In spite of the fact that the nation’s citizenry is now cultivating a poll-bound mood and has just stepped into a very serious affair of selecting their best representatives, recalling an episode of martyrdom from the colonial past which took place exactly hundred years ago will not be that much outlandish. Since, this martyrdom, like thousands others have enabled us now to stand in the queue and exercise franchise as citizens of a free nation.

Tomorrow, the 13th of April will be the centenary of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. If the day this year will be remembered in an extra special way forits 100 year completion, it will also be discussed for the continuing apathy of the player who made it all happen, to seek a formal apology. Great Britain, even after a century, is still using phrases which are far from what can be called a pure apology.

It was on April 13, 1919 when a 10-minute of unprovoked, non-stop & ruthless firing on a huge, peaceful & unarmed crowd of Indians at Jallianwala Bagh took a toll of well over 1,000 lives. The demand for an apology for this exceptionally brutal incident has been in the air since the time of its occurrence itself and since it has just touched hundred years, it has naturally gathered momentum. But keeping in tune with the ‘traditions’, British PM Theresa May on April 10 had only expressed ‘deep regret’ and termed it a ‘shameful scar’ on British Indian history. It can be recalled that bothQueen Elizabeth II during her visit to memorial at Jallianwala Bagh in 1997 and PM David Cameron while on his visit in 2013 showed their respect but carefully avoided making an actual apology.

The world at large had forgotten about the importance, scale and magnitude of this massacre and often view it only as an academic chapter of history. Not for Indians, for whom it is still a deep scar, an apt reminder of the brutality of the collective punishments regularly meted out by British Raj. But thankfully, there have been active debates on the issue which saw MPs from across the political parties of Britain joining in the call for an apology. It is an incident that doesn’t carry an iota of fabrication, it’s all well documented in official records and hence can’t never be dismissed on grounds of lack of veracity.

The relation between the countries have come a long way since then and now it’s an example of successful partnership in so many fields. Tendering apology is an accepted norm in civilized society and hardly depreciates the image of the seeker.

Only time will tell whether Britain will relinquish its colonialist inclinations and go that way.