Jalianwala Bagh Massacre

 

A tragedy to be sure. And I offer no excuse or severe condemnations, in part, as well. But as to whether countrymen can fire and kill fellow countrymen? Tis absurd to believe they can not, have not, or will not. The historical record is replete with examples.

 

Discipline is a funny thing. Orders.... for many throughout history... were orders. Cultures and sub ethnicities within them; who adopt or were identified with strong warrior cultures and ethos are capable of anything..for a myriad of reasons. To include proving loyalty. Or to ensure their own survival as a subculture. And the prestige and perceived honor they feel is either due them or should be, conquered or conqueror. Whether in the hindsight of history.....that's right or wrong is best left to philosophers and theologians.

 

As a historian, I agree it's a example of an atrocity as defined in the modern age.

 

But had it occurred 200 years prior? Probably a footnote, if that, in the then contextual history of the era and cultural expectations of an expansionism effort by an outside agency.

 

Brother's have killed brother's from time immemorial...and they still do. Why?

 

Seek the answer from anthropologists, psycho-babblers and sociologists...who coincidentally didn't exist in the sense you or I know 200 years ago.

 

 

And in general they get it wrong.....

 

 

Why?

 

Because their not qualified and trained objective historians.

 

Who seek to examine the era and context of the event. But rather, in the case of the former, would condemn or condone from their own contextual viewpoint because it serves the agenda they strive to establish.

 

 

And probably seek a TV show or a book to prove the monetary and 'professional' veracity of their profession and opinions.

 

 

Originally posted by Venkytalks This is the strange history of British occupation throughout the 200 years. The Indians never rebelled except in 1857.

  

I think you forgot the Communist Movement inspired from Russian Revolution during 1920's

Originally posted by Venkytalks There is something seriously wrong with our people that they would kill their own countrymen if ordered by a foreign ruler.

 

Reginald Dyer was born in Punjab. So I believe he was more Punjabi than those Gurkha, Afghan or Baluch gunmen. Secondly, various ethnical groups in Indian Subcontinent don't have much cultural affinities with each other, just like various ethnical groups in Europe.

Originally posted by Venkytalks I find nothing wrong with what Dyer did - three Britishers had been murdered, a British woman had been raped by the unruly mobs of Lahore and Amritsar. He did what was right for his country - he created a fear which helped another 20 years of rule.

 

By this statement are you justifying all the genocides, pogroms and massacres that happened in history, because every such program has some hidden political gains.