Skip to main content

History of the fight for Irish independence

File:Warofindep.jpg
WARS of national liberation inspire history in a bardic register. The self-sacrificing heroism of a people in arms tends to drown out unwelcome noises off: dissidence, recalcitrance, apathy and cagey self-interest. By the same token, the humdrum underpinnings of military success are also filtered out. In his magisterial account of the Irish struggle for independence, Charles Townshend records the alarm of the Irish Republican Army in the spring of 1921 at the prevalence of nits, scabies and fungal infections among its soldiers. Orders were dispatched that company captains should stress the importance of hygiene and ensure that their men `change their socks regularly`. Surely this is too much information? Do we really need to be told that heroes, too, need clean socks? I think so, yes: bathos provides an effective counterweight to legend, Townshend`s deadpan command of detail easing the process bywhich a warrior mythology is transmuted into a realistic and humane narrative. Nonjudgmental, even-handed history, it transpires, need not inhibit dramatic storytelling.
Townshend`s subject is the tortuous road to Irish independence after the abortive Easter rising of 1916. Irish republicanism had been a fringe phenomenon in Irish politics before the outbreak of the first world war, and the obvious futility of the rising might have kept it on the margins had it not been for the execution of the rebellion`s leaders.

However, the martyrdoms of the few were to prove less significant than the general threat of conscription. In March 1918 the massive German offensive on the western front panicked the British government into introducing a military service bill for Ireland. Never mind that the chief secretary for Ireland, Henry Duke, feared that `we might as well recruit Germans`. Lloyd George`s coalition rushed the bill through parliament, and Duke resigned. Such was the storm the measure provoked in Ireland that it was eventually withdrawn, but not before it had worked its unintentional effect of further radicalising the Irish population.

The cack-handedness of the British government fatally weakened a parliamentary Irish party committed to home rule for Ireland within the UK. The general election at the end of the war in 1918 saw Irish constituencies fall overwhelmingly to therepublican separatists of Sinn Fein.

Sinn Fein was an abstentionist party whose MPs were pledged to a boycott of Westminster. Instead the party`s MPs constituted themselves the Dail Eireann, the assembly of a self-proclaimed Irish republic. Ireland now witnessed a bloody and protracted tussle between two governments the UK and an Irish Republican `counter-state` each of which pretended to be the legitimate authority for the whole island, and attempted to govern as much of it as was practicable.

With no decisive outcome in sight, the British parliament passed the Government of Ireland Act in 1920, which extended home rule government under the crown to two separate entities: to the six counties of Northern Ireland, which were predominantly Protestant, and to the other 26 counties of southern Ireland. While the election to the new Northern Irish parliament was seriously contested, resulting in a Unionist majority, in the south no other parties dared to stand against Sinn Fein, except in the four university seats.

The impasse could only be resolved by negotiation. The result was a treaty concluded late in 1921 between the UK and the secessionist Irish Republic. In a sense the medium was the message, for the treaty was an implicit acceptance by the British of a sovereign Irish nation. Yet the terms of the treaty which granted effective independence to the Irish Free State, though a freedom tempered by an oath of allegianceto the crown proved divisive.

Ratification of the treaty narrowly squeaked through the Dail; but large parts of the Irish Republican Army wanted to fight on, either to secure better terms from the British or, less realistically, to realise the blue-sky dream of the Republic.

The result was a civil war in 1922-3 between the proand anti-treaty wings of Irish nationalism. Townshend draws particular attention to the role of the Neutral IRA, which claimed a membership of 20,000 men who had not been actively involved in the civil war.

Their appeals for peace were ignored, not least by the pro-treaty government: crushing internal resistance provided compelling proof of the new state`s effective sovereignty. Eventually, the civil war spluttered to a halt, without formal closure. As Townshend remarks, there were `no negotiations, no truce terms: the Republic simply melted back into the realms of the imagination` An appreciation of such ironies and unexpected disjunctions disturbs the smooth unreflective flow of traditional prejudice.

As Ireland, north and south, enters a decade of combustible centenaries, Townshend`s magnificent, unflinching history of the fight for independence holds out the prospect -however slim it might sometimes seem for truth and reconciliation.

By Colin Kidd  -By arrangement with the Guardian
http://epaper.dawn.com/DetailImage.php?StoryImage=22_12_2013_013_003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence

Free-eBooks: http://goo.gl/2xpiv
Peace-Forum Video Channel: http://goo.gl/GLh75

Popular posts from this blog

A historic moment in the Arab world

لحظة تاريخية في العالم العربي
As a democratic revolution led by tech-empowered young people sweeps the Arab world, Wadah Khanfar, Al Jazeera's director-general, shares a profoundly optimistic view of what's happening in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and beyond. In the first talk posted online from the TED 2011 conference in California, Khanfar describes the powerful moment when people realised they could step out of their homes and ask for change. "كما ثورة ديمقراطية بقيادة الشباب التكنولوجيا ذات صلاحيات تجتاح العالم العربي ، وضاح خنفر ، الجزيرة المدير العام والأسهم وجهة نظر متفائلة بشكل كبير ما يحدث في مصر وتونس وليبيا وخارجها. وفي اول حديث له نشر على الانترنت من مؤتمر تيد 2011 في ولاية كاليفورنيا ، خنفر يصف لحظة قوية عند الناس أدركت أنها لا يمكن الخروج من منازلهم ونطلب من أجل التغيير."
http://www.ted.com/talks/wadah_khanfar_a_historic_moment_in_the_arab_world.html This talk was given on March 1, 2011 in Long Beach, California. TED 2011 is taking place between March 1 and Mar…

Our Captured, Wounded Hearts: Arundhati Roy On Balakot, Kashmir And India

With his reckless “pre-emptive” airstrike on Balakot in Pakistan, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has inadvertently undone what previous Indian governments almost miraculously, succeeded in doing for decades. Since 1947 the Indian Government has bristled at any suggestion that the conflict in Kashmir could be resolved by international arbitration, insisting that it is an “internal matter.” By goading Pakistan into a counter-strike, and so making India and Pakistan the only two nuclear powers in history to have bombed each other, Modi has internationalised the Kashmir dispute. He has demonstrated to the world that Kashmir is potentially the most dangerous place on earth, the flash-point for nuclear war. Every person, country, and organisation that worries about the prospect of nuclear war has the right to intervene and do everything in its power to prevent it.  Keep reading  >>>>


India has built around itself an aura of a global power whose time has come. For at least the last t…

Kashmir Jihad - Analysis & Options

PDF: http://bit.ly/2k0Vqpm

Kashmir is an incomplete agenda of partition of India. Since 1947, India and Pakistan have fought three wars on this issue. According to UN resolutions, Kashmiris have to decide their accession to Pakistan or India through impartial plebiscite, which could not take place due to Indian reluctance. Recently, India revoked Article 370 of the Constitution, which granted special autonomous status to Kashmir, it was done to unilaterally integrate occupied Kashmir. This is a violation of the UN resolutions and the Simla bilateral agreement, which demands to maintain status quo until the final settlement. The US and world powers are emphasizing that Kashmir should be resolved bilaterally, though India has refused to hold talks with Pakistan. In the present scenario, while India has turned Kashmir into the largest prison of 9 million people, denying basic human rights and oppressing the Kashmiris' who want freedom from India, Pakistan cannot watch as a silent spec…