Talk:Jallianwala Bagh massacre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Date

Hmm. Our calendar says the massacre occured in 1919 instead of 1917, one of them is probably a typo, but which one, this article, or the date article? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 05:18, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Top

>>>>>>>>> The event was condemned worldwide and General Dyer was summoned to London to appear before the Hunter Commission in 1920, which found him guilty. However, the British Parliament cleared his name and even praised his ruthlessness. Many upper-class Britons raised a fund in his honour. <<<<<<<<<<

Your encyclopedia has fallen victim to a case of propaganda and misrepresentation. British soldiers (those shell-shocked members who'd survived the slaughter of the trenches) did indeed commit a massacre - but Parliament condemned it.

Churchill (the arch-Imperialist) led the way with a most stirring speech:

'It is compassion and its absence which marks the difference between Englishmen and Bolsheviks. My own hatred of Lenin's regime is not founded on their silly system of economics, or their absurd doctrine of an impossible equality. It arises from the bloody and devastating terrorism which they practice ... and by which alone their criminal regime can be maintained. It is intolerable in Russia; it is intolerable in Amritsar. I do not think that it is in the interests of the British Empire or of the British Army for us to take a load of that sort for all time upon our backs. We have to make it absolutely clear, some way or another, that this is not the British way of doing business. Macaulay said: 'The most frightful of all spectables is the strength of civilisation without its mercy.' England's reign in India, or anywhere else has never stood on the basis of physical force alone, and it would be fatal to the British Empire if we were to try to base ourselves only upon it. The British way of doing things ... has always meant and implied close and effectual cooperation with the people. In every part of the British Empire that has been our aim.'

As for Dyer, Churchill himself would have preferred to see the general disciplined. Instead, he had been allowed to resign with no plan for further punishment, 'and to those moderate and considered conclusions we confidently invite the assent of the House.'

He sat and the house rose crying, 'Hear, hear.' After five more hours of debate they voted for the government, 247 to 37. Carson's motion for mild approval of Dyer was defeated 230 to 129.

(More details at: http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/churchill/am-image.htm)

---

Tried to NPOV it a little, at least mention that this is a controversial issue that is still debated by historians. Added in the Churchill link from above (it seemed kind of relevant--at least Hansard is a contemporary source.) Half expect to see this reverted forthwith. Monk Bretton 01:44, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

---

The text of Churchill's Speech

The link to Churchill's speech is dead, so I found it elsewhere (on a Geocities site) and have copied it below. The question is - where does it belong? Does it deserve an encyclopedia article entry? If we continue to link to it externally we run the risk of more links going dead. Does this belong in Wikisource? (Copyvio is no issue - being a parliamentary speech it's a matter of public record). Manning 11:00, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

---

Amritsar, India July 8, 1920 House of Commons

I think it may make for the convenience of the Debate if I speak at this early period in the afternoon, in order to put the Committee in possession of the views taken by the War Office, and to offer a full explanation of the course they have adopted. I shall certainly endeavour to follow very carefully the advice which my right hon. Friend who has just spoken has given, that we should approach this subject in a calm spirit, avoiding passion and avoiding attempts to excite prejudice-that we should address ourselves to the subject 'with a desire to do to-day what is most in accordance with the long view of the general interests of the British Empire. There has not been, I suppose, for many years a case of this kind, which has raised so many grave and wide issues, or in regard to which a right and wise decision is so necessary in the general interest. There is the intensity of racial feeling which has been aroused on both sides in India. Every word we speak ought to have regard to that. There are the difficulties of military officers who, in these turbulent times, have been or are likely to be called upon to handle their troops in the suppression of civil disturbance. There are the requirements of justice, and fair play towards an individual. There are the moral and humanitarian conceptions which are involved. All these, combined, make the task of the Government and of the Committee one of exceptional seriousness, delicacy, and responsibility.

I will deal first with the action of the Army Council, for which I accept full responsibility. The conduct of a military officer may be dealt with in three perfectly distinct spheres. First of all, he may be removed from his employment or his appointment, relegated to half pay, and told that he has no prospects of being employed again. This may be done to him by a simple administrative act. It is sufficient for the competent superior authority to decide that the interests of the public service would be better served if someone else were appointed in his stead, to justify and complete the taking of such a step. The officer in question has no redress. He has no claim to a court of inquiry or a court martial. He has no protection of any kind against being deprived of his appointment, and being informed that he has no further prospects of getting another. This procedure may seem somewhat harsh, but a little reflection will show that it is inevitable. There is no excuse for superior authority not choosing the most suitable agents for particular duties, and not removing unsuitable agents from particular duties. During the War, as every Member of the Committee knows, hundreds, and probably thousands, of officers have been so dealt with by their superiors; and since the War, the tremendous contraction of the Army has imposed similar hardships on hundreds, and possibly thousands, of officers against whom not one word of reproach could be uttered, and whose careers in many cases have been careers of real distinction and of invariable good service. This applies to A appointments in the Army, and, I have no doubt, in the Navy, too, and it applies with increasing severity in proportion as the appointments are high ones. From the humble lance-corporal, who reverts to private by a stroke of the pen, from the regimental adjutant, if the colonel thinks he would prefer some other subaltern, up to the highest General or Field-Marshal, all officers are amenable to this procedure in regard to the appointments which they hold.

The procedure is well understood. It is hardly ever challenged. It is not challenged by General Dyer in his statement. It is accepted with soldierly fortitude, because it is believed, on the whole, that the administration of these great responsibilities is carried out in a fair and honest spirit. Indeed, when one thinks of the hundreds of officers of high rank who, in the last year, have had their professional careers brought abruptly and finally to a close, and the patience, good temper and dignity with which this great personal misfortune has been borne, one cannot help feeling a great admiration for the profession of arms to which those officers belong. That is the first method by which military officers may be dealt with. Under it, the officer reverts automatically to half pay, and, in a very large proportion of cases, having reverted to half pay, he applies to be placed on retired pay, because, especially in the case of senior officers, retired pay is often appreciably higher than half pay.

I now come to the second method. The second method is of a more serious character, and it affects, not the employment of an officer, but his status and his rank. Here it is not a question of choosing the right man for a particular job, but of retiring an officer compulsorily from the Service, or imposing on him some reduction or forfeiture in his pension or retired pay. In this case the officer is protected, under Article 527 of the Royal Warrant, by the fact that it is necessary for three members of the Army Council to approve the proceeding, and by certain rights of laying his case before them. All the same, the Secretary of State for the time being, by virtue of his office, has the power to make a submission direct to the Crown, and advise that an officer be retired compulsorily, or simply that his name be removed from the list, His Majesty having no further use for his services.

Mr. Bottomley: What has all this to do with General Dyer - I mean with the specific case we are dealing with?

Mr. Churchill: I have great respect for the Committee, and I do not believe it will refuse to allow a Minister or a Government to unfold a reasoned and solid argument to its attention; and I am surprised that my hon. Friend, who himself takes a not undistinguished part in Debates, should not appreciate that fact, and should not be willing to facilitate my doing so.

I was saying that that is the second method, in which the personal reputation of an officer is undoubtedly affected. The third method is of a definitely penal character. Honour, liberty, life, are affected. Cashiering, imprisonment, or the death penalty may be involved, and for this third category, of course, the whole resources and protection which judicial procedure, lawful tribunals, and British justice accord to an accused person are brought into play. Those are the three different levels of procedure in regard to the treatment of the conduct of officers. Although my hon. Friend has not seen the relevance of it, I think it right, at the outset, to unfold these distinctions very carefully to the Committee, and to ask the Committee to bear them attentively in mind.

Coming to the case of General Dyer, it will be seen that he was removed from his appointment by the Commander-in-Chief in India; that he was passed over by the Board in India for promotion; that he was informed, as hundreds of officers and have been informed, that there was no prospect of further employment him under the Government of India; and that, in consequence, he reverted to half-pay. These proceedings were brought formally to the notice of be retired from the Army, and by a telegram from the Commander-in-Chief in India, which similarly recommended that he should be ordered to retire.

Mr. Gwynne: What was the date?

Mr. Churchill: That was about a month ago. At a later stage it was brought publicly to the notice of the Army Council by the published despatch of the Secretary of State for India, which stated that the circumstances of the case had been referred to the Army Council. The first step taken by the Army Council was to direct General Dyer-we had an application from him that he desired to take this course-to submit a statement of his case for their consideration. That statement is, I think, in the possession of the Committee at the present time. We asked him to make that statement, and we accepted his request that he should be allowed to make it, because we felt that, if any action was to be taken against General Dyer, apart from removing him from his appointments and employment in India-which is a matter of selection- if any action under the second of the three methods I have described was to be taken against him, it was essential that he should furnish a statement in his own behalf, and should be judged upon that, and not upon evidence which he had given as a witness in an inquiry before which he had been summoned without having any reason to believe 'lion, that he was cited as an incriminated party. Me conclusions of the Hunter Committee might furnish the fullest justification for removing him from his appointment-

Commander Bellairs: No, no!

Mr. Churchill: I am expressing my opinion. When my hon.. and gallant Friend is called, he will express his opinion. That is the process which we call Debate. But if any question of retiring General Dyer from the Army was to be examined under Article 527, a direct statement from him in his own defence was indispensable. I read yesterday to the House the conclusion which was reached by the Army Council. It was a conclusion which was reached unanimously, and it speaks for itself. It must be remembered, however, that the Army Council must deal with these matters primarily, and, indeed, mainly, from a military point of view. They have to consider the rights and interests of officers of the Army, and they have to consider the effect of any decision which they may come to upon the confidence with which officers will do their duty in the kind of extremely difficult and tragical circumstances in which General Dyer and, I am sorry to say, a good many other officers of the Army' recent times been placed. The Army Council have to express an opinion Dyer's conduct from what is primarily a service standpoint. Their function is great responsibility, but at the same time it is one of a limited and special responsibility.

Nothing could be more unjust than to represent the raise a constitutional issue, or.- of the Government of the country. I very much regret to have seen that suggestion has been made. It is quite unmerited and uncalled for. Asked to their opinion, they were bound to give it sincerely and plainly from their standpoint. Their conclusion in no way affected the final freedom of action Cabinet. The Cabinet has many interests to consider far outside and and authority of a body like the Army Council, which is an administrative subordinate body, and which is not at the same time a judicial tribunal. with their superior authority and more general outlook, took the view that action was required against General Dyer beyond the loss of employment, censure pronounced by the Hunter Commission, by the Secretary of State's despatch, which was a Cabinet document bearing the considered opinion of the Government - if it was thought further action of a disciplinary character was required, the Cabinet were perfectly free to take it without any conflict of powers arising between the subordinate, administrative Army Council and the Supreme Executive Council of State. I made it perfectly clear to my colleagues on the Army Council that, in assenting to the conclusion to which we came as an Army Council, I held myself perfectly free if I thought right, and if the Cabinet so decided, to make a further submission to the Crown for the retirement of General Dyer from the Army.

Lieut.-Colonel Croft: And the converse may be true, also. The Cabinet may upset the whole decision also in the other direction.

Mr. Churchill: Certainly. The Cabinet can certainly alter the employment of any officer. I now come to explain and to justify the decision of the Cabinet. This is the question I have been asking myself, and which I think the House should consider. Were we right in accepting, as we have done, the conclusion of the Army Council as terminating the matter so far as General Dyer was concerned, or ought we to have taken further action of a disciplinary or quasi-disciplinary character against him? Here, for the first time, I shall permit myself to enter, to some extent, upon certain aspects of the merits of the case.

However we may dwell upon the difficulties of General Dyer during the Amritsar riots, upon the anxious and critical situation in the Punjab, upon the danger to Europeans throughout that province, upon the long delays which have taken place in reaching a decision about this officer, upon the procedure that was at this point or at that point adopted, however we may dwell upon all this, one tremendous fact stands out-I mean the slaughter of nearly 400 persons and the wounding of probably three or four times as many, at the Jallian Wallah Bagh on 13th April. That is an episode which appears to me to be without precedent or parallel in the modern history of the British Empire. It is an event of an entirely different order from any of those tragical occurrences which take place when troops are brought into collision with the civil population. It is an extraordinary event, a monstrous event, an event which stands in singular and sinister isolation.

Collisions between troops and native populations have been painfully frequent in the melancholy aftermath of the Great War. My right hon. Friend has reminded the House that in this particular series of disturbances there were 36 or 37 cases of firing upon the crowd in India at this particular time, and there have been numerous cases in Egypt. In all these cases the officer in command is placed in a most painful and difficult position. I agree absolutely with what my right hon. Friend has said, and the opinions he has quoted of the Adjutant-General in India, of the distasteful, painful, embarrassing, torturing situation, mental and moral, in which the British officer in command of troops is placed when he is called upon to decide whether or not he opens fire, not upon the enemies of his country, but on those who are his countrymen, or who are citizens of our common Empire. No words can be employed which would exaggerate those difficulties. But there are certain broad lines by which, I think, an officer in such cases should be guided. First of all, I think he may ask himself, Is the crowd attacking anything or anybody? Surely that is the first question. Are they trying to force their way forward to the attack of some building, or some cordon of troops or police, or are they attempting to attack some band of persons or some individual who has excited their hostility? Is the crowd attacking? That is the first question which would naturally arise. The second question is this: Is the crowd armed? That is surely another great simple fundamental question. By armed I mean armed with lethal weapons.

'Sir W. Joynson-Hicks: How could they be in India?

Mr. Churchill: Men who take up arms against the State must expect at any moment to be fired upon. Men who take up arms unlawfully cannot expect that the troops will wait until they are quite ready to begin the conflict-

Mr. Donald: What about Ireland?

Mr. Churchill: I agree, and it is in regard to Ireland that I am specially making this remark-or until they have actually begun fighting. Armed men are in a category absolutely different from unarmed men. An unarmed crowd stands in a totally different position from an armed crowd. At Amritsar the crowd was neither armed nor attacking. [Interruption.] I carefully said that when I used the word "armed" I meant armed with lethal weapons, or with firearms. There is no dispute between us on that point. "I was confronted," says General Dyer, "by a revolutionary army." What is the chief characteristic of an army? Surely it is that it is armed. This crowd was unarmed. These are simple tests which it is not too much to expect officers in these difficult situations to apply.

Sir W. Davison: How many men had General Dyer with him?

Mr. Churchill: My hon. Friend is as closely acquainted with the case as I am. I have read all the papers on the subject. When he rises to continue the Debate he can perfectly well bring that forward. But there is another test which is not quite so simple, but which nevertheless has often served as a good guide. I mean the doctrine that no more force should be used than is necessary to secure compliance with the law. There is also a fourth consideration by which an officer should be guided. He should confine himself to a limited and definite objective, that is to say to preventing a crowd doing something which they ought not to do, or to compelling them to do something which they ought to do. All these are good guides for officers placed in the difficult and painful situation in which General Dyer stood.

My right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) will say it is easy enough to talk like this, and. to lay down these principles here in safe and comfortable England, in the calm atmosphere of the House of Commons or in your armchairs in Downing Street or Whitehall, but it is quite a different business on the spot, in a great emergency, confronted with a howling mob, with a great city or a whole province quivering all around with excitement. I quite agree. Still these are good guides and sound, simple tests, and I believe it is not too much to ask of our officers to observe and to consider them. After all, they are accustomed to accomplish more difficult tasks than that. Over and over again we have seen British officers and soldiers storm entrenchments under the heaviest fire, with half their number shot down before they entered the position of the enemy, the certainty of a long, bloody day before them, a tremendous bombardment crashing all around-we have seen them in these circumstances taking out their maps and watches, and adjusting their calculations with the most minute detail, and we have seen them show, not merely mercy, but kindness, to prisoners, observing restraint in the treatment of them, punishing those who deserved to be punished by the hard laws of war, and sparing those who might claim to be admitted to the clemency of the conqueror. We have seen them exerting themselves to show pity and to help, even at their own peril, the wounded. They have done it thousands of times, and in requiring them, in moments of crisis, dealing with civil riots, when the danger is incomparably less, to consider these broad, simple guides, really I do not think we are taxing them beyond their proved strength.

Commander Bellairs: What about the women and children?

Lieut.-Colonel Croft: There are no women and children in the trenches.

Mr. Churchill: I am bound to say I do not see to what part of my argument that remark applies. I say I do not think it is too much to ask a British officer in this painful, agonising position, to pause and consider these broad, simple guides-I do not even call them rules-before he decides upon his course. of conduct. Under circumstances, in my opinion, infinitely more trying, they have shown themselves capable of arriving at right decisions. If we offer these broad guides to our officers in these anxious and dangerous times, if there are guides of a positive character, there is surely one guide which we can offer them of a negative character. There is surely one general prohibition which we can make. I mean a prohibition against what is called "frightfulness." What I mean by frightfulness is the inflicting of great slaughter or massacre upon a particular crowd of people, with the intention of terrorising not merely the rest of the crowd, but the whole district or the whole country.

Lieut.-General Croft: Was not the frightfulness started three days before? Was not the frightfulness on the other side.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir E. Cornwall): Hon. Members will have an opportunity of catching my eye, and I would ask them to wait, and not try to deliver their speeches in fragments.

Mr. Churchill: We cannot admit this doctrine in any form. Frightfulness is not a remedy known to the British Pharmacopoeia. I yield to no one in my detestation of Bolshevism, and of the revolutionary violence which precedes it. I share with my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson) many of his sentiments as to the world-wide character of the seditious and revolutionary movement with which we are confronted. But my hatred of Bolshevism and Bolsheviks is not founded on their silly system of economics, or their absurd doctrine of an impossible equality. It arises from the bloody and devastating terrorism which they practice in every land into which they have broken, and by which alone their criminal regime can be maintained. I have heard the hon. Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) speak on this subject. His doctrine and his policy is to support and palliate every form of terrorism as long as it is the terrorism of revolutionaries against the forces of law, loyalty and order. Governments who have seized upon power by violence and by usurpation have often resorted to terrorism in their desperate efforts to keep what they have stolen, but the august and venerable structure of the British Empire, where lawful authority descends from hand to hand and generation after generation, does not need such aid. Such ideas are absolutely foreign to the British way of doing things.

These observations are mainly of a general character, but their relevance to the case under discussion can be well understood, and they lead me to the specific circumstances of the fusillade at the Jallian Wallah Bagh. Let me marshal the facts. The crowd was unarmed, except with bludgeons. It was not attacking anybody or anything. It was holding a seditious meeting. When fire had been opened upon it to disperse it, it tried to run away. Pinned up in a narrow place considerably smaller than Trafalgar Square, with hardly any exits, and packed together so that one bullet would drive through three or four bodies, the people ran madly this way and the other. When the fire was directed upon the centre, they ran to the sides. The fire was then directed upon the sides. Many threw themselves down on the ground, and the fire was then directed on the ground. This was continued for 8 or 10 minutes, and it stopped only when the ammunition had reached the point of exhaustion.

Commander Bellairs: That is absolutely denied by General Dyer.

Mr. Churchill: It stopped only when it was on the point of exhaustion, enough ammunition being retained to provide for the safety of the force on its return journey. If more troops had been available, says this officer, the casualties would have been, greater in proportion. If the road had not been so narrow, the machine guns and the armoured cars would have joined in. Finally when the ammunition had reached a point that only enough remained to allow for the safe return of the troops, and after 379 persons, which is about the number gathered together in this Chamber to-day, had been killed, and when most certainly 1,200 or more had been wounded, the troops, at whom not even a stone had been thrown, swung round and marched away. I deeply regret to find myself in a difference of opinion from many of those with whom, in the general drift of the world's affairs at the present time, I feel myself in the strongest sympathy; but I do not think it is in the interests of the British Empire or of the British Army for us to take a load of that sort for all time upon our backs. We have to make it absolutely clear, some way or other, that this is not the British way of doing business.

I shall be told that it "saved India." I do not believe it for a moment. The British power in India does not stand on such foundations. It stands on much stronger foundations. I am going to refer to the material foundations of our power very bluntly. Take the Mutiny as the datum line. In those days, there were normally 40,000 British troops in the country, and the ratio of British troops to native troops was one to five. The native Indian Army had a powerful artillery, of which they made tremendous use. There were no railways, no modem appliances, and yet the Mutiny was effectively suppressed by the use of a military power far inferior to that which we now possess in India. Since then the British troops have been raised to 70,000 and upwards, and the ratio of British to native troops is one to two. There is no native artillery of any kind. The power and the importance of the artillery has increased in the meantime 10 and perhaps 20-fold. Since then a whole series of wonderful and powerful war inventions have come into being, and the whole apparatus of scientific war is at the disposal of the British Government in India-machine guns, the magazine rifle, cordite ammunition, which cannot be manufactured as gunpowder was manufactured except by a scientific power, and which is all stored in the magazines under the control of the white troops. Then there have been the great developments which have followed the conquest of the air and the evolution of the aeroplane. Even if the railways and the telegraphs were cut or rendered useless by a strike, motor lorries and wireless telegraphy would give increasingly the means of concentrating troops, and taking them about the country with an extraordinary and almost undreamed-of facility. When one contemplates these solid, material facts, there is no need for foolish panic, or talk of its being necessary to produce a situation like that at Jallian Wallah Bagh in order to save India. On the contrary, as we contemplate the great physical forces and the power at the disposal of the British Government in their relations with the native population of India, we ought to remember the words of Macaulay: and then was seen what we believe to be the most frightful of all spectacles, the strength of civilisation without its mercy.

Our reign in India or anywhere else has never stood on the basis of physical force alone, and it would be fatal to the British Empire if we were to try to base ourselves only upon it. The British way of doing things, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, who feels intensely upon this subject, has pointed out, has always meant and implied close and effectual co-operation with the people of the country. In every part of the British Empire that has been our aim, and in no part have we arrived at such success as in India, whose princes spent their treasure in our cause, whose brave soldiers fought side by side with our own men, whose intelligent and gifted people are co-operating at the present moment with us in every sphere of government and of industry. It is quite true that in Egypt last year there was a complete breakdown of the relations between the British and the Egyptian people. Every class and every profession seemed united against us. What are we doing? We are trying to rebuild that relationship. For months, Lord Milner has been in Egypt, and now we are endeavouring laboriously and patiently to rebuild from the bottom that relation between the British administration and the people of Egypt which we have always enjoyed in the past, and which it was so painful for us to feet had been so suddenly ruptured. It is not a question of force. We had plenty of force, if force were all that was needed.

What we want is co-operation and goodwill, and I beseech hon. and right hon. Gentleman to look at the whole of this vast question, and not merely at one part of it. If the disastrous breakdown which has occurred in a comparatively small country like Egypt, if this absolute rupture between the British administration and the people of the country had taken place throughout the mighty regions of our Indian Empire, it would have constituted one of the most melancholy events in the history of the world. That it has not taken place up to the present is, I think, largely due to the constructive policy of His Majesty's Government, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India has made so great a personal contribution. I was astonished by my right hon. Friend's sense of detachment when, in the supreme crisis of the War, he calmly journeyed to India, and remained for many months absorbed and buried in Indian affairs. It was not until I saw what happened in Egypt, and, if you like, what is going on in Ireland to-day, that I appreciated the enormous utility of such service, from the point of view of the national interests of the British Empire, in helping to keep alive I spirit of comradeship, that sense of unity and of progress in co-operation, which must ever ally and bind together the British and Indian peoples.

I do not conceal from the House my sincere personal opinion that General Dyer's conduct deserved not only the loss of employment from which so many officers are suffering at the present time, not only the measure of censure which the Government have pronounced, but also that it should have been marked by a distinct disciplinary act, namely, his being placed compulsorily upon the retired list. But we have only to turn to page 20 of the statement of General Dyer, we have only to cast our mind back to the most powerful passage in the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson) to see that such a course was barred.

It is quite true that General Dyer's conduct has been approved by a succession of superiors above him who pronounced his defence, and that at different stages events have taken place which, it may well be argued, amount to virtual condonation so far as a penal or disciplinary action is concerned. General Dyer may have done wrong, but at any rate he has his rights, and I do not see how in face of such virtual condonation as is set out on page 20 of this able document, it would have been possible, or could have been considered right, to take disciplinary action against him. For these reasons the Cabinet found themselves in agreement with the conclusions of the Army Council, and to those moderate and considered conclusions we confidently invite the assent of the House.

(end of speech)

---

Why Gurkha & British?

Why gurkha and british soldiers? Why not just British soldiers? Even if there were gurkha soldiers, they were either working for the british or were part of the british regiments. I feel that there has been an attempt to dilute the responsibilty of the massacre by stating "gurkha and british soldiers". also, 'political gathering' is incorrect. It was baisakhi that day and innocent people poured in to see "Mahatma Gandhi" it is said. It was more of a patriotic meet than a poltical meet.

I have reverted your edits. It is well-known that Indians helped the British to do the massacre. To say that it was only British soldiers gives the opposite impression. I don't see any improvement on the current version in the phrase "political/patriotic". --goethean 22:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

If I remember rightly I first introduced the words 'and Gurkha' to the article. I did so because it was factual and added to the readers' knowledge of who was present and who pulled the triggers etc. The unsigned person who posted the message, above, clearly isn't sure if there were Gurkhas present or not (nor does he/she seem to understand how the army was structured at that time--they weren't part of British regiments and, for that matter, his/her comments about Gandhi being present or expected are erroneous too) so his/her edits should be taken with a pinch of salt. On the question of 'responsibility for the massacre' I think the article is fairly even-handed on that point.

The point about the word 'political' is valid though. The article makes clear the nature of the gathering later on (it calls it a religious gathering) and certainly the word 'political' in the opening paragraph is wrong. Perhaps we should call it a gathering and leave it until later in the article to explain the nature of the gathering? Monk Bretton 17:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Fine with me. --goethean 17:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Is it 'unsubstantiated' that the gathering was unarmed? Hornplease 22:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, it is substantiated. --goethean ॐ 04:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, then, I'm putting 'unarmed' back in the descruption of the crowd. Its certainly relevant.Hornplease 05:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Was there a warning?

There was no warning given. Since substantiation is required, I recommend the excellent new biography of Dyer, the 'Butcher of Amritsar' or some such title, by Nigel Collett, an Oxonian historian and former Gurkha regiment officere. A review in the Sunday Times, available online, summarises the incident as reported then: "In Amritsar, he took over command of the city from the civil authorities in questionable circumstances, and decided that the “mutineers” would have to be taught a lesson. After a brief parade during which he proclaimed there were to be no more assemblies, he advanced on the enclosed heart of the city with his Gurkha and Pathan soldiers. He deliberately avoided bringing British officers with him for fear that his orders might be challenged. The firing at the large, unarmed crowd began without warning and lasted for 10 to 15 minutes. Dyer ordered his men to shoot at the places where the crowd was thickest. The wounded were left where they fell that night; because there was a curfew, they could not be tended." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-1576455,00.html

That's from a respectable source, a distillation of all views including those of the Parliamentary fact-finding commission. I think there's more than enough substantiation. Hornplease 20:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

astute

I added "astute". I thought that some mention should be made of the fact that he was right — the number was (probably) less, right? --goethean ॐ 21:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Ms/or Mr(?) 219.76.136.3

The story of Amritsar Massacre is incomplete without Shaheed Udham Singh, the prominent revoutionary and freedom fighter of India..

Ms/Mr(?)219.76.136.3, Why are you shameful of Udham Singh?.

The brave son of Punjab, Udham Singh restored pride and dignity to a humilated and disgraced nation by paying the butchers of Jallianwala Massacre in the same coins. If we are a self-respecting nation, we have to recognise the supreme sacrifices of the Martyrs like Bhagat Singh, B.K. Dutt, Udham Singh. Bhagat Singh had shot dead the Butcher Englishman, called Saunders (Deputy Suprintendent of Police) though his main target was Scott (Suprintendent Police). Udham Singn Shot dead Michael O'Dwyer, the Lietenant Governor of Punjab, the master-planner of Jallianwala Massacre, and the butcher chiefly responsible for over 1800 human casuilities at Jallianwala Massacre (According to witness of English Dr Smith, the then Civil Surgeon, Amritsar). Any reason to ignore the sacrifices of Mr Singh?

Estimate of number of casualties

These were removed by an anon, but they appear to be verified by references. I've reverted as a result. Comments appreciated. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"The most accurate figure of deaths was reached by the Allahabad sewa samiti, which investigated the casualties in 1919, and who eventually lited 530 named dead. This is probably an underestimate. There was never any real calculation of thoser injured."

Why is this probably an underestimate? Why does the official figure of 200 not count as a 'real' calculation? Some substantiation for the accuracy (or otherwise) of these estimates would be useful. --Benwilson528 09:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION:Page merged

The content of this page has been moved to Jallianwala_Bagh_Massacre because that is by far the more common name for the incident and this page has been turned into a redirect. Please carry out further discussions in Talk:Jallianwala_Bagh_Massacre. Thank you. Loom91 09:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Frontier

There is clearly enough controversy regarding this article without adding a furher dimension, but why is the Punjab listed under the 'Campaigns of the North-West Frontier'? In the 1840s, the Punjab was the NWF, but in 1901 the NWF Province was hived off, so whilst there might be some debate about the period 1840s-1901, the Punjab was understood at the time not to be part of the Frontier, any more than the UP. There is clearly a place for the article,it was a key touch-paper for nationalism, undoing much of the healing of 1858-1919 and undermining the contribution to the Empire during 1914-1919, in which the Punjab was itself a leading contributor with the provinces of India; but that does not link it to the Frontier campaigns, as post-Independence history shows (ie. the removal of the British did not solve the NWF issues). The link to NWF should be severed. Protozoon (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Old commments

No, there's some false information in this article.

Yes it is deeply slanted and non objective

Page merged

The content of this page has been replaced with the contents of Amritsar_massacre as it contained all the content this article contained but was far better in organization, content and quality. The original page has been turned into a redirect as this is by far the more common name for the incident. Thank you. Loom91 09:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, that cut-and-paste move has left all of the edit history behind. It would have been better to ask for help at WP:RM. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:FAC

From a British perspective, I've never heard it called anything other than the Amritsar massacre; but anyway, what a great article. I'm not sure what the comments above are referring to. Are the authors thinking of taking this to FAC? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Civil Surgeon Dr Smith's count

I hope the recent changes I added haven't changed the meaning of the introduction (below). I was wondering, does anyone know whether Smith's number was with respect to the dead or wounded? I wasn't sure so I left the point ambiguous. Modify 07:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre, also known as the Amritsar massacre, was named after the Jallianwala Bagh (Garden) in Amritsar, where, on 13 April 1919, British Indian Army soldiers opened fire on an unarmed gathering of men, women and children. Official sources place the casualties at 379. According to private sources, the number was over 1000, with more than 1200 wounded [1], and Civil Surgeon Dr Smith indicated that they were over 1800 [2]. The figures were never fully ascertained for political reasons [citation needed].

Smith was referring to 'casualties' NOT fatalities. The British claimed 379 killed and probably 3 times as many wounded which would come to somewhere around 1500 casualties, Smith reckoned 300 more. This would seem to have since been used to claim nearly 2000 killed! .

The article seems to be biased in the favor of the british . The 'the gathering' section in perticular. please check.

British bias? Come now!

THis aicle is propandistic rather than factual in tone. There is bias evident, but it most assuredly is not a British one!

Oh yes?

How do you then explain long long passages with purported "prelude" to the massacre - inflicted upon an annual religious gathering involving women and children as well - linking it with "conspiracies" and "revolutions"? These words are freely used in the opening sections to justify the massacre, when no connection whatsoever ever existed between the gathering and any political activity, leave alone conspiracies and revolutions.

Why this psychological need to justify British paranoia at best and cold-blooded pre-planned butchery at worst? A remnant of the sentiment that led to subsequent hero-worship and indeed, public decoration of the "Butcher of Amritsar" by scores of Brit bodies, perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.201.63 (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Move proposal

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was

Old Requested move

Jallianwala Bagh Massacre → Amritsar Massacre – Article was located at Amritsar Massacre from 2003 until a new user moved it with an awful cut-and-paste job in April 2006. Almost every page that links to Jallianwala Bagh Massacre does so through the redirect at Amritsar Massacre. Google shows 17,000+ hits for "Jallianwala Bagh Massacre" but 44,000+ hits for "Amritsar Massacre", including Encyclopædia Britannica. Clearly this is the most common English usage. Kafziel 16:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as nominator. Kafziel 16:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support as nominated. Mangoe 13:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support I ahve always known it as the Amritsar Massacre. Dabbler 13:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Same here. Septentrionalis 03:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• SupportDitto.--Stonemad GB 22:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not going by the google hits, I think it is widely known in India as Jallianwala Bagh Massacre. - Ganeshk (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Ganeshk. I have always read about this as the "Jalliwanwala Bagh Massacre" in history book
• Oppose In every Indian school books it is mentioned as "Jalliwanwala Bagh Massacre"

• Oppose Per Ganeshk. I have always read about this as the "Jalliwanwala Bagh Massacre" in history books from all over South Asia. --Ragib 05:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I've always known it as the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, everywhere in which I have mentioned it on Wikipedia, I have mentioned it as the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Never heard of it referred to as anything but Amritsar Massacre. Notwithstanding Google hits and whatnot, that is the name used in every book I've ever read. Herostratus 18:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  Make that every western book' you've read? ;) -- Anon 00:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose --
  • Jallianwalla Bagh massacre is what it is know in and taught in India. Just because western references generalize it to the Amritsar massacre does not mean that it is common usage. You're defining common usage to be what is taught in N American and European schools, not what is taught in vernacular schools and English schools in the subcontinent. Wikipedia has an undocumented policy of staying with local preferences, wherein local references are preferred to western documentation (WP:CSB, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)), so in all logic it should be the JWBM. You'd find more references to Calcutta than Kolkata, but that does not mean that just because Calcutta is common usage, it should be preferred to the current official name.
  • The google search results are not the most definitive conclusion since the data present is heavily skewed in favour of publications based in western nations.
  • The cut and paste job was bad, but any admin can merge the page histories. If needed to be I can log in and do it.

Please don't discredit me because I am editing as an anon, I do have a login, but I would be prefer to remain offline. --Anon 12.180.4.162 00:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose --

Maybe, I'm tuning into this debate a bit late - but I oppose it too. Amritsar massacre is not the most commonly used name. Already, on the First Indian War of Independence page, the biased "Rebellion of 1857" is used. Is Wikipedia a mouthpiece for the British POV? Jvalant 06:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion

• Why don't just revert? --Will74205 06:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Establishing a firm consensus for the move rather than acting unilaterally will help prevent others from being successful if they want to move it back. Admins like to see evidence that it was an agreed change. On the other hand its been a week or so now. Dabbler 17:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, it's good that you didn't "just revert". Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I find this one very tricky. Unlike others where there is just a difference between the way it is written in English (like "Wien" vs "Vienna"), here there is additional issue that people from India haven't heard "Amritsar Massacre" before, while people from west haven't heard of "Jallianwala Bagh Massacre" before. I guess this started as the British found it difficult to pronounce as "Jallianwala Bagh Massacre", so historically they named it "Amritsar Massacre" (after the town in which the massacre took place). In case of India, there was no need to look for alternatives, so everywhere it was mentioned by its original name, without any reference to the western way of referring. The west, at the same time, paid no attention to the Indian way. The internet, historically dominated by the west, shows bias towards the west. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This has been known throughout most of the Western world as the Amritsar Massacre for a lot longer than Google has been around. Sure, Google results can be manipulated by marketing plans and linkspam, but I don't think too many people have a financial interest in using Amritsar instead of Jallianwala Bagh. In this case, it's simply an example of common usage. "Google books" and "Google scholar" support those results. I'm not suggesting changing the name on the Kannada Wikipedia, just the English one. You have to consider the audience. Kafziel ^Talk 19:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have read it in "English language" history books and documents published from India and Bangladesh. If you take a count, India has more English language speakers (may not be native, but still people who use English in everyday usage) than, say, Britain or Canada, or USA. I am not saying that "Amritsar Massacre" is a marketing ploy to stuff google rankings, but google doesn't cover all of the web. Even if we do a google search, "Amritsar Massacre" yields 36.2 thousand results. "Jallianwala bagh Massacre" gets 18.5 thousand, but if you consider the spelling variants, the total number goes up to 25 thousand or so. Therefore, it is not a definite tilt towards "Amritsar Massacre". Now, considering the audience, we definitely should go for "Jallianwala Bagh Massacre" (more English speakers in India than UK+Canada combined), and I doubt the US readers care about either name anyway. Thanks. --Ragib 20:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm from the US, and I care. So I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. And this isn't just English we're talking about, anyway. The French, Italian, and German Wikipedias all use Amritsar. I've been involved with other South Asian-related articles in the past, and I always have to chant to myself "there is no cabal, there is no cabal" despite the vote stacking and sock puppetry that tends to run rampant with these things, so believe me when I say I was very hesitant to suggest this move. But Amritsar is the right name, and it's important, and it was improperly moved here without discussion, and clearly I'm not alone in thinking so because the only "oppose" votes came from here. Kafziel ^Talk 20:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

because the only "oppose" votes came from here

And what precisely is wrong with that? If you read what's written here, that was a very straight note on that this move was suggested, without any comment on how people should vote. If you are accusing me or anyone of votestacking or being part of the Cabal, please say it directly rather than making indirect comments. And stick to the subject rather than commenting on imaginary Cabals. Thank you. --Ragib 20:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I said vote stacking is what usually happens in South Asia-related articles, so I was reluctant to open this discussion. But if you're saying that post is vote stacking, I won't argue with you. I think it would be considered vote stacking if I posted a link to this on British military history project or something, because the resulting votes would obviously not be unbiased representatives of the general community. Kafziel ^Talk 21:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I said vote stacking is what usually happens in South Asia-related articles,

I find this comment quite objectionable. If you have specific comments on specific articles, please comment on those, but generalizing a whole region (or articles related to the region) as examples of "vote stacking" is a quite biased attitude. I guess under the same argument, the whole Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting page would be a tool for vote stacking!! --Ragib 21:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with that. It serves to stack votes without the annoying user talk page spam. I don't see any other use for sorting deletion votes by category except to encourage arguments and one-sided discussions. Most editors on AfD participate in a wide variety of discussions. They're neutral, and take each case as it comes and judge it on its own merits. On the other hand, presenting an issue to a Wikiproject almost always precipitates a rush of foot-stomping, defensive voters who are all fired up to defend value X against infidel Y. I'm not saying it only happens with South Asia articles, but it does happen and this is a case in point. I mean, am I wrong? Did you not all vote within minutes of the posting at the project, and within minutes of each other? Did you not all vote exactly the same way? Did any support come from the India project? Not that I see. If I'm wrong, if there's a vote I missed, let me know. It's nothing personal; I've also seen it happen on World of Warcraft articles, U.S. Marine Corps articles, fmr. Yugoslavia articles, Native American articles, and Pokemon articles. I see it more often on Asian articles because I work on more of them, and because I run across more of them on AfD. Kafziel ^Talk 22:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Had I NOT edited this talk page several days ago, before I voted? Do I not have the talk page on my watchlist? Do I control how and when other people votes and how they vote? Nope. FYI, I'm not an Indian, and not part of WikiProject India. I do have the India-related notice board in my watchlist because of a comment posted there to which I was referred to, and replied. But in any case, I have had this talk page in my watchlist since Sep 23. So, I hope you'd stop accusing others of vote stacking etc. You should stick to the arguments on the issue, (which you were doing just fine, before you started seeing "Cabals"). Thank you. --Ragib 22:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I was one who posted it. I found this when I was checking any moves on WP:RM that I can help with. My intention was not to vote-stack or gather cabal. What I did was already in practice. Deletion discussions are regularly posted on sub-page for editors with Indian interest. We do not have a similar mechanism for Moves yet. So had to do that. Please do not resort to accussing others when the discussion is not going your way. - Ganeshk (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

See my reply above. And this wasn't an accusation; it was an observation. You wouldn't be offended if you didn't think there was anything shady about it. Lately people have taken to posting AfDs, move requests, etc on project pages. The results are easy to see, whether it's the India page or the World of Warcraft page. People are members of a given project because they all have similar feelings about the direction those articles should take, so it's no surprise when they all show up en masse and vote the same way. And I wouldn't say the discussion isn't going my way. I made my points before I ever mentioned the "cabal"; the fact that both of you chose to ignore them (because the discussion isn't going your way?) and take what I said out of context doesn't mean I'm accusing anyone of anything. Kafziel ^Talk 21:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I supported the move because that is what I have always heard it called as a native English speaker with some interest in India and its history, though I was aware that the actual site within Amritsar was called something like Jallianwala Bagh, I doubt if I could have spelled it properly. Basically though, redirects are cheap, so people typing in Amritsar Massacre, Amritsar massacre etc. will end up in the right place. However, the person that did the first move did it poorly and left many links to Amritsar Massacre. So why not go in and clean up all the old links and make sure that all possible variants point to the one page. Dabbler 20:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Dabbler, WP:CUTPASTE move can be easily fixed and redirected to the correct article. The discussion is about what the article title should be. - Ganeshk (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

(reply to Dabbler)The point isn't really that it was a cut-and-paste move anyway; the article was moved without consensus in the first place. It should have been moved back to its original location (Amritsar Massacre) without debate and then consensus should try to be reached on moving it here. Kafziel ^Talk 21:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Dabbler said I was aware that the actual site within Amritsar was called something like Jallianwala Bagh, I doubt if I could have spelled it properly, that's exactly why it's not known as the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre in some Western nations. They preferred the simpler term: Amritsar Massacre. But the fact remains that it was originally called the Jallianwala Bagh massacre and in South Asia and to South Asians, is still called the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. Another positive of keeping it here is that more people will come to know the proper term. If they type in Amritsar massacre, it'll redirect to here and then they (regardless of region) will come to know both the Western term and the Indian term. However, perhaps the reason why you think there is a cabal is because if an Indian person would type in Jallianwala Bagh Massacre and see it redirects to Amritsar Massacre, they may just think to themselves "That's not what I've been told the name was", and you may get someone else randomly doing a cut-and-paste move to this page. Thus I oppose to proposed move. The Cabal accusations/observations are baseless, the noticeboard didn't tell us how to vote, it told us to take a look as it relates to the subcontinent. The reason why South Asians here are voting oppose is because that's what we've been told the name was throughout our lives. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 23:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, without discussing any cabals or vote stacking, the fact remains that there are a number of administrators here who know that the right thing to do when a unilateral move is contentious is to put it back where it started and then seek consensus. This discussion shouldn't even need to take place. If I renamed this article "Jallianwala Bagh fusillade" we wouldn't need to wait for a vote to move it back to its proper location. It would simply be put back and I'd be told to seek consensus. That's what should have been done here, and now that there are a number of admins in this discussion, the page should already be back at Amritsar massacre and we should be discussing whether or not to move it to Jallianwala Bagh. Why hasn't that happened? Kafziel ^Talk 00:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't patronise me, Ganeshk, by assuming I don't know what the discussion is about. I know what we were discussing and I was pointing out that it is a fairly pointless discussion, as redirects exist and are cheap. If you cannot understand that, then I suggest you re-read what I wrote as it was quite clear English which is the language used on this Wikipedia version. I would prefer Amritsar Massacre as that is what I have always known it as. However, if both names are in the first sentence and the redirects are in place the actual title name should not be a serious impediment to anyone locating it. The time spent arguing here would be better used in tidying up all the double redirect links that can be found in the "What links here" section. Dabbler 02:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I was not trying to patronise or insult you. I am sorry if you felt so. I voted my preference. Like the Anon says, local preferences are given a priority when naming articles. Chennai and Kolkata instead of Madras and Calcutta as they are known in the West. Anyway, either way is fine with me. - Ganeshk (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a very condescending tone to use Dabbler: I wrote as it was quite clear English which is the lnguage used on this Wikipedia version --Anon 02:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

And it was in response to a remarkably patronising comment about me. I consider that I was quite restrained, especially when I was trying to be conciliatory and not gratuitously insulting as Ganeshk seemed and Anon definitely is. Dabbler 02:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you felt this way but Ganesh had no intentional motives of being patronizing. And now you accuse me of being overtly patronizing, after simply pointing out that your statement was more condescending that what Ganesh had to say? I suggest you please do Assume good faith and stop accusing editors of being patronizing. I'm also curious as to what u meant by 'restrained'? --Anon 04:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well we are discussing the title here, and the point to moot is if the local naming of the event takes preference or the one prevalent in western literature. Mind you, both are in English so the München/Munich case does not really apply here. According to wikipedia standards for articles, spelling and syntax used in the local flavour of English take precendence here. Secondly, I dont see a cabal here. Most of those who are opposing here either are admins, or have at least a featured article to their name... in other words they are experienced wikipedians. I don't think they would stoop to the level of forming a cabal for no rhyme or reason and to protect some narrow interests. The Indian wikipedians have earned plaudits from many in wikipedia for the team work and the number of featured articles, right from the featured article director himself. There have also been disagreements, and have been sorted out in an amicable way. In other words people here do not follow a herd mentality. They do think! --Anon 02:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a category entitled Amritsar_massacre which, I believe, serves little to no purpose. Just to let you know that the category should be renamed based on the results of this debate as well. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 02:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• There is certainly no consensus at the moment for the move, as voiced in the survey and the discussion; by default the article will be kept where it is. I encourage all of you to cool down and realize that we're discussing what to name an article, and that 99% of everything done here can be reversed. Teke ^(talk) 05:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reaction Section

I am referring to this part

Some senior British officers and many civilians in India applauded his suppression of 'another Indian Mutiny'.

Err- where is the source? And who precisely were the Indians? And what exactly is "many"? I shall be removing the section about many civilians in India applauding this incident unless there is some claim to the contrary. Thanks. Jvalant 07:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the reference is to British civilians in India applauding the incident. Dabbler 15:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

further modifications

I have made some changes to this article. Lets try to show the facts rather than putting an ideological slant on things.

1. I have added the buildings that were torched - town hall, banks, telegraph office & a railway good shed. 2. I have added that the railway station was saved by a detachment of Gurkhas. 3. I have put in some details on the Europeans murdered# 4. I have removed the eroneous claim that '300 Indians' were killed in the initial unrest - before the actual massacre. There is absolutely nothing to back this claim up. Initial reports suggested 9 rioters were killed, later figures were between 8 and 20. There were only small numbers of troops in the city at this point. 300 is a ridiculous claim. 5. I have removed the mention of 'men, women and children' - lets just have 'people'. 6. I have removed the claim that people coming into the city were not aware of martial law and the previous rioting and deaths. The whole of the Punjab was suffering unrest, even if this had passed people by then as soon as they had reached the city they would have become aware. The whole city would have been aflame with news and rumour. 7. I have altered the claim that it was purely Gurkhas who commited the massacre. Half of the riflemen were Sikhs. 8. I have removed the claim that it was 'almost certainly much higher' than the official casualty statistics. Nothing almost certain about it. 9. I have added that 1650 rounds were fired. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.203.214.141 (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Material added back which was deleted without explanation. Dabbler 16:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Bias

How is that bias against the British? We come to India and make the indigineous population second class citizens in their own country? Then we call them terrorists for fighting against us, furthermore we denote them as mutineers when they want their freedom? What did you expect to read? How the white man ordered Indian troops to open fire on a crowd of thousands and kill only 10 people? Please try and understand, everywhere the White man, someone is being oppressed. In Indian and non-european text books, it is known as Jalliwanwala massacre not Amritsar. Having come from Egypt, I can certify that it is known as that there too. No one cares that google has only 17k+ hits for it. If you an Indian search engine alone, you will notice that over far many more hits have occured that its White-Man's counter part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.200.46 (talk • contribs)