AMRITSAR SHOOTINGS.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16884, 12 July 1920, Page 7

AMRITSAR SHOOTINGS.

GENERAL DYER DEFENDED.

(Bv Cable—Prees Esociation —Copyright.) (Australian and X.Z. Cablo Association.) LONDON, July 9. Feeling runs high in the House of Commons, and is also reflected in a large body of public opinion, that Brigadier-General Dyer, who was relieved of his command as a result of the Amritsar affair, has been harshly dealt with. Mr, 1?. S. Gwynno, speaking in the House of Commons, said he relented Mr Aisquith's declaration that BrigadierGeneral Dyer had received a fair hearing, and also Mr Winston Churchill's wholesale condemnation. He added :— The Hunter report found t'hat Briga-dier-General Dyer committed only an error of judgment. Mr Churchill's error of judgment at Gallipoli ended in disaster, yet he gave up one great post only to receive -another, and then sat in condemnation of Brigadier-General Dyer, whose "error" doubtless saved the lives of thousands. Mr Gwvnne accused Mr E. S. Montagu (Secretary of State for India) of sympathising with the Indians who favoured disorder, and also of keeping riie House in ignorance of the real conditions in India. The "Morning Post" has opened a fund to indemnify Brigadier-General Dyer and to defray the expenses of his defence and nrcsent Ihim with a suitable testimonial. Nearly £GOO was subscribed in a few hours. TERRORISM DENOUNCED. (Reuter'g Telegrams..) (Received July 12th, 12.45 a.m.) LONDON, July 9. In the House of Commons, the greatest interest was manifested in the debate on the Hunter report, and the case of General DTer. The House was crowded, and excited, when Mr Montagu rose to move a vote of £53,500 towards the cost of the Department of tho Secretary of State for India and the Council. Mr Montagu deprecated the criticism of tho personnel of tho Hunter Committee, resenting emphatically the criticism already offered. Proceeding, he declared thpt General Dyer acted .during the Punjab riots on the theory of terrorism and subordination. General Dyer, by the theory that he intended to teach the whole Punjab a moral lesson, embarked on terrorism, to which thero was no end. Mr Montagu described tho flogging orders as sheer frightfulness, and asked whether Great Britain was going to keep her hold on India by terrorism, racial humiliation, and frightfulness, or by tho growing goodwill of the people or the Indian Empire? It was no good passing a great Act of _ Parliament wliich proceeded on the_ principle of a partnership for India in the British Commonwealth, and then allow the administration to deoend on terrorism. "India,'' ho said, "is on your side in enforcing order. Are you on India's side in ensuring order enforced with the maintenance of love of liberty or a British democracy?" Mr Montagu pointed out that or thirty-seven instances. of firing in last year's disturbances, the Government approved of thirty-six, and only censured one because it infringed _ principles on which the Indian Empire was built. Amid considerable dissent, Mr Montagu declared there was a theory abroad amongst critics of the Government that the Indian was only tolerablo so long as he obeyed orders, that if' once he became educated he was to be classed as an agitator. Concluding, Mr Montagu asked whether the theory of rule in India was racial ascendancy, domination, subordination, or partnership? If tho firstnamed, t|ien it followed that tho sword must bo used with increasing severity until Great Britain was driven out of the country by the opinion of a united civilised world. The choice of the House was fundamental to the of the British Empire and tho connexion between Great Britain and India. Sir Edward Carson said he considered Mr Montagu's argument irrelevant. He urged the House to bo fair to a gallant officer of 34 years' service without blemish. He asked whether General Dyer would receive a fair trial before being broken and sent into disgrace. Motions to reduce the Estimates were defeated.