I am confused with below sentences:
"They accepted no responsibility for the carnage that was taking place and they refused to allow the British troops still in India to keep order or protect people."
If we say "someone refuse to do something = someone doesn't want to do something". So, my confusion here is did the British allow their troops to stay in India or not from above sentence? From my understanding, they didn't stay in India but from the translation that follows with this article, it has been translated as "They refused to let the troops to leave India because they want the troops to keep order or protect people."
Thanks svartnik for your reply but still I don't understand. Did you mean that the troops "still in Indian to protect people" but the British "didn't not want them to be in Indian actually"?
Thanks a lot.
When the British announced India's independence, violence broke out between the different religious groups, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs. Muslims demanded their own separate state, and the partitioning of the country into India and Pakistan was announced. Formal independence would be a year after this partitioning, but the British had all but gone a few months later. Then violence really broke out. Muslims were driven out of India, and Hindus and Sikhs were driven out of the new Pakistan. Between the two factions, hundreds of thousands of people were killed, women were raped.
The British took no responsibility for this violence - that was for the new Indian and Pakistani governments to deal with - and hence, the few British troops still in the country were ordered not to be involved in these internal matters.
Last edited by David L.; 15-Apr-2009 at 10:54.
Thanks David, it makes things all clear now;after reading through your explanation and re-read svartnik's sentence.
(Sorry, scartnik, my last sentence should be "didn't" without the "not")
Just watched a film entitled "Partition" and wondered why people killed each other. What a sad and stupid decision making by some people. Sigh....