The Evening Star MONDAY, MAY 31, 1920.

Evening Star, Issue 17366, 31 May 1920, Page 4

The Evening Star MONDAY, MAY 31, 1920.

The report of Lord Hunter’s Committee of Inquiry into the Punjab disturbances and the subsequent military .massacre at Amritsar last year does not provide even a reasonably satisfactory conclusion to a terrible episode. The committee’s decision is a Yes-No verdict. It both censures and upholds General Dyer, and * while attempting to pacify native temper in India succeeds in further inflaming it. Every rascal/’ says General Sir O'Moore Creagh, a former Commander■OrChisf in India, but now retired, “will consider himself justified in assassination. ’ It would be very unfair, however, to -condemn the committee altogether for their inconclusive findings. They had to deal with an extraordinary affair, and had to conduct their‘inquiry in extraordinarily difficult circurp stances. Public feeling in <pdia and England, and the inevitable fibod of impulsive and Jughly-eraotional Press comment iq many countries, had ,'removed the Amritsar affair pat o§

An Essential Massacre.

proper perspective in 'its relation to the British policy 1 in India. The main facts will be read again with keen interest. 1 In April of last year the native mind !in India was much agitated over the Eowlatt Act, which was made an' excuse for the usual political demonstrations in the various hotbeds of sedition. The agitation changed to violent disturbances upon the arrest and deportation of two Indian leaders who had taken a too prominent part in the organised opposition to tlie Eowlatt Act. The centre of disturbance in the Punjab was at Amritsar, where the local Government very properly attempted by constitutional means to curb the agitators who were exciting the passions of the populace. Ordinary restrictions were defied, and .a mob attempted to cross from the city to the European quarter. They were forcefully turned back without the aid of arms, but wore not pacified. They wreaked frightful vengeance upon every European they could seize, damaged much Government property, and looted the baizes. Five Englishmen were killed in a barbarous manner, sctoeral more were injured, and European women were rough-handled and humiliated. The situation was ugly, and threateningworse when General Dyer, who had been summoned from a Punjab military station, arrived in Amritsar to assume military command of the area. That was on April 12, two days after the riot. General Dyer at once marched his email force through the city, and saw that the native .temper was dangerous. The following day all public meetings were proscribed in local fashion by boat of drum. He also issued a proclamation forbidding public meetings. The proscription was ignored by the angry mob. During the afternoon of the 13th General Dyer was informed that his orders were being defied, and that a public meeting was actually being held in a large open space, known as the Jahvalian' Bagh. General Dyer forthwith took drastic action. He collected his force, 'less than a hundred soldiers, and marched them to. the Jalwalian Bagh. His policy was entirely without palaver. Ho immediately opened fire upon 1 the dense crowd of i several thousands, and kept on firing until his ammunition was exhausted, inflicting heavy casualties. The result was a massacre. The official return gives a total of 579 killed ; many hundreds were ■wounded. Naturally throughout India the totals have in native imagination been trebled. These are the bald facts as plainly told by General Dyer, who hid nothing, but frankly related the details of a horrible duty that he had do perform on his own initiative in the face of a crisis.

Opinions on General Dyer’s action vary widely, and give an equal measure of censure and corameudatioft. It is asserted on the one side that General Dyer’s firmness alone averted the massacre of all the Europeans in Amritsar and the spread of the disturbances to the dimensions of a second Indian Mutiny. The other view is that the shooting of the mob was “sheer cold-blooded, frightfulness of the worst German variety.” Many level-headed critics who were in Amritsar at the time do not condemn General Dyer, but commend him without qualification for his fearless action, which saved the European population in India from a horrible death. All fair-minded men throughout the British Empire should not pass judgment hastily or without a very careful consideration of all the facts. It snould be noted first that sedition in India is more extensive and much more violent than the outside world is permitted to know. Then due weight should be given to the fact that at the time of the Amritsar affair the whole of the Punwas seething with violent agitation against British rule. It fell to General Dyer, as a military commander in an area that had by the act of the mob been cut off from communication with higher authorities, to grapple with a terrible menace. He smothered it in a terrible way as a matter of stern dutv. In military circles his action is approved without question. It was an essential massacre. Whatever the general British public may say of his action, it is certain that white women in all tropical countries will at least thank General Dyer in their hearts.