Thread by @KimAtiWagner

I watched the House of Lords debate on the demand for an apology for the Amritsar Massacre last night, 19/02/2019, so that you don’t have to. It made for pretty depressing, and entirely predictable, viewing.

A (long) thread 1/

In 1920, the House of Lords famously came out in support of Dyer, even as his actions were denounced by the then Government and the House of Commons. The debate yesterday was accordingly not without historical resonance. 2/

The most galling aspect of the House of Lords debate on the Amritsar Massacre, was the manner in which it served simply to perpetuate a narrative of the Empire and Britain as a force for good in the world. 3/

Right from the outset, the debate assumed the format of a Churchill-quoting marathon, and every single speaker invoked Churchill’s denunciation of Dyer’s actions and the Amritsar Massacre in 1920 as a unique event in ‘singular and sinister isolation’. 4/

This means that Dyer was singled out as a single rogue officer and the massacre seen as an aberration – the violent exception within the norm of a peaceful and benign Empire. That is of course objectively speaking inaccurate. 5/

The Amritsar massacre was not ‘an isolated incident’ but fully in keeping with the indiscriminate, collective and exemplary logic of colonial violence. Dyer enjoyed the support of most British officers and much of the British public, though by no means everyone. 6/

This is what I write about the problem of an apology in my book (left) – and Baroness Goldie’s response last night in the House of Lords (right) only confirm my worst fears: An apology becomes a celebration of Britain and the Empire… 7/

Throughout the hour-long debate, many of the usual misconceptions and factual inaccuracies were trotted out. Here is a small selection: 8/

Lord Loomba: ‘the well from which 150 bodies were extracted’. The eyewitness-accounts from 13 April mention one or two people falling into the well. Motilal Nehru and Mohan Malaviya only ever claimed they saw what looked like one [1] body in the well in August 1919...9/

Lord Loomba: ‘Martial law was in force at the time [13 April]’. Martial Law was not in fact declared till 15 April and only publicly announced on 19 April. On the 13th, Dyer acted entirely outside any legal framework. 10/

Lord Loomba: ‘he [Dyer] blocked all the exits’. Dyer blocked the one entrance that he entered through – but none of the other smaller exits. Dyer had no idea of the layout of the Jallianwala Bagh. 11/

Lord Loomba: ‘until the soldiers ran out of ammunition.’ The soldiers fired an average of 33 rounds each – they carried with them 60 rounds, but were required to keep half in reserve in case they were ambushed while leaving the city. 12/

Baroness Verma: ‘On the instructions of Sir Michael Francis O’Dwyer, the Lieutenant Governor of Punjab, General Dyer ordered troops to fire.’ There is no evidence that O’Dwyer ordered Dyer to go to Amritsar, let alone gave him any instructions. 13/

Lord Bilimoria: ‘He called the victims “the targets”, which were very “good”.’ This is one of Shashi Tharoor’s inventions – Dyer said much, and much worse, but not this. 14/

Lord Bilimoria: ‘He forbade the families from coming to attend these people for 24 hours.’ There was a curfew in place every day from 8pm to 6am, not for 24 hours. 15/

Lord Bilimoria: ‘The poor families and the victims of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre were given 500 rupees each.’ The families received on average 8000 Rupees each – another of Tharoor’s fibs. These amounts obvs pale in comparison to what Europeans received in compensation. 16/

Lord Suri: ‘Some 1,600 innocents were murdered, with up to 1,000 more injured.’ The Indian National Congress inquiry concluded that approximately 500 were killed, but noted that a higher estimate of 1000 was not unreasonable. 17/

Just to be clear (again): I’m not suggesting that the massacre was not an atrocity, or that any of the points I have made somehow mitigate Dyer’s actions. I’m simply pointing out what the facts were… 18/

This is more than just an academic quibble: when the facts cease to matter, the very grounds upon which historical claims are made, or apologies demanded, are critically undermined.

The end...19/