The Press Monday, May 31, 1920. The Amritsar Affair.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16848, 31 May 1920, Page 6

The Press Monday, May 31, 1920. The Amritsar Affair.

The report of the Hunter Commission on tho disturbances in India last year is very much what most people anticipated, and the criticisms arc also what might have been expected. The unhappy affair at Amritsar was only an '■ incident in the suppression of the disturbances, but it was such a sensational one that most of the interest of English people has centred in it. Amritsar was tho scene of very serious disturbances, and after some outrages had been fomented by seditious agitators, the crowd got quite out of hand. Troops were summoned, and Brigadier-General j Dyer came to tho town and assumed! control. Ho issued proclamations for- j bidding meetings, and on the same dayj he heard that a meeting was being held in a sort of walled garden outside the town. Taking a body of troops, with rifles and machine-guns, he wont out to this place, and immediately began shooting into the crowd, which was unarmed. Ho fired until all the ammunition was exhausted, leaving 1600 natives dead and wounded, and marched back to barracks. At the enquiry ho declared that ho had resolved to shoot well and strongiy, feeling that by doing so ho would strike tho rising dead with terror. In its way, his action was an application of the method of frightfulness, and as such it was hotly condemned by most British newspapers independent of political colour. Tho general found some stout defenders, chiefly amongst those Englishmen' who knew India. Thev contended that tho massacre did really end the disturbances and averted a general rising of a completely disastrous character. But upon this point there has been much controversy. It lias been denied that tho situation in India was so serious as to call for such sensational methods of repression, and it must bo noted that the Hunter Commission says there was no evidence of roi organised conspiracy to overthrow the British Government. The peculiar difficulty of the situation has been put very clearly by a writer in tho Round Tabic: "Should the enquiry [tho "Hunter enquiry"] lead to the condefli- " nation of General Dyer, the impression produced upon tho mind of the "army will be most regrettable They " will feel that they can no longer rely "■upon the support of the civil admin- *' istration in the execution of their tc duty. On the other hand, should " General Dyer's action bo approved, "there will bo an outburst, of popular " feeling of a dangerous character." The Hunter Commission has condemned • General Dyer, and some eminent AngloIndians have hastened to fulfil tho prophecy of this -writer. The language ■of Sir O'Mooro Croagh. is so very exag~

gerated t that it 'will probably reconcile to the treatment of General Dyer many who dread the weakening of the army s prestige. For it will suggest—what certainly is strongly suggested by some r>f tho evidence given before the Commission—that our administration in India is suffering from the presence amongst the officers in India of deficient in tact, judgment, and under- j standing. It was not only at Amritsar j that vigorous measures wore taken, tout; the Hunter Commission has not found anything to condemn seriously except, the handling of the situation ifcj Amritsar. We may infer from this that ( the great majority of tho men in India j are wise and capable, and also that | strong and vigorous administration will not be blamed if wisdom and a good spirit go with it. |