There's a documentary on Channel 4 at 9:00pm for anyone interested.
Why should the UK apologize for the Amritsar massacre in 1919 when India hasnt apologized for the Amritsar massacre of 1984 that killed more people.
Seems rather selective
I have noticed over the past twenty years that Indian politicians are happy to blame Britain in order to get control over people.
Both massacres' official numbers are highly disputed, so can't really say which killed more, though most likely 1919. Secondly 1919 was against non-violent civilians, 1984 was against armed militants.
Google doesn't help much:
According to the Indian government, in 1984 about 400 people were killed, including 87 soldiers.
Either way, I can't see how the two Amritsar events are even remotely comparable.
What happened during 1984 Operation Blue Star?
And that doesn't dispute what I posted. Their 'civilians' include the Sikh militants mentioned at the start.
EDIT ... Far far worse is current PM Modi, with his incitement to violence and killing while Chief Minister of Gujarat with the 2002 Gujarat riots.
it was whataboutery 101, even got me going down that track
Hmm - 2 massacres of civilians in the same place yet only calls for one of those involved to apologize..
Yes - you are correct - not remotely comparable.. 
Geographically, the same. Politically, they may as well have been on different planets. If from what I have read is correct, it was civilians in 1919, not so much so in 1984.I don't think the UK need to apologise for either so I bid you adieu
Oh and surviving 'civilians' of 1984 and their compatriots were subsequently responsible for the largest mass killing in Canadian history, which was also the world's most destructive act of aviation terrorism until 9/11 ...
Air India Flight 182 - Wikipedia