To be British or Not to Be

I saw a Kamal Hassan movie when they did flashbacks of British colonial rule of India. One was when a British soldier with a rile who made women in saris jump into a well. It disturbed me because I never learned that part of how and why. I thought it was sensationalism but it was truth. This happened during the 1919 Amristar massacre. I don't know too much about this incident except about 1,000 people (some say 2,000 were slaughtered in 10 minutes. This incident was the inspiration of the Gandhi peace movement and others around India. Remember, Britain is in colonialist mode when it comes to their history.

My question is what started this incident. Like George Foster says, "you don't kill the baseball but bruise it." That is how they are when it comes to people. You bruise the baseball so it can go far; kill it, it doesn't go anywhere. The British though at times cruel for the most part like to be civilized with their colonial subjects once they have them under their control (how they did it is another matter). Exploitation was their game.

There is also entitlement issue since Britain was the one who issued the Palestine Mandate after WWI for Jewish refugees of Europe. But the real agenda is the British goods then and now through divide and conquer. Palestinian Christians, Muslims and Jews are chess pawns. Just like Hindu and Muslims in India during the colonial days. Most Indians accept the British ideal because it made them money and "protected" them from other tribes and Indian group from stealing their status and wealth. My Grandfather benefited. However, there were some Curt Flood's in this like the Punjabi's (Bombay area), Brahmin Hindu caste (Delhi, Hyderabad) and Bengali's (the Calcutta area).

Though wealthy, they didn't like the fact that their money went back to Britain and had to pay taxes for it in their own country. Sort of the "taxation without representation" in the USA during the 1770's. They were proud people who felt that their intellect, spirituality, and character were being exploited to benefit the British only instead of a transaction or interaction. However, only the Punjabi's (mainly Sikh's and Muslims) and Bengali's were willing to resort to violence. The Brahmins resorted to economics (Gandhi said in 1920 that if Indians didn't buy British goods for one year, the Britain would fall and grant independence).

The rest of the Indians were either loyal or reluctant to agitate or participate in the British colonial system. Most of them were on the Gandhi side of economics over violence. However when World War II occurred, more and more Indians from other places started to go to the Punjabi and Bengali side. They were frustrated at the British promises of independence and less taxation but angry at Gandhi's promise of economic collapse of Britain that was going on twenty years. When the war was over, the English people spoke in not wanting to maintain India as a colony due to damage by World War II in their own land.

It is difficult to say how this all played for the so-called "united Indian" front. For the most part,Indians and foe are very reluctant to talk about this. They are willing to talk about what Muslims did or other Indians did but when it comes to the British, the British still own India on a psyche level. Can they run their own country? You bet but can stay together and influence other nation's time? As Hank Aaron would say "Its not how far but how often." Whatever it is, the 1919 Armistar massacre became the turning point in all history.