Talk:Jallianwala Bagh massacre/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Date

message: >>>>>>>>> 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)
thread_title: Top

message: 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)
thread_title:  Was there a warning? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  astute 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  ATTENTION:Page merged 

message: 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)
thread_title: Frontier

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Page merged 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[WP:FAC]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oh yes? 

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support as nominator. Kafziel 16:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Survey

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Material added back which was deleted without explanation. Dabbler 16:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  further modifications