HUNTER COMMISSION

Hokitika Guardian, 13 July 1920, Page 4

HUNTER COMMISSION

AUBTHALIAN iV, N.Z CAIILE ASSOCIATION]

GENERAL DYER’S DEFENCE.

LONDON, July 9

A White Paper has been issued, giving the defence 'of General Dyer. He points out that h®knew the military dangers of the posiTOn and the cloud in Afghanistan, and also realised that the gatherings in ,1 alibis Wnlloghbngh was not fortuitious, but was assembled with the OKpress intent of a challenge to Government authority and to defy him to fire upon them. It was in fail,, a rebel army. He was conscious that a great offensive movement was gathering, and to still await a complete mobilisation would lie fatal. He could not, regard the Jallian Walloggbagli 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 infallably fol lowed a general mob -movement inside and outside of Amritsar, which would have destroyed the European population and involved in its ruin the law abiding Indian population, and leading to similar results throughout Pisnjab. General Dyer contends it was right, that force was used, it was not excessive, and achieved the desired effect. Also that no less force would have achieved the effect.

PLEA FOR DYER. LONDON, July 10. Continuing a debate in the House of Commons, on India, 'Sir E. Carson en tored a lengthy plea ft>r Dyor, who ordered the Amritsar massacre. Ho urged this man ought not to bo puriisli -ed. He was only acting to the best of Ms ability with a situation for which he was not in the slightest degree responsible. Mr Churchill explained at length the Army Council’s decision to disrate Dyer was reached unanimously. Mr Churchill, while assenting t-o the Council’s decision, held himself free in the event of Cabinet deciding otherwise to make further submissions to the Crown for the retirement of Dyer from the Army Council. However lie accepted conclusions of the Army Council. Mr Churchill described the Jallianwallagh. bagli incident a,* “a monstrous event ” standing out in sinister isolation,” and proceeded to lay down four broad lines' for guidance of officers.—Firstly, Ts a crowd attacking anything or anybody? Secondly is a crowd armed? Thirdly, no more force should be used than necessany to secure compliance with law fourthly, the officer should confine himself to a limited definite objective. i Mr Churchill also laid down one general prohibition, namely, against frightfulness, which could not he admitted in any form. Personally, he was of opinion Dyer should have been placed compulsorily on the retired list. . Mr Asquith pointed out the judgment passed on Dyer was supported by the Government of Tndia, confirmed by the British Cabinet and independently by the Army Council. Therefore, he contended. Dyer had a full and fair hearing. , ' A Labour motion for reduction in the estimates was defeated. A number of , Unionists abstained from voting. !

A motion by Sir E. .Carson for re-,, duction of the Estimates was defeated bv 124 to 129.