Talk:Reginald Dyer

Dyer is a hero of the UK?

Hello everyone. I am a diehard fan of Reginald Dyer and his actions in Punjab, in fact, I think they were justified in every single way possible. His great granddaughter Caroline Dyer believes that the crowd attempted to attack the Brigadier General , and he only acted swiftly.

I suggest that this article be changed into one hailing Dyer for his heroic actions in eliminating the threat of evil people raping the history of the British Empire, its women and men.

Thank you, God bless Reginald Dyer. Hero of the United Kingdom and India by extension.

Mental state of Dyer

Dear all, I am very curious what grave events happened to general Dyer, what part of his personal history could contribute to his decisions on the massacre day.

I see two possible factors.

1) His wife died on 1919. When and why exactly? It turns out she lived longer than he did. The 1909-19 caption in the description is confusing. I will change it to 1909-1938+ if you don't mind. 1938 date comes from page 511 in The Butcher of Amritsar book.

2) He just finished participating in the first world war. Did he witness or participate in massive massacres before?

This TimesHigherEducation link provides some answers to your questions

...it showed how Dyer approached a complex political problem: his one thought was to have order; his one tool to get it was the gun... ...At the time of the Amritsar massacre, Dyer was racked by ill-health and separated from his beloved family. Perhaps this encouraged his extreme view that the Punjab was on the brink of rebellion, the empire about to collapse. It was a return to the dark days of 1857 when Indian troops had mutinied and British women were raped and murdered. The solution, he decided, was not just to restore order but to show that the state was in charge. It was not enough to have shops and businesses reopen in Amritsar - an example was needed of the consequences of insubordination.

fyi, The quote above is from Nigel Collett's bio-book on Dyer The Butcher of Amritsar J mareeswaran (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding his service in the First World War, General Dyer was in command of the Seistan Force which was sent to prevent German infiltration from Persia into Afghanistan. The Wkipedia article says he was involved in punishing recalcitrant tribes, but as regards committing or viewing atrocities it says no more than that he seized their flocks.

Regarding his state of mind at the Jallianwala Bagh, I mentioned the "moral effect" which he told the Hunter Commission he was trying to produce on the population of the province by inflicting as many casualties as possible. I surmised that by this he meant what translators of Clausewitz call "morale," which is as important among civilians as soldiers, but my entry was repeatedly reverted by a deletionist administrator, who made blood-curdling threats. NRPanikker (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

Murree, the birthplace of General Dyer, is now in Pakistan. I think that should be mentioned in the article.

Brigadier-General?

I believe the rank in the British Army is simply "brigadier," not "brigadier-general."

You are correct that today the British Army has the rank "Brigadier". However back in 1919 the British army had the rank "Brigadier General" which is still used by the US Army for this rank. See this extract from Wikipedia - British Army Officer Insignia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_officer_rank_insignia:

Brigadier-Generals wore a crossed sword and baton symbol on its own. In 1922 the rank was replaced with Colonel-Commandant, a title that reflected the role more accurately, but which many considered to be inappropriate in a British context. From 1928 the latter was replaced with the rank of Brigadier with the rank insignia used to this day. --Rameses 03:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What should we call the man? Bear in mind that Brigadier-Generals were abolished after WWI in the British Army, but not the Indian Army. The National Army Museum's article about him (see link on the main page) calls him "Brigadier-General." During the debate about his actions held in the House of Commons on 8th July 1920 (see link in main article) he was called "General Dyer" by most of the members, including the Secretary of State for India and the Secretary of State for War (Winston Churchill) except for one retired lieutenant-general who insisted on the formulation of "Colonel (temporary Brigadier-General)." Naturally our WikiObsessives have gone for "Colonel Dyer." NRPanikker (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

POV check

It is understandable that people are thoroughly angry with the actions of Reginald Dyer. He did, after all, order the massacre of unarmed civilians. However, the recent history of this article has involved numerous violations of WP:NPOV. In order for Wikipedia to work, it must be fair and neutral in dealing with all subjects, including those who committed atrocities. This doesn't mean that the article has to in any way deny what Dyer did. (The Adolf Hitler article spends a long time talking about the Holocaust.) However, the article cannot take positions on his actions. It can't say that his actions were "abominable" (even though they were, in my opinion) nor can it call him a "butcher," as that is a loaded word. Hence, I've nominated this article to be checked for its POV. --Hnsampat 22:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's good to see Category:Terrorists gone for good at least, but I do not think that Category:Mass_Murderers is appropriate either. If we go that way, we'll have to put pretty much every historical leader as well as a lot of other notable people into that category. So far we've already got Christopher Columbus there, who next, Alexander the Great? Genghis Khan? George W. Bush? -- int19h 06:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also ask to not remove the POV-Check tag please. It is there for a reason, and for as long as the dispute is not resolved, it should remain in place. It is not meant to be removed by a single editor just because he thinks the issues raised are not valid. Furthermore, it is not even stating that the article is non-NPOV, it is merely an invitation for all WP editors to check the neutrality of the article. Why is that a problem? -- int19h 06:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

MASS MURDERERS

Mass murder (massacre) is the act of murdering a large number of people, typically at the same time, or over a relatively short period of time. Mass murder may be committed by individuals or organizations.

Although some consider that "genocide" may exist where there is merely an intention or plan to exterminate a particular group (whether it is so-called inflamamble or else a non-inflammable material), and that killing is not a necessary condition, by contrast "mass murder" involves the actual killing of a large number of people.

General Dyer, as a Government representative, had acted ultravires and had committed murderous frenzy on a peaceful civilians who were gathered at Jallianwala Bag simply to protest against the Governments ultravires actions. Moreover, General Dyre is reported to have used very threatening and terrorising language to terrorise/force the people to toe his line or else face further mass-killings from him (sic).

His actions were universally condemned, not even by the world in general but even by his own people in England, as ultravires.

Therefore, all of the following categories are appropriate for this State officer condemned for his unconstitional actions. It does not matter if it's Wikipedia or any other media, the facts must be adhered to and the world informed of.

Political repression

Terrorism

State terrorism

State terrorists

Mass murderers

Sze cavalry01 02:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The area was at the time under martial law and after ordering the crowd to disperse - in effect reading them the riot act - which they did not do, Dyer then ordered his men to open fire. This is exactly what would have been done in the UK under the same circumstances. The 'massacre' could have been avoided if the pilgrims had just obeyed his lawful orders. They could have retuned later, after martial law had been lifted, if desired.

Dyer was there to represent the lawful authority of the Indian Government and as such his orders were to be obeyed, not ignored.

BTW, the pilgrims were mostly Sikhs, and as-such they were armed - every Sikh traditionally carries a ceremonial but still-lethal dagger. Thus Dyer was facing a potential riot by numerous armed men. That's why he ordered his men - rightly or wrongly - to open fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.190 (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Factual versus neutral

There's a difference between something being factual and being neutral. I'm not at all disputing the facts presented in this article. (Others may dispute them, but I don't want to get into any debate about the facts themselves.) However, neutrality is about the WAY in which those facts are presented.

Let me give you an example.

Facts:

• Dyer ordered his troops to fire on the crowd in Jallianwala Bagh.
• The crowd was unarmed and non-violent.
• Women and children were present in the crowd.
• Dyer offered no warning and no opportunity to escape.

Now, here's a sentence that, while based on the facts, is also far from being neutral (note: the sentences in this article are not this explicitly NPOV, but I'm trying to prove a point): "The bloodthirsty butcher General Dyer abominably ordered his troops to fire on the peaceful, innocent crowd. He had trapped them in the garden by blocking the entrances and then, without warning, ordered the slaughter of the crowd, including the heinous murder of little children."

Here's a more neutral version of the same facts: "All exits to the garden were blocked, either because the gates were locked or because Dyer's troops had blocked them. After that, Dyer ordered his troops to fire into the crowd, which included women and children. The members of the crowd were unarmed and had gathered for a peaceful protest. Even as the crowd attempted to disperse, Dyer ordered his troops to keep firing."

You see my point? The first sentence injects the author's point of view into the description of the facts (i.e. the author feels that the actions were "abominable" etc.) The second, more neutral version just states the facts as they are, without including any qualifiers. That's what neutrality is all about.

Now, on a side note, why can't we include Dyer in the categories of "Mass murderers" and "Terrorists"? Because the rules for those categories say that we can't. If you don't like those rules, you can discuss it on the talk pages for those categories and try to get the rules changed. However, right now, the rules say we can't do this. Just because you disagree with the rules doesn't mean you can break them. --Hnsampat 18:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What more, "State terrorism" category is a subcat of "Terrorism". So the guy should go into one or the other, but not both. Since what this article describes is clearly state terrorism, that's where he should be. "Political repression" is also fitting. But the rest should go, as per their descriptions. -- int19h 07:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"Universally condemned"

As far as I know, Dyer received a hero's welcome upon his return to England. I personally think that that is despicable, but if that did indeed happen, then it is incorrect to say that his actions were "universally condemned." As a matter of fact, the article states that Michael O'Dwyer endorsed Dyer's actions. And if O'Dwyer did so, wouldn't there be others in the British government who endorsed and/or failed to condemn the massacre? --Hnsampat 07:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Unverified information

First of all, it's categorically against Wikipedia policy to assume that everything in this article is verified. (Please see Wikipedia: Verifiability.) The policy is that everything is questionable until it has been verified, not the other way around. Verifying the information is also the responsibility of the person who adds the information, not of the person who questions it. (In other words, I don't have to prove that something is true.)

Still, since somebody asked, I'll list some of the main points that I feel are not verified (this list is not comprehensive; these are just some of the big ones):

• Dyer's testimony claiming that he offered no warning needs to be citied
• The sentence about Dyer showing no remorse needs to be cited. (Also, it needs to be made NPOV)
• What is the "Home Political"? I did a Google search on it and I can't find it anywhere. What kind of source is it? Is it reputable?
• The "threatening language" stuff needs to be verified.
• I need a source on Dyer receiving 18,000 pounds sterling upon his return to England.
• Michael O'Dwyer's role in the massacre needs to be verified with independent sources.

When finding sources for this, they need to be UNBIASED and CREDIBLE.

Finally, please stop repeatedly removing the POV and fact-check tags. By having those tags there, we're not saying that this article is biased or that it isn't accurate. We're saying that somebody disputes the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article. Can't we at least agree that some people say this article is neutral and that others say it is not? Can't we at least agree that there is a disagreement or a dispute about whether this article is neutral or not? Just because one person thinks the article is neutral or biased doesn't make it neutral or biased. --Hnsampat 15:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Is there a reputable published source you can cite denying Dyer testified that he offered no warning?
• What source disputes Dyer showed no remorse? Also when the source says "shows no remorse" non neutral would be to rewrite it as "was remorseless".
• Your incompetence in search is irrelevant. Is there a reliable source denying the existence or reputation of "Home Political"?
• What source disputes he used "threatening language"?
• Your needs are irrelevant. What source denies Dyer received 18,000 pounds sterling upon his return to England?

98.164.71.229 (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

These Guys were not Saints: Drama at Jallianwala

Of course they were not. But it is facts we need in Wikipedia, not judgements. "1000 people killed" is an objective fact, "horrible barbarous atrocity" is a subjective judgement. Provide the former, and let the people make the latter for themselves. -- int19h 06:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Stage Managing the Show. Pre-Massacre timeline

There had been peaceful demonstration against the Rowllat Act whom the Indians leaders including Mahatama Gandhi, Jawahar Lal Negru termed as Black Act. The people of Punjab followed the advice of their leaders and staged peaceful demonstrations urging the Government to take the black/draconian law back. As a sequence to it, there was a peaceful procession on the day of Ram Naumi (April 9, 1910), a Hindu Religious festival, in which the Sikhs and Muslims also participated along with the Hindus in Amritsar. The British Government, whose policy was to Divide and Rule, saw in it the grave seeds for India’s independence from the English yoke. The procession was unprecedented and exemplary and it passed off without even a slightest untoward incidence or provocation to the Government, which fact should have been greatly admired by any Civilized Government and Society. The Government machinery, however, was greatly discomfitted at the success of the procession and decided to arrest the leaders of the peaceful procession, Dr Satpal and Dr Kichlew. The orders of arrest were issued on the evening of April 9, and were implemented on early April 10. The People felt as if cheated. They resented the arrests of their beloved leaders and took out another peaceful procession on April 10 through Amritsar main streets to the residence of Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, inorder to press for immediate release of their leaders. The peaceful procession was fired upon at Railway Carriage Bridge when it insisted to proceed to Deputy Commissioner's residence to discuss the matter with him. This firing resulted in deaths of 20-25 innocent persons and wounding many more which occured in the very front and close to Deputy Commissioner's residence. The crowd fell back and dispersed, but later-on, some infilterators/hooligans (government sponsored as the later investigations indicate) are said to have infilterated the processionists. When the those wounded in the firing were brought to the Hospital for medical aid, one nurse by the name Miss Easden, is reported to have sarcastically laughed on the processionists and made cutting remarks reportedly saying that the Hindus and Muslims have got what they deserved. This irresponsible remark by an English official added aspark and infuriated some of the peaceful and aggrieved processionists, some of whom then charged at her but Miss Easden was immediately removed and concealed somewhere by Hospital authorities to protect her from the wrath of the processionists (See: Report of Commissioners,Vol I, II, Bombay, 1920, Reprint New Delhi, 1976, p 48). Thereafter, in the afternnon, there followed some incidences of rampaging of the Alliance Bank, Chartered Bank and also of looting at the National Banks godowns at Amritsar, as also an attack by some hooligans on Miss Sherwood, a school teacher (Christian) while she was going on her bicycle, but she was rather fortunately rescued by the father of one of Miss Sherwood’s Indian students. The after-investigations however revealed that some Policemen had been apprehended and bank loot was recovered from them (See: Report of Commissioners,Vol I, II, Bombay, 1920, Reprint New Delhi, 1976, p 49). This revelation led to public suspicion that the show of violence/arsonage/loot prior to actual Jallianwala Massacre may have actually been statge-managed by the Government Machinery itself to prepare a ground for final and decisive show. Obviously, the government here was following a Machiavelian or Kautiyian policy to first flare up and ten control the situation by drastic repressive measures.

In the very close of Deputy Commissioner's residence, a firing was resorted to on the peaceful procession and 20-25 civilians were killed as a result. In the whole episode, 5 English employees were also killed during the loot/rampage that ensued after this firing in the afternoon when some hooligans had also infilterated the processionists. This all happened on April 10, 1919 (See: Report of Commissioners,Vol I, II, Bombay, 1920, Reprint New Delhi, 1976, p49).

Reaction of British Civil Servants to above incident

The killing of 5 Englishmen, an attack on Miss Sherwood (who was rescued by an Indian however), and the intended attack on Miss Eaden (who made sarcastic remarks to the processinists)...these three incidences, more than anything else, made the British Government Officers in Punjab very much enraged and infuriated. Mr Symour, a responsible ICS Civil Servant, is reported to have openly shouted: “ For a Single European's life, a thousand Indians would be killed…”. (See: Report of Commissioners,Vol I, II, Bombay, 1920, Reprint New Delhi, 1976, p 7). Another one of the high Civil Servants suggested indiscriminate Bombing of Amritsar ( including religious temple), but Lala Dholan Das informed the State British Machinery that if any part of Golden Temple was touched or damaged, there would be no end to trouble as the Golden Temple was held sacred all over the Punjab (See: Report of Commissioners,Vol I, II, Bombay, 1920, Reprint New Delhi, 1976, p 7, 19).

Other evidence indicate that, actual plans were indeed drawn to bombard the Amritsar City by Dyer’s orders, as per information furnished by statement of Col Dr Smith (op cit p 56).

General Dyer’s main anger on deaths of 5 Englismen and beating of Miss Sherwood

The Infuriated General, Mr Dyer is stated to have openly remarked to the the delegation of respectable citizens of Amritsar that “you have committed a bad act of killing Englishmen. The revenge will be taken upon you and your children (See: Report of Commissioners,Vol I, II, Bombay, 1920, Reprint New Delhi, 1976, p 60). Stated Dyer to the Inquiry court: “I felt our women have been beaten. We look upon our women as sacred. I searched my brain for a suitable punishment for the awful cases. I did not know how to meet it out . …I went down at the place where Miss Sherwwod was attacked. I ordered a Triangle to be erescted there. I felt the 10th Street out to be looked upon as sacred; therefore I posted pickets at both ends of the street and told them that no Indian be allowed to pass along here. If they must, they must go on all fours i.e by crawling on belly” (A Saga of Freedom Movement and Jallianwala Bagh, Udham Singh, 2002, p 150; Report of Commisioners, p 60; Disorder Enquiry Committee Repoert, Vol II, pp 203-205).

Numerous innocent and respectable/elite citizens, Government officials, religious persons and children, women and students were made to crwal on bellies, were made to slaam the Englishman of any standing and enforced the imposition of public floggings/strippings by the orders of General Dyer. Numerous dignitaries were made to crawl, and were meted flogging and forced to slaam (salute) the Europeans against their will. Ninety respected Atorneys/Lawyers of the City were forced to work as coolis to the Englishmen (Report of Commisioners, pp 117-118; A Saga of Freedom Movement and Jallianwala Bagh, Udham Singh, 2002, p 150-154, Prof (Dr) Sikander Singh)

On Inhuman Crawling, Slaaming and flogging/Stripping

The Saga of heart rending oppression following the Jallianwala massacre did not end here. Dehumanising punishments like humilating Crawling, flogging/Stripping and Slaaming were imposed on the Indians irrespective of their fault simply to downgrade their morale and to humilate their dignity and self-respect. It was actually aimed at teaching the Indian population a lession (Disorder Inquiry Committee Report Vol II, Reprint Delhi, 1976, p 198). All bicycles and electric fans (it was hot summer in Punjab) were taken into possession by force. Electric connections all over the City were cut off and water supply stopped. Restrictions on travelling by Railways imposed (op cit., p 207). The Shopkeepers were forced to open shops against their will and sell their commodities at prices determined by the authorities against severe penalities. Triangles were put up at several different places (Disorder Inquiry Committee, New Delhi, 1976, p 231-32). The notorious order to crawl on the bellies had been passed and enforced(ibid., p 203-204). Order was also issued and enforced to slaam Europeans (civil or military officials). In one case all students were punished when two students failed to slaam an Englishman (Ibid p 206, 208). Six boys were flogged since they happened to be fatter (and could not crawl). Lambardars were flogged and fined (Ibid, p 199). Exhibtions of martial law notices were pasted on the walls and owners of the properties were ordered to protect the notices from being defaced otr torn away failing which severe punishment was imposed. One notice stuck to the Sanatam Dharam College which was subsequently torn by somebody. Thereupon, Col Johnson punished the professors and students of the college and interned them for 30 hours (Ibid, p 199). A principal of another college was also punished (Ibid, p 200). The students were roll-called four times a day. 1000 students were made to walk 16miles a day in the heat of May for many days (Ibid 201).

FOR FULLER TREATMENT OF THE HUMILATIONS, MISTREATMENTS, FLOGGING, CRAWLING, and FORCED SLAAMING FOLLOWING THE MARTIAL LAW AT AMRITSAR, see Report of Commissioners and the Disorder Inquiry Committee report as referenced above. (Also ref: Udham Singh, 2002, p 150-154, Prof (Dr) Sikander Singh)

A day following the Amritsar Massacre

Threatening statement of Commissioner of Lahore to the Local Residents (April 14, 1919)

On April 14, at 2 PM, the Commissioner of Lahore had made the following statement to the local citizens of Amritsar: “Do you people want peace or war? We are prepared for either. The Government is all powerful. Sarkar has conquered Germany and is capable of doing everything. The General will give you orders today. The City is in his possession now. I can do nothing. You will have to obey his orders” (See: Report of Commissioners,Vol I, II, Bombay, 1920, Reprint New Delhi, 1976, p 11).

Terrorising Statement of General Dyer to the Local Citizen's Delegation (April 14, 1919)

“You people know well that I am a Sepoy and soldier. Do you want war or peace?. If you wish for a war, the Government is prepared for it, and if you want peace, then obey my orders and open all your shops; else I will shoot. For me the battle-field of France or Amritsar is the same. I am a military man and I will go straight. Neither shall I move to the right nor to the left. Speak up, if you want war? In case there is to be peace, my order is to open all shops at once. You people talk against the Government and persons educated in Germany and Bengal talk sedition. I shall report all these. Obey my orders. I do not wish to have anything else. I have served in the military for over 30 years. I understand the Indian Sepoy and Sikh people very well. You will have to obey my orders and observe peace. Otherwise the shops will be opened by force and Rifles. You will have to report to me of the Badmash. I will shoot them. Obey my orders and open shops. Speak up if you want war? You have committed a a bad act in killing the English. The revenge will be taken upon you and upon your children” (See: Report of Commissioners,Vol I, II, Bombay, 1920, Reprint New Delhi, 1976, p 11)

Public Gallows and Air-Shelling

• Gallows wer erected in Public places in Kasur. They were put as nearer as possible to the scene of mob-outrage. This was done apparently on orders of Sir Michael O'Dwyer (Report of Commissioners, Bombay 1920, Reprint New Delhi, 1976, p 101).
• An armoured train equiped with Machine-guns and search-lights, under charge of a British officers with British soldiers, was despatched from Lahore to Sheikhupura. It opened fire and killed many people (Disorder Inquiry Committe Report, Vol II, p 214).
• On April 14, four Airoplanes from Lahore were flown to Gujranwala. They air-dropped bombs and fired machine guns on the people resulting in many casuilities (Disorder Inquiry Committe Report, Vol II, p 214

Whole Idea was to strike terror and teach Indians a lesson they shall never foget

New researches from classified files by distinguished researchers reveal that the Amritsar Massacre was actually stage-managed with Punjab Governor's full connivance and involvement "to teach the Indian population a lesson, to make a wide impression and to strike terror through-out Punjab" (See: A Pre-Meditated Plan of Jallianwala Bagh Massacre and Oath of Revenge, Udham Singh alias Ram Mohammad Singh Azad, 2002, pp 133, 144, 294, Prof (Dr) Sikander Singh; Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, A Premeditated Plan, Punjab University Chandigarh, 1969, p 24, Raja Ram; Disorder Committee Report, Vol II, Reprint, 1976, New Delhi, p 198).

I think that the actions of Brig. Dyer are nowadays completely taken out of contents. If you analyse a bit the entire situation in Punjab in 1919 an unbiased and neutral person (which I am not being neither English nor Indian) can understand why he took such a radical action. Moreover it did calm down the situation in Punjab, didn't it. Hence, his decision proved to be correct. I am sick and tired of constant attacks on Brig.Dyer from wide spectrum of Indian nationalists and European left wingers. Please learn a bit about the entire context of the events before launching your mantras.

--- OK, so the purpose of the British was to teach Indians a lesson they "would never forget". Then, why do you complain when Indian nationalists remember this so well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.93.47 (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"Bloody Sunday": On November 21, 1920, in the time Dyer and O'Dwyer were still admired by so many British, the British behaved as they always have toward those who resisted their rule. They massacred trapped and confined innocents at an Irish football game in Dublin; rolling in an armored car for the job. Down through time, The British Generals seem to admire these types of Gestapo behavior, no? A historian might comment, that the Irish got a bit of their own that day; and, that the British did what they have always done: behaved like utter barbarians. Note that there are literally dozens of instances where the British continued to massacre the Sikhs, after Dyer and O'Dwyer, and also dozens of instances, well documented, where the British massacred unarmed civilians in Northern Ireland, up through the 1990's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.110.213.5 (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Generally the British do not mind peaceful protest, but what they would never stand for was riots, or the threat of riots, by people who could not or would not control themselves, or obey lawful orders to disperse. After the French Revolution in 1789 the British had seen what violence and murder out-of-control populaces could do, and they were determined not to allow such behaviour either at home, or in British territories abroad. It was and is called 'maintaining law and order'. While some people may wish to riot, they have no justification in involving other people who do not wish to riot or cause trouble and who are just going about their own business harming no-one. Nor do the rioters have the right to damage or destroy the property of such people.

BTW, every Sikh traditionally carries a ceremonial but-still-dangerous dagger. Thus they were not 'unarmed'. The area was under martial law and Dyer and his men were outnumbered, they had little choice but to open fire.

I nearly forgot, people who's countries had little to do with willingly fighting Nazism should not spout rubbish about 'Gestapo behavior' (sic), of which it would seem by the comparison, they have little knowledge of. They may also like to inform themself of a similar event as late as 1984 - long after the British left India.

The Jallianwala Bagh 'massacre' was a tragic mistake caused by misunderstandings and by Dyer being the wrong man for the job. Another might have been able to have defused the situation without bloodshed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.190 (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

A Closely Guarded Secret

The Amritsar Massacre plan is stated to have formulated in the Government House, Lahore by Michael O’Dwyer, Lt Governor of Punjab, and other top British bureaucrats, belonging both to military and civil. Lieutenant Col Smith was also present in this meeting (The Massacre that Ended the Raj, p 203, Alfered Draper). The meeting was unofficial and conducted by Michael O’Dwyer himself and whole drama was off official and oral, and was kept a top secret. However, it fell to the lot of General Dyer to carry out Michael O'dwyer's plan (Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, A premeditated Plan, Punjab University Chandigarh, 1969, p 24, Raja Ram).

Cruel, Barbaric, Cold-Blooded, Outrageous, Inhumuan Action

• British House of Commons passed a reslution on 24th June, 1920 denouncing the Amritsar Massacre as “Cruel and Barbarous action” of British officers in Punjab and called for their trial, recall of Michael O’Dwyer and Mr Chemsford and repeal repressive legislation (The Times, London, June 25, 1920, cited in , Sayer, British Reaction of Amritsar Massacre, 1919-20, Reprint in Jallianwala Bagh Commemoration Volume, Patiala, 1997, p 41).

• Mr C. F. Andrews calls the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre as “Cold-Blooded Massacre and Inhumane” (Home Political, K. W., A, June 20, 1920, Nos 126-194, National Archieves of India, New Delhi).

• Brigadier General Surtees said in Dyer debate that “we hold India by force---undoubtedly by force” (Arthur Swinson, Six Minnutes of Sunset, London, 1964, p 210; cited in Psycho-Political compulsions of Jallinawala Bagh by Gurcaharan Singh, op cit, p 156)

• Mr Mantague, the Secretary of State in India called it a grave error in judgement (Home Political, K. W., A, June 1920, Nos 126-194, National Archieves of India , New Delhi)

• Winston Churchil, the Secretary of State for War at the time the time of the debate ain the Broitish Parliament, the House of Commons, called it an episode without precedent or parellel in modern history of British Empire…an extraordinary event, a monstrous event, an event which stands in singular and sinister isolation.

• Herbert Asquith observed: " There has never been such an incident in whole annals of Anglo-Indian History nor I believe in the istory of our empire since its very inception down to present day….it is one of worst outrage in the whole of our history" (Hansard. 5th sec. Commons, quoted by Derek Sayer, British Commemoration of Amritsar Volume, Patiala, 1997, p 24) .

• Moti Lal Nehru, father of Jawahar Lal Nehru, the First Prime Minister of India, called the massacre saddest and most revealing of all (Valentine Chitol, India Old and New, London, 1921, p 312).

• Rabindra Nath Tagore (The first Nobel Laureate and distinguished educationist of India): "a great crime has been done in the name of law in the Punjab" (Tribune, Lahore, 16th April, 1919, See Government of India, Home Department, Political Deposit, Aggust, 1919, No 52, National Archieves of India, New Delhi)

• The era of Michael O’Dwyer and Dyer has been deemed as an era of misdeeds of British administration in India (Government of India, External affairs Department, File No 1940, Newspapers (Secret), p 2).

Dyer’s few supporters at Home

The Morning Post (England), a conservative, pro-Imperialistic News Paper supported Dyer’s action on a flimsy ground deeming it necessary to “PROTECT THE HONOUR OF EUROPEAN WOMEN” (Morning Post, cited in Derek Sayer, British Reaction of Amritsar Massacre, 1919-20, Reprint in Jallianwala Bagh Commemoration Volume, Patiala, 1997, p 45). An announcement for the Dyer Fund was made in the newspaper and a large sum was raised for him (Morning Post, cited in by Derek Sayer in British Reaction of Amritsar Massacre, 1919-20, Reprint in Jallianwala Bagh Commemoration Volume, Patiala, 1997, p 45). A Thirteen Women Committee was constituted to present “the Savior of the Punjab with sword of honour and a purse”. Morning Post curiously blamed Mr Montegu, not Dyer for the cold-blooded massacre and for his court trial. Mr Montegu, on the otherhand, in his long letter to the Viceroy, went to the very heart of the matter, passing blame squarely on Michael O’Dwyer and frankly admitting “I feel that O’Dwyer represents a regime that is doomed”.

It is very interesting to note that, Michael O’Dwyer, who had used General Dyer for his plan and had himself masterminded Jallianwalla Bagh Drama, later ditched General Dyer during latter’s bad times.

The Morning Post was not just some random British newspaper. According to Wikipedia's article on the Daily Telegraph (with which it merged in 1937) it appealed particularly to retired military officers: which is currently Private Eye magazine's caricature of its successor. More importantly, in 1920 it serialised the Protocols of the Elders of Sion over several issues, and then published the articles in book form: so it was well to the right of the mainstream. NRPanikker (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

After-effects of Massacre on General Dyer

Reports went afloat that Michael O’Dwyer was responsible for General Dyer’s downfall (The Life of General Dyer, London, p 117, Colving). General Dyer could not enjoy a comfortable sleep even for a day after the Massacre of Jallianwala Bagh (Ibid, Colving). After the barbaric incidence, his health rapidly failed and in 1921 he was stricken with paralysis and never recovered. He died at Long Ashton on July 23, 1927 of arterio-sclerosis and cerebral haemorhage, reportedly laden with guilt of Amritsar Massacre on his conscience. In the final moments of his life, he murmured: “but I don’t want to get better. Some say I did right while others say I did wrong. I only want to die and know of my maker whether I did right or wrong” (Alfred Draper, The Massacre that Ended the Raj, p 255; Dictionary of National Bibliography, op cit, 281, 651).

Sze cavalry01 22:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed

Well, I must say that I am impressed with how swiftly you were able to provide all these sources. You seem well-versed in the events surrounding the massacre and I think that you could potentially expand this article even further using this information.

I just ask that that you act in the spirit of cooperation and that you adhere to WP:NPOV when adding information. Like I said before, Wikipedia has to be neutral in tone (because it's an encyclopedia, after all), even when talking about people who committed atrocities. Remember that for every source that says that Dyer was a butcher, there's another that will defend him. Because of the rules of neutrality on Wikipedia, it is required that both sides be shown. (I personally think that Dyer was cruel and cold-blooded, but I am having this discussion with you because Wikipedia policy requires that all articles have a neutral point of view.)

Please also remember that Wikipedia is based on consensus effort and compromise, not unilateral action. Therefore, please work with other editors and please don't be uncivil if they disagree with you, no matter how strong your opinions are. --Hnsampat 22:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In defense of calling a spade a spade, a butcher a butcher, a Nazi a Nazi, and so on - its surprising how often history favors the strong in their desire to control weaker peoples. Americans are used to calling a spade a spade. We now readily concede our genocide of the native Americans. (And, the fiasco in Iran, and, within a few years, the same will be said about Afghanistan.) Its strange how this aspect of our national character is not shared except by only a very few countries. Wikipedia's policy of neutrality is immaterial in the face of genuine evil, and of certain indisputable facts. Only the young and naive believe otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.110.213.5 (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Category: Mass Murdereres

One of the most critic of Caxton Hall Episod, Mr BrianSmithson has himself suggested Mass murderers category for General Dyer and Michael O’Dwyer. See below the text from BrianSmithson himself.

The problem is twofold: First, any Category:Butchers would be ambiguous, as the primary meaning of "butcher" is someone who prepares animal meat to be eaten. Secondly, we already have Category:Mass murderers, which serves the purposes you are talking about, in my opinion. — BrianSmithson 15:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC) : See Link [1].

It was then agreed that Mass Murderers category be used both for General Dyer as well as Michael O'Dwyer. So please try to respect the edits/suggestions of other Wikipedians also.

Sze cavalry01 19:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem there is that the Mass Murderers category itself explicitly states that a person who commits mass murder on behalf of a state, as Dyer was doing here, should belong in Category:War criminals, and NOT Category:Mass murderers. Therefore, thats the category he should be moved to.--Jackyd101 11:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag

I added cleanup tag because "Amritsar Massacre" and "Massacre of Jallianwala Bagh" are the same incident, but in some places sequential sentences alternate between terms. In the "Reaction to Amritsar massacre" section can be found this quote. 'Mr C. F. Andrews termed the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre as "Cold-Blooded Massacre and Inhumane."' This could be confusing to people unfamiliar with the event (such as myself, initially). I didn't make the corrections myself because I don't know which is the preferred designation, so I respectfully leave the matter to my betters. Cheers. LordNaughty 09:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr Chemsford

recall of Michael O’Dwyer and Mr Chemsford

Who is Mr Chemsford? Does this mean Lord Chelmsford the viceroy? The Wednesday Island 15:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: categories applicable to article on Reginald Dyer

This is a dispute about what categories are applicable to the article on Reginald Dyer. In particular, the appropriateness of Category:Terrorists and Category:Mass murderers is disputed. 14:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• See my statement at the similar RfC for the article on Michael O'Dwyer. The arguments are equally applicable here. In short, both categories are inappropriate as they explicitly exclude people acting "in the service of the state" (there's Category:State terrorism for that, and it's already present). Since Dyer ordered the massacre in his official capacity as a General, it was clearly carried out "in the service of the state". -- int19h 14:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Agree with int19h. Removing categories. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"... ensured that it was impossible for the British to leave India with honour"

The editor who keeps inserting the phrase has asked in the revert description:

Added back the impact, this is a quote from the book "the Butcher of Amritsat", please let me know why this is removed

I am not the one who keeps deleting it, but I am inclined to agree with him. The reasons are twofold. First of all, if it is a quote, it must be properly referenced. Also, the fact that it appears in the book does not make it factual, merely an opinion of the author of that book - meaning that it can only be included in the article if it is notable (i.e. the book is widely regarded as an important work on the topic, or there are other notable sources which support the statement), and even then clearly marked as an opinion. Though, to be honest, given the wording of the phrase (e.g. "leaving with honour and affection"), I don't think that it has any encyclopaedic value either way. -- int19h 13:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Return to England and Crawling Order

Hi, regarding the four edits made by AliMaghrebi on December 7th:

1. (cur) (last) 15:04, 7 December 2007 AliMaghrebi (Talk | contribs) (23,475 bytes) (→Crawling Order) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 14:58, 7 December 2007 AliMaghrebi (Talk | contribs) (22,917 bytes) (→Return to England) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 14:57, 7 December 2007 AliMaghrebi (Talk | contribs) (22,916 bytes) (→Return to England) (undo)
4. (cur) (last) 14:53, 7 December 2007 AliMaghrebi (Talk | contribs) (22,890 bytes) (→Return to England) (undo)

I'd like to see some viable references for the unsourced conclusions that are not neutral at all. As well, they are off topic, since: "the illegitimate children of 'white' men and the drunken attacks [of the soldiers] on the local women" has no direct relation to the crawling order, but is unproven conjecture. Similarly, for the Return to England section, the last paragraph speaks in general terms and out of scope of the article. This article is not primarily concerned with the motivations of the classes, but rather the life history of General Dyer. Any political implications of the event and the supporters of the General's actions seem more appropriate in the separate article on the massacre.

If nobody has any objections I will undo those changes. If anybody is interested, we can work to do a rewriting of the added section to see if we can fit any of it in this article or in another relevant article.

Thanks.

Principia.draco (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dyre.jpg

Image:Dyre.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Two sentences in the article reference Ian Covin's biography of Dyer, yet I have the Colvin biography and the claims that O'Dwyer was responsible for Dyer's downfall and that he could not sleep a day after Amritsar do not appear on the page mentioned. I suspect the page number was plucked out of thin air. And there are vague "references" like "Government of India, External affairs Department, File No 1940, Newspapers (Secret)" and "Home Political, Sept 1920, No 23, National Archive of India, New Delhi", sources which can hardly be verified.--Johnbull (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image concern

I think that the present image is probably inappropriate. The fact that General Dyer WAS a blood-thirsty butcher does not mean that the image should say so. The horror of men like Dyer is that they were NOT obviously slavering beasts. Can we not find a regimental portrait or other non-POV image. Compared the images posted of various war criminals from WWII. I also feel that the image is inappropriate becasue it promotes the books from which the image is taken. Thanks: V. Joe (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I am going to remove the image. Cheers

V. Joe (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Military Rank

The article is inconsistent as his rank/title. It variously calls him "Brigadier General", "Brigadier", and "General". I don't think Brigadier was a British Army rank during his active service? It is also mentioned that he retired with the rank of Colonel (it is stated that his appointment to Brigadier General was temporary). References to his life after retirement should use Colonel? 122.107.58.27 (talk) 08:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Bias

For any Indians editing this article, please, keep it neutral! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wastedgrunt36 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This will fall on deaf ears, alas. Their aim is not to have a balanced, neutral article on Dyer but to have a completely anti-Dyer page, even lying if necessary. There is the same problem on Lord Macaulay's page where even though a quote attributed to him has shown to be conclusively false, Indian editors continually try and re-add it to the article.--Britannicus (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

   It is funny that you think the possibility of bias exists ONLY with Indians who make edits. I am sure
   that opinion of yours proves that we can certainly trust your edits to be totally NPOV. LOL! Also, I am curious what it means to be completely anti-Dyer. You mean there are rational people,
who subscribe to basic human values, who are actually pro-Dyer? I invite you to explain to me
   what a pro-Dyer position would look like: you mean one that says it is totally ok to kill 1000
   unarmed people inside a walled courtyard in cold blood because they demanded freedom of speech.
   I think any pro-Dyer person would be well advised to check his/her mental health. Aban1313 (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Aban1313

Reaction in India and Britain (problem with logic and flow of article)

Barring points like second one, why is the reaction section here in this article and not in the article about the incident to which it was a reaction? The reaction was not about the person as much as it was about the incident.59.180.76.10 (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The second bulleted list in the section "Reaction in India and Britain," begins "While many in Britain and India endorsed General Dyer, there were a number of exceptions...." But one of the items reads: "Rudyard Kipling started a fund for (General Dyer) "the man who saved India" and contributed 50 pounds sterling, and raised over 26,000 pounds and presented to him on his retirement and settling in England." This wouldn't be an exception. Wouldn't it be better to tie this to the statement later in the page under "Return to Britain," where it is stated: "On his return to Britain, Brigadier Dyer was presented with a purse of 26,000 pounds sterling...."? I presume the two incidents are related, but I'm not inclined to attempt to make such a revision myself. John Blythe Dobson (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Court-martial

Why is there no mention in this article of Dyer's court-martial and dismissal? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10D14FE3C5E10728DDDAB0A94D0405B808EF1D3 Yaush (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried to view that source, but my computer doesn't do it. Under WP:Bold... add it yourself. Please be NPOV in tone! V. Joe (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The link is to a New York Times editorial asking if Dyer was railroaded. There are very few details of the court-martial there, so it's not a particularly good source. I'm not versed in the literature on the Raj or this particular ugly event, but I knew he was court-martialed, and was surprised there was no mention of it here.Yaush (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

As you like it, but even noting and citing that he had a court-martial would be an improvement... the NYT is certainly a reliable source V. Joe (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The debate in the House of Commons on 8th July 1920 (see link on main page) makes it clear that there was no court martial. He was a witness at the Hunter Commission's inquiry and after being censured in their majority and minority reports was asked to submit a written statement to the Army Council in London, which decided to relieve him of his military appointment: a purely administrative procedure, against which there was no appeal. Winston Churchill said that this was a fate which dozens of generals had undergone during the recent war. NRPanikker (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Role of Michael O'Dwyer

Doesnt appear to be relevant to an article on Dyer it should really be at Jallianwala Bagh massacre. MilborneOne (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is relevant as the content is about Dyer. As a reader I found that information very useful. So I would not want to remove it. Venkat TL (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Royal testimony

'In the British Army Museum in London, a testimonial to Dyer by the British Monarch is the first exhibit along the wall of the staircase as one ascends to the first floor devoted to the Indian Army.'

A short excerpt from this testimonial might be enlightening. Valetude (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The claim appears to be false. For one thing, although the National Army Museum (which is what it is called, not the 'British Army Museum') does hold a copy of the infamous Crawling Order and a photograph of an Indian being forced to crawl in the street where Miss Sherwood was assaulted, the only item in the collection relating to Dyer personally is a signed photograph of him c.1919. https://collection.nam.ac.uk/detail.php?acc=1990-12-55-14

For another thing, the Sovereign does not give personal testimonials of the kind implied. And Dyer's actions were roundly condemned in official quarters in India and in London, including Parliament, which passed a motion of censure. So the lead paragraph's claim that Dyer became a 'celebrated hero' in Britain is likewise false. He became a controversial figure. He was offered no further appointments and was retired in disgrace. On the other hand, on 23 December 1919, King George V issued a pardon for all Indians convicted of political offences during the period of martial law in the Punjab and elsewhere in India. Khamba Tendal (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Using Sir for Michael O'Dwyer

@Dormskirk I removed Sir as it is a honorific in this article, which is not about Dwyer. I am not sure why you have re-added it back. Please explain. Please refer to MOS:SIR before responding. Venkat TL (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

MOS:SIR says "The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article, but are optional after that". But this article is about Reginald Dyer not Sir Michael O'Dwyer. i.e. Sir Michael O'Dwyer is not the subject of the biographical article. As the two have very similar names it is best to distinguish between the subject of the article (Dyer) and the Lieutenant-Governor of Punjab (Sir Michael O'Dwyer). There has been considerable confusion between the two in this article in the past. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This not a policy based argument to keep the honorific. The only two places Sir is being added is before his full name "Michael O'Dwyer". English is not my first language and I have no problem in seeing the difference between "Michael O'Dwyer" and "Reginald Dyer" . Following MOS:SIR I expect you to restore my changes. Or let me know how you would like to proceed with the Dispute resolution on Wikipedia . Venkat TL (talk) 10:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I have self-reverted as you feel so strongly about it. Per WP:SURNAME, Sir Michael O'Dwyer should really be referred to in the article as "O'Dwyer" after the first mention. I have spent some time in the past unpicking the confusion in this article between the two people and there is now a high risk that editors who are new to the article will be confused. Dormskirk (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing. I think using the full name takes care of such mistaken reading. In case it creates considerable issues we can revisit this again in future. Regards. Venkat TL (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that in the page Jallianwala Bagh massacre Dwyer is named everywhere without Sir, except once where an attributed quote is used. The same should be followed on this page too. Venkat TL

(talk) 14:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC) My last comment was removed by a persistent edit-warrior for unclear reasons: being anti-American? or NOTAFORUM? Regarding the "notaforum" business, I was proposing that the main article NOT be changed to remove the title "Sir" and explained why. That seems to fall WITHIN the talk page guidelines. As far as being UnAmerican, I wondered whether the ban on titles of honour came from the US Constitution. I have just checked, and article 1, section 9, clause 8 is is more narrowly drawn than I remembered: it's only holders of an office of profit or trust under the United States who are forbidden to accept a foreign title unless explicitly permitted by Congress. I had wrongly thought it applied to all Americans.

If we are to discuss what to put in the main article in a calm and rational way, we should each say our piece, and respond after reflection. Deleting other peoples' talk page entries rather than responding to them gets us nowhere. NRPanikker (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Other motivation

I have removed the following, as it's based on an aside (albeit a lengthy one) in an opinion piece on a 2013 news event:

Though authorities initially claimed that the massacre was triggered by the assault on Sherwood, regimental diaries reveal that this was merely a pretext. Instead, Dyer and O'Dwyer feared an imminent mutiny in Punjab similar to the Indian Rebellion of 1857.

With no prejudice against re-insertion if a better ref can be found. The mention of regimental diaries may help in this direction. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC).