Dear Sir,
I do not like your scheme for "boycotting" the Government of India
under what seems to be the somewhat less offensive (though more
cumbrous) name of non-co-operation; but have always given you credit
for a genuine desire to carry out revolution by peaceful means and am
astonished at the violence of the language you use in describing
General Dyer on page 4 of your issue of the 14th July last. You begin
by saying that he is "by no means the worst offender," and, so far, I
am inclined to agree, though as there has been no proper trial of
anyone it is impossible to apportion their guilt; but then you say
"his brutality is unmistakable," "his abject and unsoldierlike
cowardice is apparent, he has called an _unarmed crowd_ of men and
children--mostly holiday makers--a rebel army." "He believes himself
to be the saviour of the Punjab in that he was able to shoot down
like rabbits men who were _penned_ in an enclosure; such a man is
unworthy to be considered a soldier. There was no bravery in his
action. He ran no risk. He shot without the slightest opposition and
without warning. This is not an error of judgement. It is paralysis
of it in the face of _fancied_ danger. It is proof of criminal
incapacity and heartlessness," etc.
You must excuse me for saying that all this is mere rhetoric
unsupported by any proof, even where proof was possible. To begin
with, neither you nor I were present at the Jallianwalla Bagh on that
dreadful day--dreadful especially for General Dyer for whom you show
no sympathy,--and therefore cannot know for certain whether the crowd
was or was not unarmed.' That it was an 'illegal,' because a
'prohibited,' assembly is evident; for it is absurd to suppose that
General Dyer's 4-1/2 hours march, through the city that very morning,
during the whole of which he was warning the inhabitants against the
danger of any sort of gathering, was not thoroughly well-known. You
say they were 'mostly holiday makers,' but you give nor proof; and
the idea of holiday gathering in Amritsar just then in incredible. I
cannot understand your making such a suggestion. General Dyer was not
the only officer present on the occasion and it is impossible to
suppose that he would have been allowed to go on shooting into an
innocent body of holiday-makers. Even the troops would have refused
to carry out what might then have been not unfairly called a
"massacre."
I notice that you never even allude to the frightful brutality of the
mob which was immediately responsible for the punitive measure
reluctantly adopted by General Dyer. Your sympathies seem to be only
with the murderers, and I am not sanguine enough to suppose that my
view of the case will have much influence with you. Still I am bound
to do what I can to get at the truth, and enclose a copy of some
notes I have had occasion to make. If you can publish an _exact_
account of what happened at Amritsar on the 10th of April, 1919 and
the following days, especially on the 13th, including the
demonstration in favour of General Dyer, (if there was one), I for
one, as a mere seeker after the truth, should be very much obliged to
you. Mere abuse is not convincing, as you so often observe in your
generally reasonable paper,
Yours faithfully,
J. R. PENNINGTON, I.O.S. (Retd.)
35, VICTORIA ROAD, WORTHING, SUSSEX
27th Aug. 1920.
For 12 years Chief Magistrate of Districts in the south of India
before reform, by assassination and otherwise, became so fashionable.
P.S. Let us get the case in this way. General Dyer, acting as the
only representative of Government on the spot shot some hundreds of
people (some of them _perhaps_ innocently mixed up in an illegal
assembly), in the _bona fide_ belief that he was dealing with the
remains of a very dangerous rebellion and was thereby saving the
lives of very many thousands, and in the opinion of a great many
people did actually save the city from falling in the hands of a
dangerous mob.