AMRITSAR AFFAIR.

Timaru Herald, Issue 170268, 13 July 1920, Page 7

AMRITSAR AFFAIR.

DISCUSSION IN THE COMMONS'. CENSURE ON GENERAL DYER. By Electric Tolesrapb—Copyright. • 1 Renter's Telegrams. ' ' ' l-OiNuOiN, J,,l v -9. In tho House of Coatmo'iiS the greatest interest was .manifested iii tlie debate on • tluv ■ Hunter Itoport and the case of General Dyer. - The .House was crbwded'and excited when Mr Montagu - (Secretary of • State lor India) rose ■to move a vote of £50,000, a contribution for the cost of the Indian Department. • Mr Montagu deprecated criticism of the personnel of the Hunter Committee,.: resenting emphatically the. criticism already offered.'- Mr Montagu declared that. General Dyer acted during the -Punjab riots .on th e theory of terrorism and subordination. General Dyer, by the theory that ho. intended to teach the whole. Punjab a 'moral 1 cssou, embarked'on terrorisni, to ; which there was no end. Mr Montagu described tho flogging orders as sheer irightfulness, and asked whether Britain was going to keep a, hold oil India iby terrorism, racial, humiliation anrl I irightfulness, or by the growing good- | will of the people of the Indian Empire. It was; no use passing a great [ Act of Parliament, which proceeded on the principle of partnership for India in the ;British "Commonwealth, ■ and then 'allowing the administration to depend on terrorism. "India, is on your side in enforcing-order. Are you on India's side in ensuring that order is enforced with tho maintenance of the love of: liberty, of British democracy?" Mr Montagu pointed' out that there were thirty-seven instances of firing in the last year's disturbances. The Government approved> of - thirtv-six, and only censured one; because it infringed the principles on which the Indian Empire was- built. Amid considerable dissent, Mr Montagu: declared that there was a theory abroad amongst the critics of the; Government that the Indian, was ' only tolerable so long as he obeyed orders; that if.;once he became educated he was to he classed as an agitator. • Concluding, Mr-Montagu asked whether the theory of rule in India, was racial ascendancy, domination and subordination, or partnership. If the former, then it followed that the sword must be used with increasing severity until Britain was driven, out of the country by the opinion of the united civilised r.orld. The choice of (the House was fundamental to the continuance of the British Empire, 4 and the connection between Britain and India. Sir Edward Carson considered.-. Mr argument irrelevant. He iirced- the House to be fair to n, gallant officer of thirty-four years' service without a blemish. He asked whether General Dyer would receive a fair trial before being broken and sent into disgrace.

Motions to'rcduce the Estimates were defeated. . GENERAL DYER'S DEFENCE. ■ PACED BY GRAVE DANGERS. A "White Paper lias heeu issued giving the defence of General Dyer. . He points out that he know "thr- mi l i tary dangers of the position and the cloud in -Afghanistan. He. also .realised that the gatherings in Janiianwallaghbngh -wero hot fortuitous, hut had been assembled with the express intent of challenging the ■Government's authority and defy him to fire upon them. It was,' in fact: a rebel army. Hfe was conscious that a. great offensive movement was gathering, and to sit still and await for complete mohiWsatiou would have been, fatal. He could nob regard the Jalliamyallaghbagh assembly as a- mere political gathering. He looked oil Amritsar as the storm centre of the rebellion. He. also knew that attempts, were beinp; made to seduce his troons. If he had shirked the challenge there would have infallibly followed a. general mob movement inside and outside Amritsaiy which, would have destroyed the European population and involved in its ruin the lawsabiding Indian population, lending tci similar results throughout tlm Punjab. • General Dyer contends that his object was right,. and that the force used was not excessive, and achieved "ho desired effect. Be. also contends that no less force would have achieved the effect.

SIR EDWARD CARSON'S APPEAL. (Renter.) Received 5.15 p.m. ,July 12th. ' LONDON, " July 10. ' : Continuing the debate. Sir Edward Carson entered a passonate plea for j General Dyer, urging that a man ought i not to be punished "for dealing to the [ best of his ability with a situation for wJii?h he not in tho slightest degree responsible. MR CHURCHILL IN REPLY. Mr Churchill explained at length tlio Army Regulations with reference ito retirement, adding that the Army ! Council's decision was reached unani- : mously. | .Mr Churchill, while assenting to the. Council's decision, held himself free, in the event of the Cabinet deciding otherwise, to make further submissions to Crown for the retirement of General Dyer from the Army, Council. ; He, however, accepted the conclusions of the Army Council. - RULES FOR OFFICERS. Mr Churchill described the Jallianwallaglibogh incident as a monstrous event-, standing out in sinister isolation, and proceeded to lay down four broad lines f»r the guidance of officers. . Firstly, is the crowd attacking anything or ' anybody? Secondly, is the crowd, armed ? Thirdly, no more force should be used than is necessary to secure compliance with the law. Fourthly, the officer should confine Imn'self xo, a limited and definite objective. Mr Churchill - .also laid down onegeneral prohibition, namely, against frightfulness, which could "not be ad-, mitted in any form. Personally he was of opinion that General Dyer should have been placed compulsorily on the retired list. • ' MR ASQUITH'S OPIONION. j Mr Asquith pointed out that the ! judgment passed on General Dyer was suppm'ted by the Government of India, confirmed by the British Cabinet, and independently by the Army Council: Therefore, he contended, General Dyer had had a full and fair trial.