Cameron's apology could have made sense

It would have been commendable had the British prime minister David Cameron directly apologised for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.  On his visit to Amritsar on his recent state visit to India, Mr Cameron termed the massacre as 'a deeply shameful event in British history'.

His gestures of bending on his knees and maintaining a minute silence were good- many see it as indirect apology, but such actions, however great they may be, can never be a replacement for ‘sorry’.

Cameron invoked then secretary of state for war Winston Churchill when he quoted his 1920 remark where Churchill had termed the event as "monstrous”. However, history will  indicate that General Dyer was never really punished for the gruesome killing. He had a premature retirement, which earned him sympathy from then British gentry in India. Dominique Lapierre’s Freedom at Midnight illustrates that funds were raised by the British elite in private parties to compensate for Mr Dyer’s premature retirement.

As a nation, India has been simply great in coming to terms with history. Indians have never really hated Britain or demonized the country in its history books. There has never been anti- Britain sentiments on events like Indian Independence Day. Indians by and large admire Britain; millions look at it as its natural partner in the West. Thousands of students flock to the UK for studies, businesses love to invest there. Britain too in return welcomed millions of Indians, and has around 1.5 million subjects of Indian origin.

An apology at the holiest city for Sikhs, where Brigadier- General Dyer mercilessly killed thousands of peaceful protestors could have been purely a non political, yet Britain would be forgiven for its 200 years of subjugation of India.

Britain would have won the hearts of Indians; David Cameron a hero! It would have greatly strengthened the ‘special relationship’ between the two great nations.