Defence of Dyer.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume X, Issue 177, 12 July 1920, Page 5

Defence of Dyer.

SMASHING A REBELLION. •IE HE HAD SHIRKED?” A WHITE PAPER ISSUED. [By Cable.—Press Association.—Copyright.] (Received Id, 8.50 n.m.) Jjondon, July 9. A White Paper has been issued, giving the defence of General Dyer. H< points out that he knew the military dangers of the position and the cloud m Afghanistan. He also realised that the gathering? in Jallainwallaglibagh were, not for tiutous, but assembled with the express intent to challenge Government authority, and to defy him to fire upon them. It was in fact, a rebel army. He was conscious that a great offensive movement was gathering, and to sit still and await complete mobilisation would have been fatal. He could not regard the Jallainwallaghbagh assembly as a mere political gathering. He looked on Amritsar as the storm centre of the rebellion. He also knew that attempts were being made to seduce his troops. If he had shirked the challenge there would have infallibly followed :> general mob ’movement inside and out side Amritsar, which would have des troyed the European • population and involved in its ruin the law-abiding Indian population, leading to similar results throughout Punjaub. General Dyer contends that his ob ject was right. Force used was not excessive and achieved the desired effect; also nc less force would have achieved the elfect.—(Reuter). DEBATE IN COMMONS. MONTAGU ANSWERS CRITICS. London, July 9. in the House of Commons the great est interest was manifested in the debate oil the Hunter report and the case of General Dyer. The House was crowded and excited when the Hon. E. 8. Montagu (Secretary of Stijte for India) rose to move a'vote of £53,500 contribution for the cost ol the Department of the Secretary of State for India and the Council. He deprecated the criticism of the personnel oil the Hunter Committee, resenting emphatically the criticism already offered. Proceeding, he declared that General Dyer had acted during the Punjab riots on a theory of terrorism and subordination. Amid considerable dissent he de dared that there was a theory abroad amongst critics of the Government that the Indian was only tolerable so loin, as he obeyed orders, and that if once he became educated he was to be classed as an agitator. In conclusion Mr. Alontague asked whether the theory of rule in India was racial ascendancy, domination and subordina fion or partnership. The choice of the House was fundamental to the con tinuanee of the British Empire and a connection between Britain and India. Sir E. Carson considered the jlight Hon. S. E. Montague's aigutuent i levant. He urged the House to be lai. to w gallant officer of thirty-four years service without a blemish. He asKed whether Dyer would receive a fair trial before being broken and sent into disgrace. , , > A motion to reduce the Kstmiato. was defeated.—(Router.)