August 28, 2023 - 7:00am
With today marking the one-year anniversary of the beginning of the ethnically and religiously-motivated Leicester disorder, it is worth asking what we have learnt from this watershed moment in British community relations.
It was on 28 August 2022 that there was a mass brawl in the Belgrave area of Leicester following an Asia Cup cricket match between India and Pakistan. The civil unrest came to a head with large-scale rioting on 17 September last year — primarily between Muslim and Hindu youths of South Asian origin in eastern parts of the city.
However — as pointed out at the time by Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police, Rob Nixon — the disorder was not exclusively sparked by Hindus and Muslims, with a number of Christians also involved. There were at least 150 arrests or interviews under caution connected to the disorder, leading to several weapons-related convictions. The riots were a surprise to many who had come to view Leicester as the gold-standard example of social cohesion in modern, diverse Britain.
One of the key fault lines missing from research and commentary on the large-scale rioting in Leicester is that between established Asian-origin communities and new arrivals from the subcontinent. In the 2011 Census, 11.3% of Leicester’s residents reported that they were born in India. This increased to 16.2% — nearly one in six people — for the 2021 Census.
Based on my fieldwork and interviews with Leicester residents for a forthcoming report, there is a trend of established middle-class residents (including first-generation migrants within Hindu and Muslim communities) primarily blaming the disorders on “younger”, “anti-social”, and “poorly-integrated” new arrivals from India who work in lower-paid manual roles and live in overcrowded housing. These intergenerational and socio-economic differences within Leicester’s religious communities have been somewhat overlooked as a result of the simplistic and persistent “Hindu vs. Muslim” framings.
Intergenerational dynamics are also relevant when considering the growing disconnect between traditional faith-based authority and younger populations seeking out religious inspiration virtually. This has left a vacuum for YouTube religious hardliners to exploit — such as Mohammed Hijab, who was in Leicester during the riots. Law-and-order responsibilities have been partially outsourced to ineffectual so-called community leaders, a high-risk security model which failed with devastating consequences in Leicester.
What last year’s events in Leicester showed is that diversity is by no means an unadulterated good in modern Britain, and its complexities are too often overlooked. As it stands, sociopolitical and intellectual leadership at national, regional, and local levels is virtually non-existent on these challenges — lacking the practical nous and willpower to rebuild community relations in a city that has seen its reputation as a paragon of British social cohesion left in tatters. Indeed, Leicester’s academic community appears more interested in “rural racism” than understanding serious tensions on its own doorstep.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI am sure that many Unherd readers will concur with Dr. Ehsan’s observation that “diversity is by no means an unadulterated good in modern Britain”. Maybe some politicians and academics kid themselves that Leicester is “the gold-standard” and the “paragon” of social cohesion, but Leicester was where, in 1989, the then Labour MP, Mr. Vaz, led a march of several thousand muslims against Salman Rushdie after the Ayatollah issued the fatwa. That was more than thirty years ago, so I don’t acceept that the present trouble is simply a younger generation issue. Dr Ehsan partly blames “ineffectual so-called community leaders”. I don’t have a community leader, innefectul or otherwise, and my kids don’t riot and don’t hate.
The other solution proferred by Dr. Ehsan is to implement “robust strategies for the integration of newcomers”. A simpler solution would be for the government to fulfil its election promise by implementing robust strategies to limit the number of newcomers.
I completely agree with Dr. Ehsan’s assertion that academics avoid the core issues in problematic community relations that he discusses. There is a similar issue here in Scotland, where there is a much smaller proportion of ethnic minorities. The big problem is religious bigotry, but academics and politicians avoid that and focus on race and rooting out “transphobia”.
A point that attracts little attention is that some of the biggest relative beneficiaries – both in economic and social terms – of reduced immigration are legally established immigrants and their children who are already in the country.
In America, PEW surveyed Latin Americans and found counter-intuitively that 75% wanted border security strengthened to reduce illegal immigration. (Understandably, this view was held more strongly by naturalised US citizens than those working illegally without a green card).
As others have pointed out, one needs to be sceptical of some of the simplified narratives about Leicester and other cities being pushed. Dr Eshan’s more complex analysis should be welcomed. The best route to harmony may not be the most obvious.
A point that attracts little attention is that some of the biggest relative beneficiaries – both in economic and social terms – of reduced immigration are legally established immigrants and their children who are already in the country.
In America, PEW surveyed Latin Americans and found counter-intuitively that 75% wanted border security strengthened to reduce illegal immigration. (Understandably, this view was held more strongly by naturalised US citizens than those working illegally without a green card).
As others have pointed out, one needs to be sceptical of some of the simplified narratives about Leicester and other cities being pushed. Dr Eshan’s more complex analysis should be welcomed. The best route to harmony may not be the most obvious.
I am sure that many Unherd readers will concur with Dr. Ehsan’s observation that “diversity is by no means an unadulterated good in modern Britain”. Maybe some politicians and academics kid themselves that Leicester is “the gold-standard” and the “paragon” of social cohesion, but Leicester was where, in 1989, the then Labour MP, Mr. Vaz, led a march of several thousand muslims against Salman Rushdie after the Ayatollah issued the fatwa. That was more than thirty years ago, so I don’t acceept that the present trouble is simply a younger generation issue. Dr Ehsan partly blames “ineffectual so-called community leaders”. I don’t have a community leader, innefectul or otherwise, and my kids don’t riot and don’t hate.
The other solution proferred by Dr. Ehsan is to implement “robust strategies for the integration of newcomers”. A simpler solution would be for the government to fulfil its election promise by implementing robust strategies to limit the number of newcomers.
I completely agree with Dr. Ehsan’s assertion that academics avoid the core issues in problematic community relations that he discusses. There is a similar issue here in Scotland, where there is a much smaller proportion of ethnic minorities. The big problem is religious bigotry, but academics and politicians avoid that and focus on race and rooting out “transphobia”.
“Diversity is by no means an unadulterated good in modern Britain” Hands up who thought it was?
Another example of an academic stating the bleeding obvious and then justifying the conclusion by copious research?
Many on the left unfortunately.
650 Mp’s of all persuasions for starters!
Another example of an academic stating the bleeding obvious and then justifying the conclusion by copious research?
Many on the left unfortunately.
650 Mp’s of all persuasions for starters!
“Diversity is by no means an unadulterated good in modern Britain” Hands up who thought it was?
“In the 2011 Census, 11.3% of Leicester’s residents reported that they were born in India. This increased to 16.2% — nearly one in six people — for the 2021 Census.”
Great to see the plan working so well. I hope the residents of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kurdistan, Iran, Albania, and North Africa were also hitting their targets.
Soon, the complaint of the indigenes (“nobody asked me if I wanted these levels of immigration!”) will be history. Because in a democracy, minorities have to accept what the majority decide.
“In the 2011 Census, 11.3% of Leicester’s residents reported that they were born in India. This increased to 16.2% — nearly one in six people — for the 2021 Census.”
Great to see the plan working so well. I hope the residents of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kurdistan, Iran, Albania, and North Africa were also hitting their targets.
Soon, the complaint of the indigenes (“nobody asked me if I wanted these levels of immigration!”) will be history. Because in a democracy, minorities have to accept what the majority decide.
“the disorder was not exclusively sparked by Hindus and Muslims, with a number of Christians also involved.”
Christians, you say?
Clergy, regular communicants, those confirmed, or merely those following the commandments of Christ in their everyday lives?
Note that the report of “Christians involved” is from Leicester’s then “Temporary Chief Constable Rob Nixon” and reported via BBC news.
Note also that his quote is unsubstantiated with any actual evidence – so effectively nothing more than an opinion:
<start quote>
“Actually what we know is that this isn’t representative of all the Hindus, it isn’t representative of all the Muslims. In fact, it’s a small collection of individuals who are connected with [those faiths], but not exclusively… because [some] people that have come to our attention have been linked with the Christian faith.
“So I’m trying to encourage people to move away from the idea that this is solely about the clash of two religions and faiths.”
<end quote>
“Linked with the Christian faith” could mean absolutely anything. Everyone in the UK is linked with the Christian faith. It’s – rightly or wrongly – the established church, so we all are, whether we like it or not.
Good find, PB!
“My officers thought most of those rioting looked a little cross!”
Good find, PB!
“My officers thought most of those rioting looked a little cross!”
There are lots of Indian immigrants who are Christian.
The report of “Christians” being involved was probably the same kind of source that claimed Hindus were responsible for inciting the riots.
There is a reason why Leicester was peaceful until last year. Until recent years, muslims were in lower numbers and the majority of ethnic minorities were Indian Hindus.
The lesson here is “Ethnic tensions” will be a given once the proportion of muslims rise above 10%. You can shut your ears, call it islamophobia, shriek about Modi and “Hindu nationalists”. Gravity, reality, and the nature of Islam doesn’t rely on what you choose to believe.
Yes, I spent four years in Leicester (1994-98) and back then it used to be quite fun with it was “Diwali” and there were fireworks going off all over the place at night. There was a distinct Asian side of town I was told informally that I should avoid visiting, but beyond that sort of “streetwise” advice, generally there was not any particular sense of community tension.
Yes, I spent four years in Leicester (1994-98) and back then it used to be quite fun with it was “Diwali” and there were fireworks going off all over the place at night. There was a distinct Asian side of town I was told informally that I should avoid visiting, but beyond that sort of “streetwise” advice, generally there was not any particular sense of community tension.
The former MP for Leicester, Mr. Vaz, led the anti-Salman Rushdie march in Leicester, following Atatollah Khomeni’s death fatwa against Mr Rushdie. Vaz is a Roman Catholic. So you could say that a Christian actually started the muscle-flexing of jihadism in Leicester.
I think by “Christians” they mean white people !!!!?
Note that the report of “Christians involved” is from Leicester’s then “Temporary Chief Constable Rob Nixon” and reported via BBC news.
Note also that his quote is unsubstantiated with any actual evidence – so effectively nothing more than an opinion:
<start quote>
“Actually what we know is that this isn’t representative of all the Hindus, it isn’t representative of all the Muslims. In fact, it’s a small collection of individuals who are connected with [those faiths], but not exclusively… because [some] people that have come to our attention have been linked with the Christian faith.
“So I’m trying to encourage people to move away from the idea that this is solely about the clash of two religions and faiths.”
<end quote>
“Linked with the Christian faith” could mean absolutely anything. Everyone in the UK is linked with the Christian faith. It’s – rightly or wrongly – the established church, so we all are, whether we like it or not.
There are lots of Indian immigrants who are Christian.
The report of “Christians” being involved was probably the same kind of source that claimed Hindus were responsible for inciting the riots.
There is a reason why Leicester was peaceful until last year. Until recent years, muslims were in lower numbers and the majority of ethnic minorities were Indian Hindus.
The lesson here is “Ethnic tensions” will be a given once the proportion of muslims rise above 10%. You can shut your ears, call it islamophobia, shriek about Modi and “Hindu nationalists”. Gravity, reality, and the nature of Islam doesn’t rely on what you choose to believe.
The former MP for Leicester, Mr. Vaz, led the anti-Salman Rushdie march in Leicester, following Atatollah Khomeni’s death fatwa against Mr Rushdie. Vaz is a Roman Catholic. So you could say that a Christian actually started the muscle-flexing of jihadism in Leicester.
I think by “Christians” they mean white people !!!!?
“the disorder was not exclusively sparked by Hindus and Muslims, with a number of Christians also involved.”
Christians, you say?
Clergy, regular communicants, those confirmed, or merely those following the commandments of Christ in their everyday lives?
I was speaking to a fairly recently arrived immigrant from Nigeria. He was telling me his young daughter loved school but was suffering serious racist abuse from other pupils.
He said he was desperate to move his family to a ‘white’ area. I was surprised at this until he told me he wanted to get his daughter away from the abuse she was suffering at the hands of Pakistani heritage children in her class.
He said the few white children at the school had been really kind and welcoming.
As a former teacher in a school where over 90% of pupils were from ethnic minorities I can tell you that such racism is not rare. A five year old muslim little boy randomly declared to me “I hate the Jew” now where had he heard that?
An 8 year old Sudanese muslim boy was caught bullying a Christian Nigerian for his faith. Whatever their ethnicity children will act out what they learn at home.
Here in Germany, I once worked with a woman who said that the Muslim children at her kids’ school would sometimes refuse to sit with the non-Muslim children at lunchtime if they were eating pork. What annoys me about all this is how the narrative that only white people can be racist is still being upheld, despite the huge demographics changes Western Europe has seen in recent years and decades.
Here in Germany, I once worked with a woman who said that the Muslim children at her kids’ school would sometimes refuse to sit with the non-Muslim children at lunchtime if they were eating pork. What annoys me about all this is how the narrative that only white people can be racist is still being upheld, despite the huge demographics changes Western Europe has seen in recent years and decades.
Sad but not surprising. Everyone, including Asians, is capable of being racist.
As a former teacher in a school where over 90% of pupils were from ethnic minorities I can tell you that such racism is not rare. A five year old muslim little boy randomly declared to me “I hate the Jew” now where had he heard that?
An 8 year old Sudanese muslim boy was caught bullying a Christian Nigerian for his faith. Whatever their ethnicity children will act out what they learn at home.
Sad but not surprising. Everyone, including Asians, is capable of being racist.
I was speaking to a fairly recently arrived immigrant from Nigeria. He was telling me his young daughter loved school but was suffering serious racist abuse from other pupils.
He said he was desperate to move his family to a ‘white’ area. I was surprised at this until he told me he wanted to get his daughter away from the abuse she was suffering at the hands of Pakistani heritage children in her class.
He said the few white children at the school had been really kind and welcoming.
The multicultural agenda has failed. By giving new arrivals permission, indeed encouragement, not to integrate to the slightest extent, we have been left with a society that is not a multicultural one but is a multiplicity of mono-cultures.
The multicultural agenda has failed. By giving new arrivals permission, indeed encouragement, not to integrate to the slightest extent, we have been left with a society that is not a multicultural one but is a multiplicity of mono-cultures.
Now this is quite revealing:
It looks like the Left-leaning intelligentsia have found a new area for moral scrutiny – the shire towns (previously thought of as the Tory heartland).
You can lay good money that these academic investigators will soon be producing studies exposing “unacceptable levels of racism and general bigotry” in England’s smaller communities. As clear ‘proof’ they will cite examples of villages objecting to the setting up of migrant centres in their locale or of black people feeling out of place in a ‘hideously white’ rural community. And when Left-leaning researchers come to inspect your neighborhood you know that social engineers will not be far behind.
Now this is quite revealing:
It looks like the Left-leaning intelligentsia have found a new area for moral scrutiny – the shire towns (previously thought of as the Tory heartland).
You can lay good money that these academic investigators will soon be producing studies exposing “unacceptable levels of racism and general bigotry” in England’s smaller communities. As clear ‘proof’ they will cite examples of villages objecting to the setting up of migrant centres in their locale or of black people feeling out of place in a ‘hideously white’ rural community. And when Left-leaning researchers come to inspect your neighborhood you know that social engineers will not be far behind.
You could just as easily frame the issue as fights between young supporters of different sports teams, which it was. General Pakistani vs Indian or Muslim vs Hindu tensions are less relevant as the older elements of the different ethnicities didn’t pile in.
That’s an academic or bureaucratic answer, more jobs for the Blob, when in actuality many of the recent immigrants don’t wish to be ‘integrated’. Not until they are established and have families of their own.
You could just as easily frame the issue as fights between young supporters of different sports teams, which it was. General Pakistani vs Indian or Muslim vs Hindu tensions are less relevant as the older elements of the different ethnicities didn’t pile in.
That’s an academic or bureaucratic answer, more jobs for the Blob, when in actuality many of the recent immigrants don’t wish to be ‘integrated’. Not until they are established and have families of their own.
When I lived in the Leicester area there was frequent tension between Asian and Afro-Caribbean youths, especially at weekends. There is still considerable friction between these groups in England as a whole, but it’s rarely mentioned in the MSM.
Have you noticed in TV commercials that, while there are plenty of Euro / African and some Euro / Asian couples, you’ve never seen an Asian / African couple, none that I’ve seen away.
I’ve never seen an Asian / Afro coupe anywhere come to think if it. Are there any examples?
Vice President Harris has one Indian and one African Caribbean parent.
Vice President Harris has one Indian and one African Caribbean parent.
I live in North London and there is frequent tension between Afro-Caribbean (ie. ethnic African) youths and just about everybody else – including other Afro-Caribbean youths.
Afro-Caribbean people are not “ethnic African”.
Afro-Caribbean people are not “ethnic African”.
Have you noticed in TV commercials that, while there are plenty of Euro / African and some Euro / Asian couples, you’ve never seen an Asian / African couple, none that I’ve seen away.
I’ve never seen an Asian / Afro coupe anywhere come to think if it. Are there any examples?
I live in North London and there is frequent tension between Afro-Caribbean (ie. ethnic African) youths and just about everybody else – including other Afro-Caribbean youths.
When I lived in the Leicester area there was frequent tension between Asian and Afro-Caribbean youths, especially at weekends. There is still considerable friction between these groups in England as a whole, but it’s rarely mentioned in the MSM.
To understand the true source of troubles with riots, just listen to sermons of Shaykh Zakaullah Saleem, the head of education at the Green Lane Masjid in Birmingham. With monetary grants from the British government, he is educating and preparing British muslims youth to live in the 7th century AD!
To understand the true source of troubles with riots, just listen to sermons of Shaykh Zakaullah Saleem, the head of education at the Green Lane Masjid in Birmingham. With monetary grants from the British government, he is educating and preparing British muslims youth to live in the 7th century AD!
‘Diversity is our strength’
> Try adding a random diversity of spices to a soup and see how tasty the soup becomes.
Inclusivity. Including what, exactly? A reverence for Mohamed? On what plane of reality does that ADD to the health and welfare of any community?
While the BBC happily promotes its Islamophilia, is anyone holding their breathe for a BBC programme promoting apostates – those who aren’t on any Mi5 watch lists – in a positive light?
EQUITY: In terms of female liberty and dignity, the Islamic ideological dogma is equal in virtue and fairness to that of a secular agnostic one? It isn’t, so why can’t we say it?
Just because one is associated with a culturally ‘down’ (minority) community it does not give representatives of that community a licence to be correct in their world view, or to be protected from ridicule or sarcasm if their views are nonsensical.
‘Diversity is our strength’
> Try adding a random diversity of spices to a soup and see how tasty the soup becomes.
Inclusivity. Including what, exactly? A reverence for Mohamed? On what plane of reality does that ADD to the health and welfare of any community?
While the BBC happily promotes its Islamophilia, is anyone holding their breathe for a BBC programme promoting apostates – those who aren’t on any Mi5 watch lists – in a positive light?
EQUITY: In terms of female liberty and dignity, the Islamic ideological dogma is equal in virtue and fairness to that of a secular agnostic one? It isn’t, so why can’t we say it?
Just because one is associated with a culturally ‘down’ (minority) community it does not give representatives of that community a licence to be correct in their world view, or to be protected from ridicule or sarcasm if their views are nonsensical.
Could you please use the English language term “legally obliged” rather than the unwieldy Americanised “legally obligated’ please? I think it would help your very persuasive argument.
Obliged and obligated are different words with different meanings, not UK and US versions of the same word.
Obliged and obligated are different words with different meanings, not UK and US versions of the same word.
Could you please use the English language term “legally obliged” rather than the unwieldy Americanised “legally obligated’ please? I think it would help your very persuasive argument.
Rakib’s book is excellent. He humanises his subjects so that the people are no longer represented – in my mind – by badly behaved young men. Instead, there are families with fathers, mothers and responsible grandparents. The omission is that the badly behaved young men are still there; their source and how to deal with them must surely arise from the people themselves and not external authorities. Who in the community will run the crazies out of town?
Just ordered the book – thanks for the recommendation.
Just ordered the book – thanks for the recommendation.
Rakib’s book is excellent. He humanises his subjects so that the people are no longer represented – in my mind – by badly behaved young men. Instead, there are families with fathers, mothers and responsible grandparents. The omission is that the badly behaved young men are still there; their source and how to deal with them must surely arise from the people themselves and not external authorities. Who in the community will run the crazies out of town?
Leicester had a riot?
Just a bit of ‘bottle throwing’.
Mostly peaceful.
It says there were *Christians* involved.
Where did they find one of those in Mod’n Bri’un ?
Were they throwing bottles of holy water?
Come back Reginald Edward Harry Dyer, CB, all is forgiven.
Dyer gave orders to shoot unarmed innocent people (women and children included). They were not rioters!
It was an illegal gathering, subsequent to five Europeans being killed, one at least by being doused in kerosene and incinerated.
This is wrong history. Read Kim Wagner. And justifying Gen Dyer killing unarmed men, women and children shows you to be the racist you are.
Calm down, YOU sound like an idiot.
Wagner is entitled to his opinion, with which I for one happen to disagree.
I rather prefer Dyer’s own words on the subject:- “Every Englishman I have met in India has approved my act, horrible as it was.”
Let us also accept that it worked. No more ‘Amritsars’ were required .
I also forgot got to mention that two white woman were also assaulted at the start of all this. No doubt you condone this, as with the brutal murder of the other five Britons?
Racist Grandpa living up to his name!
I appreciate you are trying to be provocative but do you realise that – moral arguments aside – the Amritsar massacre destroyed the legitimacy of British rule in India in the eyes of the Indian middle class (and much of British opinion as well)? Since the British ruled 400m Indians with only 1,000 civil servants and 100,000 soldiers they required a degree of consent or, at least, acquiescence from the population. If Gandhi deserves the most credit for Indian Independence, Reginald Dyer comes a close second. Even if you are an ardent imperialist and an enthusiast for extreme measures, are you really sure you want him as one of your heroes?
Completely distorted. 30 Indians were killed after a missionary was tragically killed. Dyer flew RAF planes over Amritsar. Kichlu and Satyapal had been arrested before Mariella Sherman had been attacked. Dyers massacre took place when Punjabis were celebrating Baisakhi in JB.
Those who supported Dyer were racist white supremacists.
Presume that is what you condone.
Shocking in this day and age.
Really? Are you saying the RAF bombed the JB in Amritsar. Aren’t you mixing that up with Kabul a few months later?
And do stop going on about Racist, you sound like a cracked record!
When it comes to racism as such, India is off the ‘Richter’
Scale.
Really? Are you saying the RAF bombed the JB in Amritsar. Aren’t you mixing that up with Kabul a few months later?
And do stop going on about Racist, you sound like a cracked record!
When it comes to racism as such, India is off the ‘Richter’
Scale.
“Let us also accept that it worked. No more ‘Amritsars’ were required.”
Ah, but they were, Charles, and here in the United Kingdom.
I’m glad that you accept that Amritsar was an ‘administrative massacre’ – for which there are many precedents both in India and in Ireland.
But the administrative massacres carried out by the Parachute Regiment in Ballymurphy in Belfast and on Bloody Sunday in Derry did not work.
On the contrary,they prolonged the war in Ireland by nearly thirty years.
The Provisional Irish Republican Army fought the British Army to a standstill.
PIRA was not defeated.
Indeed, former volunteers stroll round the Falls Road sporting lapel badges reading: AN ARMY UNDEFEATED.
Of course, you and I know that the GOC reported
very early that outright military victory over the Provies was impossible without the imposition of Martial Law, involving internment without trial and very probably summary execution.
In the event, internment had to be abandoned ; but there have been plenty of summary executions over the years. thanks
The British army should have been deployed a year earlier in 1968, Martial Law declared, an ‘Amritsar’ provoked amongst the more recalcitrant members of the Protestant/Loyalist
community*.
The rampant gerrymandering of local government elections would also have to be immediately stopped, the state education system secularised with immediate effect, and the ridiculous B Specials disbanded.
As you well know the IRA was moribund at this time and didn’t get around to killing its first British soldier until February 1971.
By the time of Ballymurphy and Good/Bloody Sunday the IRA had murdered about 60 members of the Security Forces, so what did you expect?
I do NOT accept that the IRA fought the “British Army to a standstill” but was in effect ‘saved by the bell’ eg: By US interference and the subsequent GFA.
(* A ‘butcher’s bill of about 100 would probably have done the trick.)
And thank you!
The British army should have been deployed a year earlier in 1968, Martial Law declared, an ‘Amritsar’ provoked amongst the more recalcitrant members of the Protestant/Loyalist
community*.
The rampant gerrymandering of local government elections would also have to be immediately stopped, the state education system secularised with immediate effect, and the ridiculous B Specials disbanded.
As you well know the IRA was moribund at this time and didn’t get around to killing its first British soldier until February 1971.
By the time of Ballymurphy and Good/Bloody Sunday the IRA had murdered about 60 members of the Security Forces, so what did you expect?
I do NOT accept that the IRA fought the “British Army to a standstill” but was in effect ‘saved by the bell’ eg: By US interference and the subsequent GFA.
(* A ‘butcher’s bill of about 100 would probably have done the trick.)
And thank you!
Racist Grandpa living up to his name!
I appreciate you are trying to be provocative but do you realise that – moral arguments aside – the Amritsar massacre destroyed the legitimacy of British rule in India in the eyes of the Indian middle class (and much of British opinion as well)? Since the British ruled 400m Indians with only 1,000 civil servants and 100,000 soldiers they required a degree of consent or, at least, acquiescence from the population. If Gandhi deserves the most credit for Indian Independence, Reginald Dyer comes a close second. Even if you are an ardent imperialist and an enthusiast for extreme measures, are you really sure you want him as one of your heroes?
Completely distorted. 30 Indians were killed after a missionary was tragically killed. Dyer flew RAF planes over Amritsar. Kichlu and Satyapal had been arrested before Mariella Sherman had been attacked. Dyers massacre took place when Punjabis were celebrating Baisakhi in JB.
Those who supported Dyer were racist white supremacists.
Presume that is what you condone.
Shocking in this day and age.
“Let us also accept that it worked. No more ‘Amritsars’ were required.”
Ah, but they were, Charles, and here in the United Kingdom.
I’m glad that you accept that Amritsar was an ‘administrative massacre’ – for which there are many precedents both in India and in Ireland.
But the administrative massacres carried out by the Parachute Regiment in Ballymurphy in Belfast and on Bloody Sunday in Derry did not work.
On the contrary,they prolonged the war in Ireland by nearly thirty years.
The Provisional Irish Republican Army fought the British Army to a standstill.
PIRA was not defeated.
Indeed, former volunteers stroll round the Falls Road sporting lapel badges reading: AN ARMY UNDEFEATED.
Of course, you and I know that the GOC reported
very early that outright military victory over the Provies was impossible without the imposition of Martial Law, involving internment without trial and very probably summary execution.
In the event, internment had to be abandoned ; but there have been plenty of summary executions over the years. thanks
Calm down, YOU sound like an idiot.
Wagner is entitled to his opinion, with which I for one happen to disagree.
I rather prefer Dyer’s own words on the subject:- “Every Englishman I have met in India has approved my act, horrible as it was.”
Let us also accept that it worked. No more ‘Amritsars’ were required .
I also forgot got to mention that two white woman were also assaulted at the start of all this. No doubt you condone this, as with the brutal murder of the other five Britons?
There is a revisionist version which holds that Dyer saw a crowd ten times larger than he expected and panicked. Apparently he had never seen action before that day. His action was certainly contrary to the usual more moderate methods of crowd control. His subsequent defence – that he was seeking deliberately to kill large numbers in order to frighten the Punjab into submission – was, in this revisionist version, an improvised rationalisation after the event. Unfortunately, both sides then reacted to what he claimed were his motives rather than the real ones – driving a wedge between the British and moderate elements of Indian society. May be true. History is often like that.
If I may reply to both your epistles in one, by 1919 the ‘legitimacy’ of British Rule’ was already under threat* by what was concurrently happening at Versailles, where countless subject peoples we gaining their ill gotten independence. For this we can thank Woodrow Wilson & Co.
Without wishing to denigrate the efforts of the ICS**, by 1914 India was already a ‘basket case’, at least economically, as shown by the fact that most British ‘overseas investment’ headed for the US and NOT India.’We’ do tend to over sentimentalise The Raj, particularly the last 90 years from 1857-1947.
As to Reginald Dyer had he not just fought in the Third Afghan War? Faced with what he mistakenly thought was a general insurrection he acted decisively. Perhaps you and many others would preferred that he dithered? Who knows what the outcome would have been, but having already brutally murdered five Britons I think the ‘mob’ would have been emboldened and things would have got worse. What we can saw is that Amritsar did NOT have to be repeated.
What was disgraceful were the comments from WSC, a more hypocritical stance can hardly be imagined. Thanks to his undergoing the process apotheosis, 1940-45, this is has always been ignored.
Incidentally I don’t have any heroes, at least not since the advent of the Christian era.
(*Hence the Rowlatt Act.)
(**Indian Civil Service.)
Correction. Dyer commanded the Seistan Force in 1916 and didn’t go to Afghanistan until a month after Amritsar.
You’re really doubling down on this one now – “by what was concurrently happening at Versailles, where countless subject peoples we gaining their ill gotten independence”.
So you don’t think the independent states of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were justified ? And that the creation of independent Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia) was a good thing ? National self-determination isn’t important ?
On balance, I have to strongly disagree. Poland’s certainly been a big success. Likewise the Czech Republic (or whatever it’s called these days), Slovakia and Slovenia. The Baltic states seem to be doing pretty well.
I trust you will be able to read my reply, reduced as it is to 3 words per line!
NO, I do not think that “National self-determination” is that important. In fact it is invariably used by second rate politicians to further their careers and spread discord and strife.
In fact it proved to be the catalyst for WWII, and may do so again for WWIII the way things are going.
Thanks. Well at least you’re honest and consistent.
Thank you!
As the late AJP Taylor once said “the study of history best proceeds through controversy!
Thank you!
As the late AJP Taylor once said “the study of history best proceeds through controversy!
Thanks. Well at least you’re honest and consistent.
I trust you will be able to read my reply, reduced as it is to 3 words per line!
NO, I do not think that “National self-determination” is that important. In fact it is invariably used by second rate politicians to further their careers and spread discord and strife.
In fact it proved to be the catalyst for WWII, and may do so again for WWIII the way things are going.
I take your point that the Punjab was close to insurrection in 1919. Nevertheless the long term effects of the massacre were distinctly negative for the British. One could argue that the British could have pursued either a strategy of repression or one of political accommodation with a chance of success (though the French experience in Indochina and Algeria makes me very sceptical of the former strategy). What was an entirely hopeless approach was to massacre hundreds of people and then neither fully disown the author nor fully support him. It divided British opinion while uniting Indian and doomed the British efforts to transform India into a loyal democratic “Dominion”.
It was an impossible situation and hence the dichotomy you describe. In 1919 Bolshevism was the great fear, and ‘short sharp shock’ was the order of the day.
We would very soon, under the guidance of one WSC, be administering the same ‘shock’ treatment in Ireland. In fact if I recall correctly we actually SHOT an Irish mutineer from the ‘Connaught Rangers’ (formerly HM 88th of Foot- ‘The Devil’s Own) serving in India in 1919!
However our compromise solution, that you seem to deplore, did ultimately result in India becoming “a loyal democratic* member of the Commonwealth.
However I still feel Dyer was shamefully treated, just as years later we would do the same to Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford, OBE.
It was an impossible situation and hence the dichotomy you describe. In 1919 Bolshevism was the great fear, and ‘short sharp shock’ was the order of the day.
We would very soon, under the guidance of one WSC, be administering the same ‘shock’ treatment in Ireland. In fact if I recall correctly we actually SHOT an Irish mutineer from the ‘Connaught Rangers’ (formerly HM 88th of Foot- ‘The Devil’s Own) serving in India in 1919!
However our compromise solution, that you seem to deplore, did ultimately result in India becoming “a loyal democratic* member of the Commonwealth.
However I still feel Dyer was shamefully treated, just as years later we would do the same to Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford, OBE.
You’re really doubling down on this one now – “by what was concurrently happening at Versailles, where countless subject peoples we gaining their ill gotten independence”.
So you don’t think the independent states of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were justified ? And that the creation of independent Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia) was a good thing ? National self-determination isn’t important ?
On balance, I have to strongly disagree. Poland’s certainly been a big success. Likewise the Czech Republic (or whatever it’s called these days), Slovakia and Slovenia. The Baltic states seem to be doing pretty well.
I take your point that the Punjab was close to insurrection in 1919. Nevertheless the long term effects of the massacre were distinctly negative for the British. One could argue that the British could have pursued either a strategy of repression or one of political accommodation with a chance of success (though the French experience in Indochina and Algeria makes me very sceptical of the former strategy). What was an entirely hopeless approach was to massacre hundreds of people and then neither fully disown the author nor fully support him. It divided British opinion while uniting Indian and doomed the British efforts to transform India into a loyal democratic “Dominion”.
This modern day apologist for Gen Dyer who obviously is stuck in some Col Blimpish macabre nightmare of his own fails to acknowledge that Dyer was basically fantasizing about the Revolt of 1857 after countless Indian soldiers died fighting for Britain in WW One.
He and Michael O Dwyer were single-handedly responsible for the rise of Gandhi’s mass movements. If the moderate constitutional elements of Gokhale and SN Bannerjee and even Annie Besant had not been let down by JB the history of the subcontinent would have been very different.
Unnecessary. Why spoil your well informed and perceptive if sometimes unorthodox comments with gratuitously offensive remarks or ad hominem attacks? One can disagree without abuse.
It is an interesting “what if”? Do you think that – even without an Amritsar massacre – the British ever had a chance of turning India into a Dominion i.e. another larger Australia under a Anglophile establishment? By 1919 it was their strategy but I have always been sceptical. And, even if they had succeeded, would India have been better or worse off under a Brit aligned multi party democracy than it was fully independent under Congress? Not sure.
Unlike your good self I do not have the patience of Job!
However you exaggerate, My very mild admonition is far short of his hysterical racist jibes, or do you think differently?
Sure. Butter would not melt in your mouth. I suspect, however, that he was the more offended of the two of you and I still think it was unnecessary.
Oh dear I am disappointed!
I was looking forward to winding him up over India’s recent trip to the Moon!
Zoom, zoom, zoom, we’re OFF to the Moon etc!
etc!
nb. Why is typing so elongated?
Sorry to disappoint but it’s a ” she” here. The creature who seems to be Oswald Mosley’s little brother in his perpetual laddish homilies on his own version of ” alt history” can now rub his hands in glee in being rude with the ladies.
Someone is making of fool of themselves but it ain’t her!
But keep digging, gramps, you are only proving my point!
Someone is making of fool of themselves but it ain’t her!
But keep digging, gramps, you are only proving my point!
Oh dear I am disappointed!
I was looking forward to winding him up over India’s recent trip to the Moon!
Zoom, zoom, zoom, we’re OFF to the Moon etc!
etc!
nb. Why is typing so elongated?
Sorry to disappoint but it’s a ” she” here. The creature who seems to be Oswald Mosley’s little brother in his perpetual laddish homilies on his own version of ” alt history” can now rub his hands in glee in being rude with the ladies.
Sure. Butter would not melt in your mouth. I suspect, however, that he was the more offended of the two of you and I still think it was unnecessary.
There is a lot I can say on this, but the kind of toxic abusive persons who seem to abound here ( last refuge of scoundrels strangely enough on a ” free speech” site) donot inspire me to expound further here.
I sincerely believe as a historian that the trajectory would have been very different if JB had not occured. It was a cataclysmic Black Swan moment which has had enormous consequences…
“Self praise is NO recommendation.”
24 hours ago your opening salvo in this little chat was to cry “racist”.
Although Mr Carnegie may have some sympathy for you I don’t.
You must do better next time! May I suggest a little more self control perhaps?
Adieu.
I apologise for misgendering you. I also hope that you do not regard me as one of the “toxic abusive persons” or as “Oswald Moslem’s little brother”. I am genuinely interested in your views about what would have happened if JB had not occurred and what sort of India would have emerged as a result. I would regret not being able to read them. It is a very interesting counter factual which I have never heard explored before.
While I entirely understand why you took strong exception to Charles’ comments, I hope you will continue to use UnHerd. No forum is perfect but, for the most part, it is a rare oasis of constructive debate with a mix of conservative and liberal voices. The wider the range of perspectives and participants the better in my view. (It would be great if there were left wing voices as well but progressives seemed to have adopted a “no debate” policy on most issues.) The presence of a few wind up artists and other annoyances is, I fear, inevitable on a site encouraging free speech but this is offset by the advantages.
O dear Mr Carnegie!
Did your father not command a battalion during the Korean War? And yet you seem to lap up this ‘bien passant’ nonsense?
Incidentally what is “Oswald Moslem’s (sic)?
Next you will be telling me that Culloden was a grave injustice! You must
get out more.
After reflection, I have concluded that the only hope is to lock you and Champagne Socialist in a room together so that you can indulge your shared enthusiasm for barbs and wind ups until both of you are sated and – with a bit of luck – have reacquired a taste for constructive debate. A sort of aversion therapy for the irascible.
Ha!
touché.
Ha!
touché.
After reflection, I have concluded that the only hope is to lock you and Champagne Socialist in a room together so that you can indulge your shared enthusiasm for barbs and wind ups until both of you are sated and – with a bit of luck – have reacquired a taste for constructive debate. A sort of aversion therapy for the irascible.
Some discussions are better on email. I do have some opinions on this as I am currently researching for a book.
O dear Mr Carnegie!
Did your father not command a battalion during the Korean War? And yet you seem to lap up this ‘bien passant’ nonsense?
Incidentally what is “Oswald Moslem’s (sic)?
Next you will be telling me that Culloden was a grave injustice! You must
get out more.
Some discussions are better on email. I do have some opinions on this as I am currently researching for a book.
“Self praise is NO recommendation.”
24 hours ago your opening salvo in this little chat was to cry “racist”.
Although Mr Carnegie may have some sympathy for you I don’t.
You must do better next time! May I suggest a little more self control perhaps?
Adieu.
I apologise for misgendering you. I also hope that you do not regard me as one of the “toxic abusive persons” or as “Oswald Moslem’s little brother”. I am genuinely interested in your views about what would have happened if JB had not occurred and what sort of India would have emerged as a result. I would regret not being able to read them. It is a very interesting counter factual which I have never heard explored before.
While I entirely understand why you took strong exception to Charles’ comments, I hope you will continue to use UnHerd. No forum is perfect but, for the most part, it is a rare oasis of constructive debate with a mix of conservative and liberal voices. The wider the range of perspectives and participants the better in my view. (It would be great if there were left wing voices as well but progressives seemed to have adopted a “no debate” policy on most issues.) The presence of a few wind up artists and other annoyances is, I fear, inevitable on a site encouraging free speech but this is offset by the advantages.
Unlike your good self I do not have the patience of Job!
However you exaggerate, My very mild admonition is far short of his hysterical racist jibes, or do you think differently?
There is a lot I can say on this, but the kind of toxic abusive persons who seem to abound here ( last refuge of scoundrels strangely enough on a ” free speech” site) donot inspire me to expound further here.
I sincerely believe as a historian that the trajectory would have been very different if JB had not occured. It was a cataclysmic Black Swan moment which has had enormous consequences…
Unnecessary. Why spoil your well informed and perceptive if sometimes unorthodox comments with gratuitously offensive remarks or ad hominem attacks? One can disagree without abuse.
It is an interesting “what if”? Do you think that – even without an Amritsar massacre – the British ever had a chance of turning India into a Dominion i.e. another larger Australia under a Anglophile establishment? By 1919 it was their strategy but I have always been sceptical. And, even if they had succeeded, would India have been better or worse off under a Brit aligned multi party democracy than it was fully independent under Congress? Not sure.
If I may reply to both your epistles in one, by 1919 the ‘legitimacy’ of British Rule’ was already under threat* by what was concurrently happening at Versailles, where countless subject peoples we gaining their ill gotten independence. For this we can thank Woodrow Wilson & Co.
Without wishing to denigrate the efforts of the ICS**, by 1914 India was already a ‘basket case’, at least economically, as shown by the fact that most British ‘overseas investment’ headed for the US and NOT India.’We’ do tend to over sentimentalise The Raj, particularly the last 90 years from 1857-1947.
As to Reginald Dyer had he not just fought in the Third Afghan War? Faced with what he mistakenly thought was a general insurrection he acted decisively. Perhaps you and many others would preferred that he dithered? Who knows what the outcome would have been, but having already brutally murdered five Britons I think the ‘mob’ would have been emboldened and things would have got worse. What we can saw is that Amritsar did NOT have to be repeated.
What was disgraceful were the comments from WSC, a more hypocritical stance can hardly be imagined. Thanks to his undergoing the process apotheosis, 1940-45, this is has always been ignored.
Incidentally I don’t have any heroes, at least not since the advent of the Christian era.
(*Hence the Rowlatt Act.)
(**Indian Civil Service.)
Correction. Dyer commanded the Seistan Force in 1916 and didn’t go to Afghanistan until a month after Amritsar.
This modern day apologist for Gen Dyer who obviously is stuck in some Col Blimpish macabre nightmare of his own fails to acknowledge that Dyer was basically fantasizing about the Revolt of 1857 after countless Indian soldiers died fighting for Britain in WW One.
He and Michael O Dwyer were single-handedly responsible for the rise of Gandhi’s mass movements. If the moderate constitutional elements of Gokhale and SN Bannerjee and even Annie Besant had not been let down by JB the history of the subcontinent would have been very different.
This is wrong history. Read Kim Wagner. And justifying Gen Dyer killing unarmed men, women and children shows you to be the racist you are.
There is a revisionist version which holds that Dyer saw a crowd ten times larger than he expected and panicked. Apparently he had never seen action before that day. His action was certainly contrary to the usual more moderate methods of crowd control. His subsequent defence – that he was seeking deliberately to kill large numbers in order to frighten the Punjab into submission – was, in this revisionist version, an improvised rationalisation after the event. Unfortunately, both sides then reacted to what he claimed were his motives rather than the real ones – driving a wedge between the British and moderate elements of Indian society. May be true. History is often like that.
It was an illegal gathering, subsequent to five Europeans being killed, one at least by being doused in kerosene and incinerated.
Dyer gave orders to shoot unarmed innocent people (women and children included). They were not rioters!
Come back Reginald Edward Harry Dyer, CB, all is forgiven.