The principle which has consistently governed the policy of His Majesty’s Government in directing the methods to be employed, when military action in support of civil authority is required, may be broadly stated as using the minimum force necessary.  His Majesty’s Government are determined that this principle shall remain the primary factor of policy whenever circumstances unfortunately necessitate the suppression of civil disorder by military force within the British Empire.

     It must regretfully but without possibility of doubt be concluded
     that Brigadier-General Dyer’s action at Jallianwala Bagh was in
     complete violation of this principle.

The despatch proceeded to take into account the provocation offered and the great difficulties of the position in which General Dyer was placed.  His omission to give warning before opening fire was nevertheless declared to have been “inexcusable,” his failure to see that some attempt was made to give medical assistance to the dying and the wounded an “omission from his obvious duty,” and the “crawling order” issued by him six days later “an offence against every canon of civilised government.”

Upon a military commander administering martial law in a hostile country there lies a grave responsibility; when he is compelled to exercise this responsibility over a population which owes allegiance and looks for protection to the Government which he himself is serving, this burden is immeasurably enhanced.  It would prejudice the public safety, with the preservation of which he is charged, to fetter his free judgment or action either by the prescription of rigid rules before the event or by over-censorious criticism when the crisis is past.  A situation which is essentially military must be dealt with in the light of military considerations which postulate breadth of view and due appreciation of all the possible contingencies.  There are certain standards of conduct which no civilised Government can with impunity neglect and which His Majesty’s Government are determined to uphold....  That Brigadier-General Dyer displayed honesty of purpose and unflinching adherence to his conception of his duty cannot for a moment be questioned.  But his conception of his duty in the circumstances in which he was placed was so fundamentally at variance with that which His Majesty’s Government have a right to expect from and a duty to enforce upon officers who hold His Majesty’s commission that it is impossible to regard him as fitted to remain entrusted with the responsibilities which his rank and position impose upon him.  You have reported to me that the Commander-in-Chief has directed Brigadier-General Dyer to resign his appointment as Brigade Commander, and has informed him that he would receive no further employment in India and that you have concurred.  I approve the decision and the circumstances of the case have been referred to the Army Council.

With regard to the administration of martial law the despatch considers it