§ 2. Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what action has been taken with regard to the 700 men detained over the affair at Jaito, in Nabha State of the Punjab; whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a second jatha of 500 have started on 28th February for Jaito; and what action he proposes to take to prevent any further disturbances?
§ 7. Mr. HOPE SIMPSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that on 28th February a band of 500 Akali Sikh pilgrims left Amritsar for Jaito, in Nabha territory; and whether any and, if so, what steps are being taken to prevent a repetition of the disastrous results of the previous pilgrimage of this kind?
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. R. Richards)So far as the Secretary of State is aware, no final decision has yet been taken in regard to 1888 the 700 men detained. Judicial investigations have been proceeding. As regards the second jatha, I understand that the local authorities have taken steps to make it clear that the conditions previously laid down must be maintained, and I have no doubt that they will take all other possible steps to guard against a repetition of the occurrence of the 21st February The Akalis themselves have issued an appeal to the public that crowds should not accompany the jatha, and I trust that violence will not be used on their side on this occasion and that the question of using force against the jatha will not arise.
§ Mr. SIMPSONCan my hon. Friend tell us what were the conditions previously laid down?
§ Mr. RICHARDSI should like to have notice of that question.
§ Mr. SIMPSONBut it arises out of the answer in which the hon. Gentleman said the conditions previously laid down should be maintained.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYCan the Government not take power to stop this semi-political movement?
§ Mr. RICHARDSIt is rather a difficult question, if I may say so, partly political and partly religious.
§ 5. Mr. LANSBURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of Indian men and women killed or wounded during the recent disturbances which took place at Jaito, and how many soldiers or police were either killed or wounded; what kind of firearms or other weapons, if any, were carried by the processionists; and, in order that the full facts may be known, will the Secretary of State ask the Viceroy of India to order the holding of a full inquiry into the whole of the proceedings which led up to the disturbance and consequent destruction of life?
§ Mr. RICHARDSThe total casualties, as reported by the Government of India, are 21 dead (including those who died subsequently of wounds) and 33 wounded. There were no casualties to women, or to soldiers or police. As regards the second part of the question, the report of the investigating magistrate, who, I may mention, is himself a Sikh, states that the mob was armed with all 1889 sorts of weapons, including firearms, Eye-witnesses mention guns, pistols, lathis (quaterstaves), and chavis (knives or halberds) and spears. The Secretary of State has no doubt that the Government of India will take all necessary steps to ascertain the full facts, and he does not think it necessary to make the suggestion proposed in the question.
§ Sir HENRY CRAIKIs it not the case that these disturbances arose from an internecine feud between two sects of religion, and that the only reason for the Government interfering was to try to preserve both factions from one another?
§ Mr. LANSBURYMay I ask the hon. Member how the Government of India, or whoever gave him the information he has given to the House, accounts for the fact that neither police nor soldiers were injured by this mob of people, who are supposed to have been carrying firearms and other dangerous weapons?
§ Sir H. CRAIKMay I have an answer to my question as to the cause of this riot being a fight between two religious sects?
§ Mr. LANSBURYThat is not what I am bothering about. Why were these people killed without arms? I wish to give notice that I will raise this question on the Motion for the adjournment tonight, if no other hon. Member has got that opportunity before me.