This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/22/no-good-cameron-apologise-amritsar

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
It would do no good for David Cameron to apologise for Amritsar It would do no good for David Cameron to apologise for Amritsar
(7 months later)
After the Bloody Sunday apology and the Hillsborough apology, the nation can unite in the knowledge that our prime minister is very good at one thing: saying sorry. The trouble is that now he has revealed his great talent, people around the globe are clamouring to see it for themselves. In India, people are upset that Cameron didn't go so far as to apologise for the 1919 Amritsar massacre. He merely expressed his regret.After the Bloody Sunday apology and the Hillsborough apology, the nation can unite in the knowledge that our prime minister is very good at one thing: saying sorry. The trouble is that now he has revealed his great talent, people around the globe are clamouring to see it for themselves. In India, people are upset that Cameron didn't go so far as to apologise for the 1919 Amritsar massacre. He merely expressed his regret.
I'm afraid, though, that it is wrong to expect a British prime minister to do more than express regret for events that occured off his watch. These controversies say more about people's inability to understand that "I'm sorry" is often an expression of sympathy rather than an admission of culpability. It's common, when you tell people "Oh, I'm sorry," in response to some mishap they have shared with you, for them to reply: "It wasn't your fault." I find it supremely annoying, and always have to bite back the retort: "I'd be sorry if your cat died. That wouldn't mean I'd wrung its neck."I'm afraid, though, that it is wrong to expect a British prime minister to do more than express regret for events that occured off his watch. These controversies say more about people's inability to understand that "I'm sorry" is often an expression of sympathy rather than an admission of culpability. It's common, when you tell people "Oh, I'm sorry," in response to some mishap they have shared with you, for them to reply: "It wasn't your fault." I find it supremely annoying, and always have to bite back the retort: "I'd be sorry if your cat died. That wouldn't mean I'd wrung its neck."
While any prime minister is entitled to express sympathy for the victims of the past misdeeds of his country, it can only be in the "I'm sorry your cat died" sense. A prime minister is not an embodiment of the British state in perpetuity. He's just the person picked by his party to lead them, and who happened, usually but not always, to be leading them when they won an election. Not even very democratic, let alone timelessly representative of The Empire. I'm sorry, but that's the situation. And when I say, "I'm sorry" there, what I mean is: "I'm not remotely sorry. Stop being an idiot."While any prime minister is entitled to express sympathy for the victims of the past misdeeds of his country, it can only be in the "I'm sorry your cat died" sense. A prime minister is not an embodiment of the British state in perpetuity. He's just the person picked by his party to lead them, and who happened, usually but not always, to be leading them when they won an election. Not even very democratic, let alone timelessly representative of The Empire. I'm sorry, but that's the situation. And when I say, "I'm sorry" there, what I mean is: "I'm not remotely sorry. Stop being an idiot."
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.