THE following report appears in the Daily Telegraph of the appeal to the Privy Council of Mr. Kalinath Ray which came on for hearing on August 1:--Before Viscount Haldane and Lords Dunedin, Atkinson and Sumner, in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Kalinath Ray, the editor of The Tribune, of Lahore, petitioned for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Martial Law Commission convicting him of sedition, and sentencing him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 1,000 or, in default, six months’ additional imprisonment. Mr. B. Dube (instructed by Mr. H.S.L. Polek) appeared for the editor: Mr. Kenworthy Brown (instructed by the Solicitor to the India Office) for the Indian Government. A week before the Judicial Committee granted special leave to appeal to several persons who were arrested after the serious riots in April at Amritsar in the Punjab and sentenced some to death and others to long terms of penal servitude. The present petition recited the same objections to the special legal procedure instituted by Indian Government to deal with these matters. Kalinath Ray was accused of having between the 3rd and 11th April published false reports which he had no reasonable ground to believe to be true and which were likely to cause fear and alarm to the public, and promote feelings of enmity and hatred among His Majesty’s subjects. He pleaded “not guilty.” By an Ordinance promulgated on the 14th April, the Governor General of India created special commissions for the trial of seditious offences. That Ordinance came into operation at midnight on the 15th April. By a further Ordinance retrospective action was given to the former Ordinance, so that it included offences on and after the 31st March.
https://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/news/this-day-that-year/general-dyer-before-the-enquiry-committee/863232.htmlThe Mass murderer Dyer speaks
THE whole of the morning session on Wednesday was taken up by the Disorders Enquiry Committee in examining General Dyer, Martial Law Administrator at Amritsar during the recent disturbances. The Hall was very crowded and the number of European ladies attending the sittings had considerably increased. In fact the two front benches were almost wholly occupied by them. General Dyer was examined at very great length by Lord Hunter. He began by saying that he was stationed at Jullundur as Officer Commanding the 48th Brigade. He arrived at Amritsar at about 9 o’clock in the evening on the 11th and took over the charge of administering the city from Mr. Miles Irving, Deputy Commissioner. Witness deposed to having found on his arrival the attitude of the Amritsar people to be very hostile. He issued certain orders which he believed were issued through the police. He could not say whether proper steps were taken to have his order made known to the people. Coming to the proclamation prohibiting meeting on the 13th April, he said it took him several hours to promulgate it. He believed that the proclamation was properly read. He remembered having gone to a good many places, but as he did not know Amritsar well he could not say whether he went to all important places in the city. Asked by Lord Hunter if he would fire on a crowd gathered at a meeting without warning, witness replied that it depended upon circumstances. He stated that he was at the city when the news about a meeting at the Jallianwala Bagh was brought to him. It was about half-past one or a little earlier. Questioned as to why he did not take measures to prevent men from assembling at the Bagh, he said he had no time to do so, as he had to organise his forces, think out his plans and make up his mind, and moreover, he did not believe that people would really hold a meeting after his orders.
Why Dyer did not prevent the meeting
LAHORE, SUNDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1919
AS regards the first of these questions, which was definitely put to him both by the President and by Mr. Justice Rankin, General Dyer’s reply was that he thought he had done enough in warning them not to meet, and if they wanted to meet after that, his business was not to prevent them from meeting, but to disperse them by force. Is this a plea that can stand a moment’s examination? If it is your duty to warn people, not meet, why is it not equally your duty to go further, if you can, and see that they do not meet, especially if you get quite timely notice, as the General did get in this case, of their intention to meet? We know that when it came to shooting, the General never said to himself “thus far and no further”. That the warning already given by him was not enough, the General himself had to admit, when he was shown the map of Amritsar which made it perfectly clear even to that there were many places where his proclamation had not been read at all. Why did it not strike him at the time? To say that he did not know Amritsar well, was no justification, though it might be a slightly mitigating circumstance. It was clearly his business to know, or to have someone with him who knew. Why did he not consult the Deputy Commissioner? In reply to a question by Lord Hunter, he said that, as far as he remembered, he had consulted the Deputy Commissioner on all occasions. Had he consulted him on this, the most important of all occasions? We know that he described the shooting at Jallianwala Bagh as “a merciful act”, because it prevented further bloodshed. Should it not have struck him that any step that he might take to prevent the meeting would be a still more merciful act, because it would in all probability prevent all bloodshed, at any rate, bloodshed on the profuse scale on which it did take place in this case?
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/spectrum/memories-of-a-mentor-retold/870610.html
No comments:
Post a Comment