Amritsar Massacre In British India

MarchDub

http://www.amritsar.com/Jallian%20Wala%20Bagh.shtml

Today - 13th April - is the anniversary of the Amritsar Massacre in Jallianwala Bagh in India in 1919. The figures for how many were killed by the occupational British army are still controversial - from 375 to claims of over 1500.

"The impossible men of India shall rise and liberate their Motherland"

Mahatma Gandhi, after the Amritsar Massacre.

MarchDub

This is the best link that I can find regarding the discussion by Winston Churchill - who was secretary of State for War at the time - in the House of Commons regarding the massacre in India. The date is July 1920.

http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/churchill/am-text.htm

Edit: Found a better link

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1920/jul/08/army-council-and-general-dyer

It includes Edward Carson's remarks on General Dyer and how the situation in India impacts on the Empire and the possible overthrow of British power:

Sir E. CARSON

The hon. Member opposite may be sure he is so beneath contempt that—[Interruption]—I wonder how many Members of this House and of His Majesty's Government are really following out the conspiracy to drive the British out of India and out of Egypt? It is all one conspiracy, it is all engineered in the same way, it all has the same object—to destroy our sea power and drive us out of Asia. I hold in my hand a document which was sent to me by someone in America a few days ago. It goes through the whole of this case in its own peculiar way—this case of the disturbance of the 13th April, in which you are going to punish General Dyer because you were not satisfied that there was a conspiracy to overthrow British power, for that is the finding of the Commission, although I notice that even on that question on which General Dyer had to make up his mind, they are themselves a little uneasy, because they say: "Apart from the existence of any deeply-laid scheme to overthrow the British, a movement which had started in rioting and become a rebellion might have rapidly developed into a revolution."

Because General Dyer thought he ought to prevent it developing into revolution you have now broken him. I have read the article, and I ask my right hon. Friend to look at the document entitled "Invincible England," and see what it says: "There is no idea of putting England out of India, but Asia is waking up. Its participation in the Great War, the grossly immoral tactics used by the great European Powers, and the conquest of Asian territory, the realisation that the revolutionary elements of India, Ireland, Egypt, and other nations have shaken the supposed invulnerability of England, is already morally loosening the hold of Europe on Asia."

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

http://www.amritsar.com/Jallian%20Wala%20Bagh.shtml

Today - 13th April - is the anniversary of the Amritsar Massacre in Jallianwala Bagh in India in 1919. The figures for how many were killed by the occupational British army are still controversial - from 375 to claims of over 1500.

"The impossible men of India shall rise and liberate their Motherland"

Mahatma Gandhi, after the Amritsar Massacre.

Was this the massacre depicted in the film 'Gandhi'?

The link does not give much background information. According to 'Raj' by Laurence James, Dyer was sent in as a result of protests against 2 arrests of prominent locals. The protestors rounded up any Europeans (presumably Brits) they could in a fort in the city. They burned banks and schools and killed 3 european bank officials. The mission teacher referred to was Marcia Sherwood a British doctor who was beaten- it was this that annoyed Dyer. After an unsucccessful attempt to enter the city on the 12th he returned with force the following day and the massacre was the result. Dyer believed that his actions were correct and that he had prevented a large scale uprising in a firm manner and that he had saved the life of 100's of his countrymen.
The attempt at humiliating the natives by making them crawl on the street where the attack on Marcia Sherwood occured was in the time after the shooting when the population had been cowed. Men from the higher castes were whipped on the street in the presence of local prostitutes.

(this is just some background information by the way- its not a justifiable action IMO regardless of the circumstances)

MarchDub

There is a problem finding decent stuff on the web so I have copied out a page from Claude Markovits book "A History fo Modern India" [pub 2002] which gives a fairly full account of the background to the massacre and the reason for the growing anger in mood in India.


The authorities adopted measures that aggravated the prevalent tension. In February-March 1919 the Imperial Legislative Council, basing itself on the conclusions drawn by a committee presided by Judge Rowlett, passed a series of laws, the Rowlett Acts, which aimed at prolonging certain restrictions on fundamental liberties introduced during the war, as they instituted special courts of justice and authorized detention without trial for two years on grounds of ‘subversive’ [which had wide meaning] activities. These unleashed a storm of protests in Indian political circles. Gandhi, who had created a Satyagraha Sabha [Council] in Bombay in February, retaliated by calling a hartal [strike] on 6 April all across the country. He succeeded in enrolling numerous members of the Home Rule League, [which at the time were rapidly disintegrating] as well as several Muslim politicians and religious leaders. The Congress as such did not participate in the movement.

The agitation soon took a very different turn from the one anticipated by Gandhi, particularly in the Punjab, where people had borne the brunt of mass recruitment to the war. Here, after a spate of relatively pacific hartals, on 10 April, a violent confrontation flared up in the Amristar, in the wake of which martial law was proclaimed. All in all the agitation engulfed five districts of the Punjab, traditionally the most loyalist province: Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs joined processions in huge numbers not hesitating to attack emblems of European domination. Though the agitation was confined to the cities, the authorities took fright, and on 13 April ‘to set an example’ General Dyer opened fire on a crowd that had peacefully assembled in Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar. Not less than 379 people were killed, including a number of women and children. In the days that followed, the repression intensified in the Punjab and soon prevailed over this uprising that had taken everyone, particularly Gandhi, by surprise. ..

The repercussions of this event, which came to be called the ‘Amritsar massacre’ was enormous and durable. In a symbolic gesture as a mark of his protest, the great poet Rabindranath Tagore, Nobel Prize winner for literature, relinquished his [British] title of knight. While General Dyer became a sort of hero for the British colonists who thanks him for having prevented a new mutiny thanks to his prompt action, Indian opinion demanded that he be sanctioned. Never had a gulf between the British and Indians been so wide. The enforcement of the Government of India Act in December 1919 hardly seemed destined to restore normalcy.

Fratton Fred

Reginald Dyer was brought up as an elitist product of the Raj. His father owned a brewery and his mother was a real anti Indian social climber.

It would be quite easy to think he was raised to consider Indians as inferior.

Although his family had no links to Ireland, he was educated at Middleton College in cork.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Was this the massacre depicted in the film 'Gandhi'?

Yes it was featured in the film 'Gandhi' - I also remember seeing it described more recently in Michael Wood's TV documentary series 'The Story of India'.

It is sometimes described as the turning point for the British in India - but I am not so sure. I think the timbers were already set up and ready to flame there - this was just the manifestation of how bad things had become. There was enough anger in India already and Gandhi was already on the way with his plans for leading India to independence.

jonniebgood1

Detail of Dyers actions as uncovered by the hunter commission that followed are in this book link pages 36-40 in particular: http://books.google.ie/books?id=yERpZ6s156cC&pg=PA36&dq=Jallianwala+Bagh&hl=en&ei=ib-mTe_2BoeHhQfdsKTFCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=38&f=false

PatsytheNazi

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Was this the massacre depicted in the film 'Gandhi'?

The link does not give much background information. According to 'Raj' by Laurence James, Dyer was sent in as a result of protests against 2 arrests of prominent locals. The protestors rounded up any Europeans (presumably Brits) they could in a fort in the city. They burned banks and schools and killed 3 european bank officials. The mission teacher referred to was Marcia Sherwood a British doctor who was beaten- it was this that annoyed Dyer.

On April 10, 1919, there was a peaceful protest at the residence of the British Deputy Commissioner of Amritsar to demand the release of two local leaders of the Indian Independence Movement. The peaceful protesters were shot at by the British army guard killing several. This set off a chain of rioting where British government buildings etc were attacked.

After an unsucccessful attempt to enter the city on the 12th he returned with force the following day and the massacre was the result. Dyer believed that his actions were correct and that he had prevented a large scale uprising in a firm manner and that he had saved the life of 100's of his countrymen.
The attempt at humiliating the natives by making them crawl on the street where the attack on Marcia Sherwood occured was in the time after the shooting when the population had been cowed. Men from the higher castes were whipped on the street in the presence of local prostitutes.

(this is just some background information by the way- its not a justifiable action IMO regardless of the circumstances)

Not having a go at you personally, but it's written very much from the British perspective, " mass murder for the greater good " etc The shooting of the peaceful protesters at the Deputy Commissioner's residence obviously started the chain of events, doubtless in true British army fashion they just couldn't wait to put the natives in their place. As for the alleged attack on Marcia Sherwood, their never was any evidence of it, while of course the British army had more than it's fair share of rapists who like Dyer were honoured as hero's and jolly little Tommy's.

Dyer was lauded as a 'hero' by some on his return to Britain such as Rudyard Kipling started a fund for Dyer claiming him as "the man who saved India" and contributed 50 pounds sterling, and raised over 26,000 pounds and presented to him on his return to England.

MarchDub

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

It should be pointed out that Dyer was lauded as a 'hero' by some on his return to Britain. Rudyard Kipling started a fund for Dyer claiming him as "the man who saved India" and contributed 50 pounds sterling, and raised over 26,000 pounds and presented to him on his return to England.

Yes, he was given heroic status by many and the debate in the House of Commons that I posted reveals that there was great reluctance to take any real - court - action against him. He was put on half salary but then was recommended for retirement status because as Churchill pointed out that would mean an increase in his income from half pay.

PatsytheNazi

MarchDub wrote: »

Yes, he was given heroic status by many and the debate in the House of Commons that I posted reveals that there was great reluctance to take any real - court - action against him. He was put on half salary but then was recommended for retirement status because as Churchill pointed out that would mean an increase in his income from half pay.

In fairness especially to the Labour Party, many were in Britain were horrified at Dyer's actions - but as usual the Tories were all for it. It should be pointed out that among Dyer's most vocal suporters was a Catholic unionist from Tipperary called Sir Micheal O'Dwyer who was the British Lieutenant-Governor at the time and was believed to be the main planner. O'Dwyer was later assinated by an Indian patriot in London. What goes around comes around.

Fratton Fred

It also highlighted the divisions in the UK as well. Whilst there were those calling him a hero, the labour party passed a motion at its conference condemning the barbarity of the regime in the Punjab and called for not only the prosecution of Dyer, but also the dismissal of Michael O'Dwyer.

Fratton Fred

Me and Patsy thinking alike?

Surely not!

jonniebgood1

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Not having a go at you personally, but it's written very much from the British perspective, " mass murder for the greater good " etc

Hence the qualification at the end of my post. I do agree from reading parts of this book that its author takes a sometimes narrow view. This does allow though for greater understanding of a point of view that I (and you presumably) would not agree with. For example Dyers view that he prevented further loss of life by afirmative action is expressed in the book. It is not a view that I agree with but it is also not possible to dismiss it entirely.

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

As for the alleged attack on Marcia Sherwood, their never was any evidence of it, while of course the British army had more than it's fair share of rapists who like Dyer were honoured as hero's and jolly little Tommy's.

Dyer was lauded as a 'hero' by some on his return to Britain such as Rudyard Kipling started a fund for Dyer claiming him as "the man who saved India" and contributed 50 pounds sterling, and raised over 26,000 pounds and presented to him on his return to England.

Really- There are alot of accounts from both sides that deal with an attack on an English missionary named Sherwood???

Dyer was humiliated by his treatment and up to his death he was obsessed with the perception of him. This is some comfort. He was of course small fry in the overall scheme of the Raj and he would probably plead to be following orders of his superiors.

R.Dub.Fusilier

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

...This set off a chain of rioting where British government buildings etc were attacked...

...Dyer was lauded as a 'hero' by some on his return to Britain such as Rudyard Kipling started a fund for Dyer claiming him as "the man who saved India" and contributed 50 pounds sterling, and raised over 26,000 pounds and presented to him on his return to England.

this reaction was a typical reaction from the British when they wanted to keep the natives in check , use extreme measures and teach them a lesson. they did it after the Easter Rising by killing the leaders and turned the Irish population against them which started a chain reaction that lead to Irish independence.

the British were also worried that the Connaught Rangers mutiny in 1920 was going to start a rebellion among the Indians.

Rudyard Kipling was no friend of the Irish either IMO. he also gave money to help the foundation of the UVF.

jonniebgood1

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

this reaction was a typical reaction from the British when they wanted to keep the natives in check , use extreme measures and teach them a lesson. they did it after the Easter Rising by killing the leaders and turned the Irish population against them which started a chain reaction that lead to Irish independence.
.

There are also marked similarities between amritsar and Bloody Sunday in Croke park.

PatsytheNazi

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Hence the qualification at the end of my post. I do agree from reading parts of this book that its author takes a sometimes narrow view. This does allow though for greater understanding of a point of view that I (and you presumably) would not agree with. For example Dyers view that he prevented further loss of life by afirmative action is expressed in the book. It is not a view that I agree with but it is also not possible to dismiss it entirely.

I don't go for this supposed ' balance' approach to a blatant atrocity. When something is pathetic blatant lies, it shouldn't be given credence.

Really - There are alot of accounts from both sides that deal with an attack on an English missionary named Sherwood???

Dyer was humiliated by his treatment and up to his death he was obsessed with the perception of him. This is some comfort. He was of course small fry in the overall scheme of the Raj and he would probably plead to be following orders of his superiors.

" are alot of accounts from both sides that deal with an attack on an English missionary named Sherwood??? "
Just like the IRA pointed guns at the Brits in Croke Park and in Derry to antagonise the innocent Brits in the murder of innocent people :rolleyes:

jonniebgood1

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

I don't go for this supposed ' balance' approach to a blatant atrocity. When something is pathetic blatant lies, it shouldn't be given credence.

I would differ from you on this then- If on the one hand you say

I don't go for this supposed ' balance'

then you are refusing to consider why the blatant atrocity happened. I would emphasise that there are 2 sides to every argument- If a person cannot accept this (i.e. saying that everything from the opposite side of the argument is "pathetic blatant lies") then it would make peaceful reconciliation impossible. This would be to noones advantage.

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Just like the IRA pointed guns at the Brits in Croke Park and in Derry to antagonise the innocent Brits in the murder of innocent people

I responded to your linking of the 1920's IRA with the 1970's PIRA on a different thread which resulted in it being closed so I won't do it here lest it garner the same action !:)

PatsytheNazi

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I responded to your linking of the 1920's IRA with the 1970's PIRA on a different thread which resulted in it being closed so I won't do it here lest it garner the same action !:)

You were the one respondcible for closing that thread as post#17 shows " *facepalm* Jonnie, don't be inciting people. "

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71504427&postcount=17

And I'd like you to know that it was me who used the report post on post #16 as clearly you were trying to be a comedian out to start a good IRA v bad IRA slanging match

jonniebgood1

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

You were the one respondcible for closing that thread as post#17 shows " *facepalm* Jonnie, don't be inciting people. "

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71504427&postcount=17

And I'd like you to know that it was me who used the report post on post #16 as clearly you were trying to be a comedian out to start a good IRA v bad IRA slanging match

Well if you can't argue your case why do you bring it up again? to report my reply again? .... !!!

This has nothing to do with the Amritsar massacre which would be interesting to look into more of the detail. There is a body of opinion that places much of the blame on higher authorities than the usually blamed Dyer when the wider reaching chain of events is considered:

Revolutionary leader Lala Lajpat Rai, who was then in the United States, came to India in February, 1920 and immediately began to probe into the whole affair.

The Sher-e-Punjab, as Lala Lajpat Rai was popularly known as, issued a 12-point chargesheet against Sir Michael O' Dwyer on September 4, 1920, stating that he was the real villain of the piece.

He charged him specifically ''with being an accessory after the event of Jallianwalla Bagh''.

Lajpat Rai said that by Sir Michael O' Dwyer's unqualified approval of the massacre, he made himself responsible for all the outrages committed by the martial law administration in pursuance of his policy.

To prove that the massacre was one event in the chain of events, Khullar said Sir Michael O' Dwyer masterminded ''the entire blood-bath in Punjab, not only in Amritsar but also in Lahore, Gujranwalla, Kasur and Shaikupura''.

Khullar said days before the incident Sir Michael O' Dwyer had reduced Punjab ''into an enemy territory... Inflicting untold tortures and humiliations on the people.''

From http://www.rediff.com/news/apr/14jallia.htm

PatsytheNazi

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Well if you can't argue your case why do you bring it up again? to report my reply again? .... !!!

I was only replying to your accusations, I report a post when some wannabe comedian is trying to a funny guy and let the mods be the judge of it.

This has nothin
g to do with the Amritsar massacre which would be interesting to look into more of the detail. There is a body of opinion that places much of the blame on higher authorities than the usually blamed Dyer when the wider reaching chain of events is considered:
From http://www.rediff.com/news/apr/14jallia.htm

As pointed out in post #10 " among Dyer's most vocal suporters was a Catholic unionist from Tipperary called Sir Micheal O'Dwyer who was the British Lieutenant-Governor at the time and was believed to be the main planner. "

jonniebgood1

The scene of amritsar from ghandi:

jonniebgood1

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

As pointed out in post #10 " among Dyer's most vocal suporters was a Catholic unionist from Tipperary called Sir Micheal O'Dwyer who was the British Lieutenant-Governor at the time and was believed to be the main planner. "

Do you think that Reginald Dyer was only acting under orders then from higher authority that was enforcing this type of persecution over a wider area. It is possible that he was hung out to dry as a scapegoat for the shootings at Jallianwala Bagh .

MarchDub

One of the problems about trying to make clear judgements - and point fingers at the various personalities responsible is that there is a lack of archival source material. Dyer's wife Annie out of loyalty to her husband destroyed a considerable amount of his personal papers including letters.

The Hunter Committee report nevertheless makes for some horrifying reading. But it is controversial in the sense that many later maintained that Dyer had admitted too much and was 'pressured' into accepting more responsibility that was in fact true. And the transcript reveals much of the 'in your own mind there was a serious threat' line of questions etc. with the further references to the Sepoy Revolt of 1857 as being something that must not be repeated. The Sepoy revolt was widely viewed by the British authorities as a turning point in their hold on India – the natives could actually stage a revolt that spread quickly before it was repressed - and a warning that any revolt must be immediately put down before it gained much momentum.

It also is a fact that Dyer has remained a hero to many in Britain to this day. Here is a quote from The Times book review dated April 24th 2005 on the book The Butcher of Amritsar' :

When the Queen visited India in 1997, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of independence, the Duke of Edinburgh put his foot in it in the customary way. Entering Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar, he saw a plaque that stated, “This ground is hallowed with the mingled blood of about 2,000 innocent Hindus, Sikhs, and Mussulmans who were shot by British bullets on 13 April, 1919.” The duke suggested that the figure was an exaggeration. There were protests in Delhi by Sikh organisations and an official banquet was cancelled.

Now granted the Duke of Edinburgh is a noted idiot but the reviewer, Patrick French suggests that the Duke 'had a point' because 'only' 379 of those shot actually died. He also refers to Dyer as a 'hero' - and then tries to distance him from homeland Britain.

Like many heroes of the British empire, Dyer had almost no experience of Britain. He was brought up in Simla, and his parents were unimaginative white colonials.

Fratton Fred

I've read excerpts from the book and the author is pretty neutral on Dyer, he certainly doesn't make him out to be a hero, at least not in the bits I've read.

If you put the word hero in inverted commas, it changes the context somewhat and it is true, Dyer had very little experience of Britain itself.

Patsy, O'Dwyer wad Irish, no matter how much you avoid saying it.:)

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If you put the word hero in inverted commas, it changes the context somewhat and it is true, Dyer had very little experience of Britain itself.

There are other reasons for putting words into commas other than diminishing or altering the word usage - I put the word in quotes because I meant it to be a direct quote from the review and a reference to the word that the reviewer used.

Edit : Did I misunderstand you? Let me explain - it was the reviewer who used the word 'hero' not the author. I was quoting the reviewer, Patrick French, not the author. And I put the word into quotes to indicate that he had in fact used that word. He had not put it in quotes.
Are we confused enough now?

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

There are other reasons for putting words into commas other than diminishing or altering the word usage - I put the word in quotes because I meant it to be a direct quote from the review and a reference to the word that the reviewer used.

Edit : Did I misunderstand you? Let me explain - it was the reviewer who used the word 'hero' not the author. I was quoting the reviewer, Patrick French, not the author. And I put the word into quotes to indicate that he had in fact used that word. He had not put it in quotes.
Are we confused enough now?

If the reviewer rather than the author used the word hero, it makes perfect sense.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If the reviewer rather than the author used the word hero, it makes perfect sense.

Yes, it was the reviewer's attitude towards the period and the massacre that surprised me. His defence of the Duke's remark on the shootings and his general position towards [his word] 'heroes' such as Dyer. I remember reading the review at the time and though it an anachronism - which was the point I was making about colonial attitudes that have survived into our own time.

PatsytheNazi

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I've read excerpts from the book and the author is pretty neutral on Dyer, he certainly doesn't make him out to be a hero, at least not in the bits I've read.

If you put the word hero in inverted commas, it changes the context somewhat and it is true, Dyer had very little experience of Britain itself.

Patsy, O'Dwyer wad Irish, no matter how much you avoid saying it.:)

As stated he was a Catholic unionist from Tipperary who would have described his nationality as British and whose allegiance was to the British occupation of India, Ireland or anywhere else.

Are you going to tell me he would have been in favour of Tipperary IRA men such as Dan Breen shooting British soldiers :rolleyes:

jonniebgood1

Sorry to go back on the original story again but there is a great overview summary in this regional newspaper article from 2003:

The immediate background to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre was the disappointment of Indians with the colonial government’s failure to introduce democratic reforms after World War I as had been expected. India’s contribution to the war effort had been enormous, providing more soldiers than the combined contribution of all other colonies. More than a million Indians served and fought in various theatres of war. Of these, 450,000 were from the Punjab. In spite of chronic poverty, India contributed £100,000,000 to Britain for the war effort. Additionally the princes and peoples of India contributed £2,100,000 to various charities and war funds. India ended up incurring a debt of £127,800,000 because of the war. The prices of essential commodities rose sharply and the soldiers returning from the war were badly treated by the British officials.

Radicalisation also took place because North American Punjabis known as the Ghadarites attempted to incite an abortive rebellion during 1914-15. The first Lahore Conspiracy trials resulted in severe punishments including hangings and deportations for life for many Ghadarites. The Khilafat Movement was also gaining momentum after the end of the War. Muslim ulema and the Congress leadership worked together, creating a popular Hindu-Muslim-Sikh bhai bhai (brotherly) sentiment.

The government responded by introducing the harsh 1919 Rowlatt Act which severely curtailed civil liberties. The Act granted special powers to the colonial government to suppress dissent, curtailing the right of appeal and enabling a committee not bound by rules of evidence to find individuals guilty of inciting offences against the state. It was in these circumstances that the Indian National Congress launched the anti-Rowlatt Act agitation. By 6 April, the anti-Rowlatt agitation was at its peak in Punjab. The agitations in Lahore were the largest.

On 10 April, two key Punjab Congress leaders, Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew and his colleague Dr Satyapal, were arrested in Amritsar and deported to Kangra Valley. News of Gandhi’s arrest the previous day soon reached Amritsar. Over 15,000 people gathered and demanded to know the whereabouts of Kitchlew and Satyapal. Lawyers Gurdial Salaria and Maqbool Mohammad tried to keep the crowd calm, but the British officials ordered the soldiers to begin shooting. Between 20 and 25 people were killed or injured. Armed with lathis, the enraged crowd turned on the British. Four British residents were killed and two were seriously injured; one, missionary Marcella Sherwood, was left for dead. Government property was also looted.

When Brigadier General Dyer arrived in Amritsar from Jalandhar at 9 pm the next day, his fellow British residents had convinced themselves that 1857 was about to be repeated.

It refers also to the crawling order

Between 19-24 April, Dyer enforced the notorious “crawling order”, forcing all those using the street where Marcella Sherwood was assaulted to pass on all fours, their noses to the ground. In Lahore, college students were ordered to walk up to 20 km in the sun four times a day for roll call before military administrators. At a school in Kasur, the six largest school students were whipped simply for their size. In all 1,229 people, largely urban artisans and youth were convicted of involvement in the uprising. Eighteen people were sentenced to death, 23 were transported for life and 58 were flogged on the orders of the Martial Law Commission.

Let us never forget Jallianwala Bagh.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_13-4-2003_pg3_2