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.

SOME DOUBTS