[Reader-list] A lesson in history

[Kanti Kumar]

Dear Friends,

Here is a mail from a friend of mine that I should share with you all.
Thought it would add to discussion on this forum.

Thanks.

Kanti Kumar


A Lesson in History

By Ajit Sahi

My mother once asked me - why is Indian history so bitter towards the
British Raj when the English have given us so much, whereas it doesn't
feel
insulted by the centuries of Muslim rule that was so virulently
>anti-Hindu?
>
My mother is an innocent layperson but I have heard even historians
make the
same comment. Obviously, such a line of thinking is influenced by a
very
systematic campaign by the Hindu rightwing to fudge history - but to
expose
that calumny is not the purpose of this mail.

Today is April 13, 2002, the anniversary of the dastardly attack by
General
Dyer on the Jallianwalla Bagh in 1919 that epitomised the British
attitude
towards its slave that was India.

The way the British killed Indians that day at Amritsar - and repeated
such
acts throughout their rule before and afterwards - no Muslim ruler EVER
treated the people of this land.

The following extract answers why Indian history needs to remember
British
rule as one of the darkest period in the existence of this country:

EXCERPTED FROM Michael Edwardes' "British India 1172 to 1947":

In 1919, serious rioting broke out in the Punjab. At Amritsar on 10
April,
two nationalist leaders were arrested and deported. A large crowd
attempted
to enter the European cantonment. They were turned away and began
rioting in
the city. Order was restored by the military, under one General Dyer,
and
all public meetings and assemblies were declared illegal. Nevertheless,
on
13 April a meeting gathered in a large, enclosed space known as the
Jallianwalla Bagh. When he heard of this, General Dyer went personally
to
the spot with ninety Gurkhas and Baluchi soldiers and two armoured cars
with
which he blocked the only exit. Then, without warning, he ordered his
men to
open fire on the densely packed crowd. On his own admission, they fired
1,605 rounds before he withdrew, ordering the armoured cars to remain
and
prevent anyone from entering or leaving the Bagh. Official figures gave
379
dead and 1,200 wounded. Dyer's action was approved by the provincial
government.

The following day, a mob rioting and burning at another spot was bombed
and
machine-gunned from the air. On 15 April martial law was declared and
not
lifted until 9 June. During this period, Indians were forced to crawl
on all
fours past the spot where a woman missionary had been attacked, and,
according to the report of the Hunter commission which enquired into
the
disturbances, public floggings were ordered for such offences as 'the
contravention of the curfew order, failure to salaam to a commissioned
officer, for disrespect to a European, for taking a commandeered car
without
leave, or refusal to sell milk, and for similar contraventions'.

The Hunter commission of enquiry was set up in October 1919 with four
British and four Indian members. Three of the British were members of
the
civil service, and the Indians were men of moderate opinion. All
criticised
the actions of General Dyer - but in such mild phrases as 'unfortunate'
and
'injudicious'. The Indian belief that the old repressive attitude was
being
revived was reinforced by General Dyer's own testimony to the
commission,
for he made it clear that he had gone down to the Jallianwalla Bagh
with the
intention of setting a ferocious example to the rest of India. 'I
fired,' he
said, 'and continued to fire
until the crowd dispersed, and I consider this is the least amount of
firing
which would produce the necessary moral and widespread effect it was my
duty
to produce if I was to justify my action. If more troops had been at
hand,
the casualties would have been greater in proportion. It was no longer
a
question of merely dispersing the crowd, but one of producing a
sufficient
moral effect from a military point of view not only on those who were
present, but more especially throughout the Punjab'.

Though the government of India vehemently dissociated itself from such
a
policy of intimidation, Dyer was expressing the general attitude of
many of
the civil and military in India. Dyer was removed from his command, but
his
actions (and presumably his motives) were supported by a large section
of
the British press as well as by members of parliament and others. A sum
of
26,000 pounds was subscribed as a testimonial for this gallant British
soldier.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.343 / Virus Database: 190 - Release Date: 3/22/02