Best Answer

Alfred Dreyfus.

He was wrongly accused of treason by a French military court but the army refused to admit it had erred.

User Avatar

Wiki User

11y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: About who was it said may he rot on devil's island?
Write your answer...
Still have questions?
magnify glass
Continue Learning about World History

Why did women in Tudor times deliberately try to blacken their teeth?

It was a sign of luxury, it meant that they could afford to buy and eat sugar - which would in turn rot their teeth

Who is the most feared person in history?

The titleist should be Joseph Stalin for sheer numbers murdered, tortured, stripped of self worth, sent to rot in a frozen wasteland, and sheer impact upon humanity.

Did King Louis and antionette have children were they executed or did they escape?

They had several children. Their eldest child Marie Therese Charlotte was imprisoned, but after the revolution was allowed to escape and ended up marrying her cousin Their eldest son Louis-Joseph died shortly before the revolution began of tuberculous their daughter Sophie died when she was a year old several years before the revolution Louis-Charles Duke of Normandy was imprisoned with his parents and sister. He however was had a different experience. After his father died he was removed from his mother and was to be reeducated to be a good revolutionary. He was given a tutor who treated him like a slave and used him to get testimony to convict his mother with. After that was done they left him in a tiny room to basically rot. They fed him, but was not allowed out of a room with no light. His clothing was not changed for about a year and there was no place to do his business. Shortly after Robespierre died he died in the Temple Prison.

What two goals did the British accomplish by passing the Tea Act?

The Tea Act, passed by Parliament on May 10, 1773, would launch the final spark to the revolutionary movement in Boston. The act was not intended to raise revenue in the American colonies, and in fact imposed no new taxes. It was designed to prop up the East India Company which was floundering financially and burdened with eighteen million pounds of unsold tea. This tea was to be shipped directly to the colonies, and sold at a bargain price. The Townshend Duties were still in place, however, and the radical leaders in America found reason to believe that this act was a maneuver to buy popular support for the taxes already in force. The direct sale of tea, via British agents, would also have undercut the business of local merchants.Colonists in Philadelphia and New York turned the tea ships back to Britain. In Charleston the cargo was left to rot on the docks. In Boston the Royal Governor was stubborn & held the ships in port, where the colonists would not allow them to unload. Cargoes of tea filled the harbor, and the British ship's crews were stalled in Boston looking for work and often finding trouble. This situation lead to the Boston Tea Party.(A simpler breakdown would be that the British wanted to boost the tea sales of the East Indiana company)the british government wanted many things in that period of time,they were a series of acts known as the " intolerable acts"the the tea act was put in place in the year of 1770 this was the straw that broke the camels back.the acts were put in place too keep our young nation "in line" the money raised through these taxes were used to fuel the war efforts thorough out the world.England was at war with her old foes France and Spain.this act lead too the Boston tea party,and the Boston massacre.

What is the Kashmir dispute?

When the British left India, they gave a choice to all of over 500 Kings in India to choose a side - India or Pakistan. The Hindu King of Kashmir decided to join India which upset the Paksitanis because they felt that due to the large number of Muslims in that region it belonged to Pakistan. But there were also sizable number of Hindus, a fact which is not known widely today. In fact, Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of India came from a Kashmiri Pnadit family. The pandits of Kashmir have been driven away by the Islamic terrorism that has engulfed the region ever since 1947, aided actively by Pakistan which still hopes to conquer Kashmir.Independence Day for KashmirSwaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar, Aug 17, 2008, 03.38am ISTOn August 15, India celebrated independence from the British Raj. But Kashmiris staged a bandh demanding independence from India. A day symbolising the end of colonialism in India became a day symbolising Indian colonialism in the Valley.As a liberal, i dislike ruling people against their will. True, nation-building is a difficult and complex exercise, and initial resistance can give way to the integration of regional aspirations into a larger national identity - the end of Tamil secessionism was a classical example of this.I was once hopeful of Kashmir's integration, but after six decades of effort, Kashmiri alienation looks greater than ever. India seeks to integrate with Kashmir, not rule it colonially. Yet, the parallels between British rule in India and Indian rule in Kashmir have become too close for my comfort.Many Indians say that Kashmir legally became an integral part of India when the maharaja of the state signed the instrument of accession. Alas, such legalisms become irrelevant when ground realities change. Indian kings and princes, including the Mughals, acceded to the British Raj. The documents they signed became irrelevant when Indians launched an independence movement.The British insisted for a long time that India was an integral part of their Empire, the jewel in its crown, and would never be given up. Imperialist Blimps remained in denial for decades. I fear we are in similar denial on Kashmir.The politically correct story of the maharaja's accession ignores a devastating parallel event. Just as Kashmir had a Hindu maharaja ruling over a Muslim majority, Junagadh had a Muslim nawab ruling over a Hindu majority. The Hindu maharaja acceded to India, and the Muslim nawab to Pakistan.But while India claimed that the Kashmiri accession to India was sacred, it did not accept Junagadh's accession to Pakistan. India sent troops into Junagadh, just as Pakistan sent troops into Kashmir. The difference was that Pakistan lacked the military means to intervene in Junagadh, while India was able to send troops into Srinagar. The Junagadh nawab fled to Pakistan, whereas the Kashmir maharaja sat tight. India's double standard on Junagadh and Kashmir was breathtaking.Do you think the people of Junagadh would have integrated with Pakistan after six decades of genuine Pakistani effort? No? Then can you really be confident that Kashmiris will stop demanding azaadi and integrate with India?The British came to India uninvited. By contrast, Sheikh Abdullah, the most popular politician in Kashmir, supported accession to India subject to ratification by a plebiscite. But his heart lay in independence for Kashmir, and he soon began manoeuvering towards that end. He was jailed by Nehru, who then declared Kashmir's accession was final and no longer required ratification by a plebiscite. The fact that Kashmir had a Muslim majority was held to be irrelevant, since India was a secular country empowering citizens through democracy.Alas, democracy in Kashmir has been a farce for most of six decades. The rot began with Sheikh Abdullah in 1951: he rejected the nomination papers of almost all opponents, and so won 73 of the 75 seats unopposed! Nehru was complicit in this sabotage of democracy.Subsequent state elections were also rigged in favour of leaders nominated by New Delhi. Only in 1977 was the first fair election held, and was won by the Sheikh. But he died after a few years, and rigging returned in the 1988 election. That sparked the separatist uprising which continues to gather strength today.Many Indians point to long episodes of peace in the Valley and say the separatists are just a noisy minority. But the Raj also had long quiet periods between Gandhian agitations, which involved just a few lakhs of India's 500 million people. One lakh people joined the Quit India movement of 1942, but 25 lakh others joined the British Indian army to fight for the Empire's glory.Blimps cited this as evidence that most Indians simply wanted jobs and a decent life. The Raj built the biggest railway and canal networks in the world. It said most Indians were satisfied with economic development, and that independence was demanded by a noisy minority. This is uncomfortably similar to the official Indian response to the Kashmiri demand for azaadi.Let me not exaggerate. Indian rule in Kashmir is not classical colonialism. India has pumped vast sums into Kashmir, not extracted revenue as the Raj did. Kashmir was among the poorest states during the Raj, but now has the lowest poverty rate in India. It enjoys wide civil rights that the Raj never gave. Some elections - 1977, 1983 and 2002 - were perfectly fair.India has sought integration with Kashmir, not colonial rule. But Kashmiris nevertheless demand azaadi. And ruling over those who resent it so strongly for so long is quasi-colonialism, regardless of our intentions.We promised Kashmiris a plebiscite six decades ago. Let us hold one now, and give them three choices: independence, union with Pakistan, and union with India. Almost certainly the Valley will opt for independence. Jammu will opt to stay with India, and probably Ladakh too. Let Kashmiris decide the outcome, not the politicians and armies of India and Pakistan.Added by Vasan: Mr. Aiyer may want to give them the choice and risk Muslims opting for Pakistan. I don't. As do most Indians not want to give Pakistan more territory. It is foolish and insane to hold plebiscites of that nature. We have already suffered enough by giving land to Muslims, we will never do that again.Read more: Independence Day for Kashmir - Full Story - Swaminomics - SA Aiyar - Opinion - Home - The Times of India

Related questions

How do you use the word rot in a sentence?

High levels may indicate the presence of wet rot.

What does the root ward rot mean?

Rot is not a root word. You may have confused it for rog which means to ask.

Who said How long will a man lie i' the earth ere he rot?

Hamlet, Act V, Scene I:Prince Hamlet: "How long will a man lie i' the earth ere he rot?"

Does miley bite her nails?

yea and she said in an interview that if she doest paint her nails the rot

Why do leaves rot?

Trees rot due to fungi. They may be attacked by insects or damaged by humans. The areas that are attacked or damaged may be contacted by small fungi that multiply and cause the tree to rot.

Is rot willer dog is dangerous for its owner?

No, Rot Willers are not Dangerous For its Owner, Maybe if you Tease It Maybe it May Cause Harm But No.

How do you get the rot for the formula in vampire curse island on poptropica?

1mandrake root 3wilted wolfs bane and 3 garlic extract

What happens if you eat mini marshmallows?

If you eat too many you may get fat and your teeth may rot.

Did Justin Bieber get into a car accident?

no nd who ver said i hope so i hope u rot in hell

When was Rot an der Rot Abbey created?

Rot an der Rot Abbey was created in 1126.

What does Rot mean in German?

red = rot in German Rot, as in "rot in hell" = faulen, vergammeln

Is rot a proper word?

Yes, rot is a proper word.The word rot is a verb (rot, rots, rotting, rotted):Paper money will rot if you bury it in the ground without moisture protection.The word rot is a noun (uncountable, mass noun):The potatoes show some rot so we should throw them out.Some compound nouns for the noun rot: root rot, dry rot, brown rot, black rot, boll rot, etc.The noun 'rot' is sometimes used as slang for 'nonsense'.