From Amritsar to Chagos: Why the colonial past still shapes the present
History becomes history when both sides agree it is over. More than a century after Amritsar and decades after the separation of Chagos, that moment remains elusive
London Letter
By Shyam Bhatia
More than a century separates the Jallianwala Bagh massacre from the modern dispute over the Chagos Islands.
One took place in the heart of colonial India in 1919. The other concerns a remote archipelago in the Indian Ocean whose sovereignty remains contested to this day.
At first glance, the two appear unrelated.
Yet both raise the same uncomfortable question: when does a colonial wrong truly become history?
For Britain, empire is often remembered through the language of railways, institutions and parliamentary traditions. For many in former colonies, however, the legacy is more complicated. Certain episodes continue to resonate because they remain unresolved in the public imagination.
The Jallianwala Bagh massacre is one example.
On April 13, 1919, British troops under General Reginald Dyer opened fire on an unarmed gathering in Amritsar. Hundreds were killed.
More than a hundred years later, the event remains one of the most painful symbols of colonial rule in India.
In 2019, then British Prime Minister Theresa May described the massacre as “a shameful scar on British Indian history” and said Britain “deeply regret[s] what happened and the suffering caused.”
The statement was widely welcomed. Yet it stopped short of a formal apology.
As a result, demands for an official apology continue to surface in Parliament and among community groups. The argument is no longer about legal responsibility. It is about historical acknowledgement.
The same dynamic can be seen much closer to Mauritius.
The Chagos Islands dispute concerns decisions taken during the final years of British colonial rule. In 1965, three years before Mauritius gained independence, the Chagos Archipelago was detached from the colony and incorporated into what became the British Indian Ocean Territory.
The issue might have remained a historical footnote were it not for the removal of the Chagossian population and the continuing dispute over sovereignty.
In 2019, the International Court of Justice delivered a landmark advisory opinion. The Court concluded that “the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed” when the country became independent. It further stated that Britain was under an obligation to end its administration of the archipelago “as rapidly as possible.”
Those words transformed what many regarded as a bilateral disagreement into a broader question of decolonization and international law.
The significance of the Chagos dispute extends far beyond questions of sovereignty.
For Mauritius, it has become part of a broader story about the legacy of colonial rule and the meaning of independence itself. Many Mauritians regard the separation of the archipelago in 1965 as one of the final acts of empire in the Indian Ocean. The fact that the issue remained unresolved for decades after independence only reinforced the sense that decolonization had been left incomplete.
The dispute has also attracted support from countries that experienced colonial rule themselves. India has consistently backed Mauritius’s claim to sovereignty over the islands, while many African, Asian and Caribbean nations have viewed the issue through the wider lens of decolonization.
That international support was visible in 2019 when the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favour of a resolution welcoming the International Court of Justice opinion and calling upon Britain to withdraw its colonial administration from the archipelago.
The vote was notable not simply because of its outcome but because of what it revealed. More than half a century after the formal dismantling of most European empires, questions of colonial history continue to shape diplomatic alignments. Countries with very different political systems and strategic interests found common ground in the belief that the unfinished business of decolonization still matters.
This helps explain why the Chagos issue resonates so strongly among Mauritians at home and abroad. It is not merely a territorial dispute over distant islands. It has become a symbol of national dignity, sovereignty and the right of formerly colonized peoples to determine their own future.
For many observers, that is why the issue has endured for so long. It speaks not only to the history of Mauritius but to a wider global conversation about empire, memory and justice.
Yet law alone has not settled the matter.
For many Chagossians, the central issue remains deeply personal. Families displaced decades ago continue to seek recognition, compensation and, for some, the right to return.
Recent debates in Britain demonstrate that the issue remains politically alive. Campaigners argue that sovereignty discussions cannot be separated from the human consequences of displacement.
The parallels with Amritsar are not exact. One involved a massacre. The other concerns sovereignty and displacement. The historical circumstances are very different.
But both illustrate a broader truth.
Historical wounds rarely disappear simply because time passes.
They fade when there is a shared sense that justice has been done, that responsibility has been acknowledged and that those affected have been heard.
In the case of Jallianwala Bagh, many Indians believe that moment has not yet arrived.
In the case of Chagos, many Mauritians and Chagossians would argue the same.
The debate is therefore not really about the past.
It is about the present.
It is about how former imperial powers confront difficult chapters of their history. It is about whether decolonization is a completed process or an unfinished one. And it is about how nations and communities remember events that shaped their identities.
History becomes history when both sides agree it is over.
More than a century after Amritsar and decades after the separation of Chagos, that moment remains elusive.
For Britain, these may be episodes from a closed imperial chapter.
For many in India, Mauritius and the wider diaspora, they remain unfinished business.
Shyam Bhatia is a London-based Indian-born British journalist, writer, and war reporter. He has covered conflicts in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Sudan, and is a former diplomatic editor for ‘The Observer’.
Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 12 June 2026
An Appeal
Dear Reader
65 years ago Mauritius Times was founded with a resolve to fight for justice and fairness and the advancement of the public good. It has never deviated from this principle no matter how daunting the challenges and how costly the price it has had to pay at different times of our history.
With print journalism struggling to keep afloat due to falling advertising revenues and the wide availability of free sources of information, it is crucially important for the Mauritius Times to survive and prosper. We can only continue doing it with the support of our readers.
The best way you can support our efforts is to take a subscription or by making a recurring donation through a Standing Order to our non-profit Foundation.
Thank you.
