might seriously damage an eye unless a good supply of water was immediately to hand.

    At the moment, I continue with the opinion that plod is not very interested possibly due to political pressure not to rock the multi-cult boat. Until some evidence is found that proves she’s telling fibs, I remain resolutely in sympathy with her position.

    • I think that’s a reasonable position. The cheque I sent c/o The Independent remains uncashed. I won’t cancel it unless the plod come up with a better case than they have done.

  15. I think we all know the mindset of the plod and his “pen,” dosen’t function in the same way as a normal mortal, half the time they knock up two page statements, and remain unconscious of what pen has put to paper, this is probably one of these sinister racist attacks against the victim, that would be the probable motive, not in a million years would I believe the story she thew acid in her own face, more like the plods don’t have the brains to solve the crime, and this is a desperate attempt to result the case, nobody knows the plods like I do,their defunct brains come up with the most rediculous allegations when cornered, and what’s more the half brained looney tune judges believe them. let them put this before a court and see what heavy flak they get, they’ll be shot clean out of the Sky, secondly, bleach will not cause burns like that, It’s a scientific fact.

  16. Are, you’re right there lad, what about that IRA case before secret trial at
    Norwich Court, how did that imbred looney tune judge and wife of that shrink
    huges, find someone guilty of having a Libyian Diplomat in his car on the
    basis of a police officers evidence already being sued, we’re still waiting for an expination and Justice, Judge John Farnworth, how does an officer stop
    the car of plaintiff who is already suing him and get away with making
    a flase statement he had a lybian in his car who ran off into the night, where
    do the law society have the right to set up a file marked lybian diplomat
    case on the basis of these lies. Farnwoth, Huges, PC Browsnel, you
    should be shipped off to the local asylum on the basis of public safety,
    you should also pay the costs and fines back and compensation for false
    imprsionment, you included armstrong the £70,000 legal aid you took only
    to loose the files.

  17. That’s the Norfolk Constabulary for you that’s what they do, they even set
    up their own brothel in the police cells, cost them alot of compensation though.

  18. Interestingly, John, I’ve just completed a trawl on the Naomi Case, the woodentops have taken a number of items from her home, including lab top, they are trying to make a case she done it her self, it’s a case of the woodentops getting irrational as they are unable to solve the crime, they are just trying to get a result and wrongly put her in the frame, apparently they have interviewed the family putting forward this allegations and “Seized” a number of items, their flawed view appears to be based on past tense rubbish, you know the sort of stuff, you’re in the IRA as you have books by Jerry Adams in your book shelves. All eye’s on the woodentops, we must
    watch thier every move, they might well be “Picture Framing” again, one
    of their more devious pastimes.

  19. I fear that all these apologies for deeds of the past are a sign of a nation in decline. Demands for these public displays of politicians grovelling are the jackals snapping at the heels of a potential victim.

    I been trying to come up with the one apology,the one making it clear that our demise as a nation is imminent. But I cannot decide between apologising for the crusades to the ‘Umma’ or apologising to the Vatican for the Reformation. I suppose it won’t much matter. By the time we get to it we’re basically stuffed.

    Isn’t this country becoming depressing?

  20. Hello, Partricia, you’ve found a real patricia fan here!

  21. God, a triple brandy makes all the difference, I just had a quick surf thought
    the blog, I had another read of your post patricia, the last three lines are
    amazing, we are such realists, what a brilliant way to describe the situation.
    true as it is!

  22. It’s the triple rose’ that does it for me!

  23. You’re right we’re friends now, sorry I underestimated your amaziing abilities
    of perception! I take you’re point.

  24. Initiate plan F. sense of humour of course.

  25. Particia, Love you logo, don’t be depressed,, note the modern interpreation
    from a very old soldier, never had we seen so many arrows, they blocked
    the sunlight, we were in darkness, god granted us victory that day! let not depression be your guide or master in life.

  26. Pingback: Director’s Bulletin, 26th May 2013 | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

  27. Pingback: An Update from the Libertarian Alliance « Attack the System

  28. Being a relative of Sir Michael O’Dwyer, I’m reading his book “My Life in India”. I will just say that there were perilous times in the Punjab, but the Punjabi’s were good at a few different things: administration and having offered many of their own people to the Army over the years during that time. There were legitimate reasons for a rebellion, but innocent killing of people is uncalled for. I just want to the chance to apologize on behalf of my family and so say the words in person. India is a place where people don’t forget history. Words of apology and action can bring healing to people. And, there is a need for healing to take place. I’ve learned this from my Lord, Jesus Christ. It’s unfortunate that innocent people were killed at time when there was a big problem of corruption and certain people causing rebellion in the Punjab. It’s almost like that India was being rushed to self government when they may haven’t been ready for it. The rural people somehow were being sacrificed by the urban intelligenstia. My wife is from India. Let this be a time of healing as my relationship with God and wife reflect. If the British government can’t do this, than for the sake of God and my family line, than I will offer words of apology one day in person.