§ 4. Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to the speech made by Mrs. Naidu at the Kingsway Hall on the 3rd June, containing allegations of brutal and infamous conduct against the troops of the Indian Army; and whether he proposes to take any proceedings with regard to these charges?
§ 13. Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made by Mrs. Naidu at a mass meeting held to protest against the Hunter Report in Kingsway Hall, on 3rd June, 1920, to the effect that Indian women had been dragged into the market place, stripped naked, flogged, and outraged; and whether he will call upon the Indian authors of the Report referred to to give proof of this charge, and prosecute them if they fail to do so?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI have ascertained that Mrs. Naidu based her charge that women were stripped naked, flogged and outraged, on allegations made by witnesses to the Congress Committee. I am having enquiry made as to an allegation which might justify the charge against certain Indian subordinate police. If this be proved it will, of course, be suitably punished. With this reservation, the charge is entirely untrue. The charge was not made in the Congress Committee's Report.
§ 6. Brigadier-General SURTEESasked the Secretary of State for India if he will state on what date he was aware that the civil authorities at Amritsar had called on the military for assistance; and on what date he was aware that the civil authorities at Amritsar had resumed control?
§ Mr. MONTAGUOn the 14th April I knew that troops had been despatched to 2348 Amritsar. About the middle of June I was informed that martial law had been withdrawn from Amritsar City on the night of the 9th June.
§ 14. Mr. GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for India if he will state at what date the minutes of evidence of the Hunter Commission were received in this country?
§ Mr. MONTAGUProofs of the Minutes of oral evidence were received at the India Office in February and March last. Complete sets of the Minutes of oral and written evidence were received on the 15th April. A supply sufficient for distribution was received on the 12th May.
§ 74. Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the statement made at a mass meeting held at the Kingsway Hall to protest against the Hunter Report on the 3rd June, 1920, to the effect that Indian women had been dragged into the market place, stripped naked, flogged, and outraged; and what steps the Army Council propose to take in the case of an officer with the rank of major who is reported to have been one of the speakers at that meeting, and to have said that he could not feel that there was any impossibility in the stories coming home from India?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill)The officer referred to has relinquished his commission, and the Army Council have therefore no jurisdiction over him.
l8. Mr. C. PALMERasked the Secretary of State for India at what date the Commander-in-Chief in India revised his decision concerning the action of General Dyer in dealing with the revolutionaries in Amritsar; and whether that revised decision of the Commander-in-Chief was in any way influenced by His Majesty's Government?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe decision of the Commander-in-Chief in India to remove Brigadier-General Dyer from his command was made when the Report of the Hunter Committee had been seen by him. It was communicated to General Dyer on 22nd March last. I am not aware that this was a revised decision. The answer to the last part of the question is, of course, in the negative.
Mr. PALMERIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Commander-in-Chief approved the action of General Dyer, and therefore this must have been a revised decision?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI am not aware of that, and I do not think it is so.
§ Mr. GWYNNEIs the right hon. Gentleman yet aware that at the Legislative Assembly at Simla General Dyer's conduct was approved by all the official representatives of the Government?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI am not aware of that, and I have carefully read the Debate over again, and I do not draw the deduction which the hon. Gentleman does. I would refer him specially to the utterances of Sir William Vincent.
§ Colonel YATEDid the right hon. Gentleman read the speech of the Adjutant-General before the Legislative Council which entirely approved of General Dyer's action?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI did not read it in that way, but I will also refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the remarks of Sir William Vincent on the attitude of the Adjutant-General. I say again I am satisfied that the Commander-in-Chief in India did not reach any conclusion on General Dyer's attitude and acts until the report of the Hunter Committee had been received.
§ Colonel YATEWas not the Adjutant-General speaking on behalf of the Commander-in-Chief when he spoke before the Committee?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe spokesman on behalf of the Government in that Debate was Sir William Vincent. He explained the views of the Government on General Hudson's speech. I will send my hon. Friend a marked copy, which I think will completely dispose of the case.
19. Mr. PALMERasked the Secretary of State for India whether all the documentary evidence on which he came to a decision concerning the action of General Dyer has been presented to Parliament; and if not, whether he can see his way to making a complete disclosure of the evidence submitted to him as Secretary of State for India?
§ Mr. MONTAGUIf the hon. Member is referring to the evidence heard in camera, 2350 I am not prepared to publish it. All the other evidence has been published.
Mr. PALMERWere there communications between the right hon. Gentleman and the Government of India which have not been published relating to the Dyer case?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThere have been heaps of communications between the Government of India and myself.
§ Mr. MONTAGUIncluding the Dyer case. If the hon. Member infers from that that anything I wrote to the Government of India altered or was intended to alter or was concerned with their judgment on General Dyer, he is under an erroneous impression.
Mr. PALMERI am asking whether the right hon. Gentleman will publish these documents so that we can judge for ourselves, as we cannot trust him in this matter.
§ Mr. MONTAGUSurely the hon. Gentleman is aware that in the discharge of my duty as Secretary of State innumerable communications on all sorts of subjects pass between me and the Government of India. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that these should be made public, I am afraid I cannot agree with him. I must ask the House to accept my assurance on the subject that I exerted no sort of influence, and made no suggestion which could possibly lead to the insinuation that the Government of India formed their views on any suggestion of mine.
§ Mr. GWYNNEAre we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman still wishes to inform this House that he knew of none of the details at the end of December?
§ 73. Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Council as a body met to consider the question of General Dyer; and, if so, was the Chief of the Imperial General Staff present?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Chief of the Imperial General Staff was not present at the meeting, being in attendance on the Prime Minister at the Spa Conference.
§ Colonel YATEAre we to understand that the decision in General Dyer's case was given by a majority of the civilians, and not by a majority of military men?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe decision was unanimous. In any case, the military element outnumbered the civilian.
§ Colonel YATEAre there not five civilians on the Army Council as against, at the most, four military men?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThere were four military officers and myself and two Parliamentary Secretaries. The Secretary was not a member of the Army Council at that time. I carefully postponed the addition of the Secretary and of the Financial Member until that matter had been decided, in order to guard myself against the very kind of suggestion the hon. and gallant Gentleman makes.
§ Colonel ASHLEYWas there not a sharp division of opinion, and then subsequent, in order to make a better case, did they not come to a unanimous decision?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThat is quite untrue. There was a difference of opinion on the question whether General Dyer should be retired and definite disciplinary action taken against him. The conclusion to which we came—that which I read to the House—was accepted and agreed to unanimously and spontaneously by all present.