scot47

In Imperial History will always mean this atrocity - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

EMR

Indian troops shooting their fellows until they ran out of ammunition ., not British troops but I wonder how many Indians know or are told this..
Dyer rightly condemned.
But a catalyst in the campaign for Indian independence,

scot47

Assassination of Michael O'Dwyer[edit]

See also: Udham Singh

On 13 March 1940, at Caxton Hall in London, Udham Singh, an Indian independence activist from Sunam who had witnessed the events in Amritsar and had himself been wounded, shot and killed Michael O'Dwyer, the Lieutenant-Governor of Punjab at the time of the massacre, who had approved Dyer's action and was believed to have been the main planner



His name wqas O'Dwyer

Bipat

Of course Indian people knew/know that the ordinary soldiers of the British Indian Army were 'Indian'. How would they 'not' know!
They were for the most part under the command of British Officers. As any ordinary soldiers they obeyed, or suffered the consequences.

EMR

What consequences, had they not shot down innocent men, women and children , refused to follow the orders of Dyer, the world the British press and public would have applauded them..
No court would have convicted them.
Why did Indian troops even 1 or 2 of them not question the order, ?
Surely someone in India must know this .
Was it because none of the troops came from the local communities, were they from different religious or ethnic groups..
Remember it was just over 20 years later than 100s thousands died in intercommunal violence .

Bipat

You have a simplistic view of army discipline!
What interest would the "world, British press and Public", have had in ordinary Indian soldiers who had disobeyed orders?
There has been so much written about this, they soldiers were of mixed groups.

https://www.historytoday.com/archive...itsar-massacre

EMR

Are you saying that the British and the rest of the world would not have shown any interest in Indian soldiers being prosecuted for ignoring orders to shoot down innocent civilians..
You seem to have forgotten that it was the 1920,s the UK has heading towards its first Labour government, universal suffrage was very close , attitudes were changing it was not the 1820s..
The act was universally condemned .
Your link does not explain why Indian troops seem to have had no qualms about shooting down innocent men, women and children,
They could have fired high, they did not., they shot to kill.

scrubbedexpat142

Really? Given that in the previous war over 300 British & Commonwealth troops were executed by the British following Courts Martial.

EMR

That was a world war and not defensible, , not a public order tragedy in the years after ww1 when atitudes were changing.
Not in the first world war were large number of troops shot for disobeying a morally indefensible order.
Would British troops have shot down women and children in Trafalgar square for just demonstrating..
Does the event reflect those atitudes in India that later resulted in up to a million deaths during partition , a deeper issue within the physce of the sub continent..
Would Ghurkas have shot down Ghurkas, Rajputs their fellow Rajputs ?
I do not know the answers but the event is far more complicated than just the order issued by Dyer. .
You could ask, did the British at the time deliberately select troops of a different religion or ethnicity to demonstrators knowing that they were regarded differently by the troops involved., they were not their equals , inferiors.?

Bipat

You don't get the point EMR. The commanding officers in the Amritsar massacre were British, they provided the weapons!
To disobey would have meant the ordinary Indian soldiers would have been shot. They became soldiers because it gave them a 'living' wage.
(Gurkhas were always loyal!)

As we have said before the tragedy of partition was triggered by thousands moving in opposite directions, having lost their homes and not knowing their future. A tragedy created by politicians.

The "psyche of the Subcontinent"----is your idea EMR, which you set out in these posts to try to illustrate. The same attitude that of others with frankly racist attitudes.

scrubbedexpat142

Had the troops at the time refused to carry out their orders, this would have been viewed with dismay by both Military, Government, public & press alike - a breach of discipline that would be completely unacceptable, a "cancer" that must be eradicated at once, on principle. The lives of a few "natives" would have paled into insignificance compared with the (perceived) threat to Empire, military discipline & the "rule of law & order" that such a "dereliction of duty" would have implied.

EMR

Indeed it would have , which could be one of the reasons why, troops of different religions or ethnicities were used, there being no such thing as an " Indian " nationality or identity..
The troops not identifying themselves with those they were shooting.
Part of the policy of divide,coerce and rule which allowed a small nation with a small presence in a huge country to rule it.
A refusal , a non violent refusal to obey orders could, would have accelerated the end of direct British rule.. .

scot47

The 1920s. The first giant fissure had appeared in The Empire. The Government of Ireland Act 1920. The sun was starting to set on the Raj and all of the colonies. Diegard Empire Loyalist coulkd not see it but Independence was coming for India, at the price of Partition.