Thread by @KimAtiWagner

I was never under any illusion that I would be able to change people’s minds on the Amritsar Massacre, but naively assumed that by setting the historical record straight, even at the most basic level, I might at the very least inform the public debate. I was wrong. A thread.

1/

Here is an article printed in today's @DailyMailUK – with a little ‘summary’ of what happened in Amritsar in 1919:

2/

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6…

So far so good (they later correct 370 to 379).

3/

Wrong – some of the crowd was gathered to protest against the deportation of two local nationalist leaders, Kitchlew and Satyapal, while others were simply using the Bagh as a picnic-spot. Literally no-one was protesting against conscription or taxes...

4/

Wrong – martial law was not declared till 19 April, and Dyer had simply assumed command, acting entirely beyond the bounds of law, civil or military.

5/

Wrong – the Rowlatt Act had not yet come into force, and was indeed never actually used. The ban on public meetings was based on the Defence of India Act 1915, which was still in operation.

6/

Misleading – only about one third of the crowd was Sikhs (as far as we can tell): the majority were Hindus and about 15% were Muslims.

7/

Wrong – Dyer did not surround the crowd, but simply lined up his troops along the northern wall of the Bagh, which had just four small exits. 379 is self-evidently a low estimate, as even British officials at the time admitted (500-600 would be my estimate).

8/

I find it frankly depressing that, a hundred years on, journalists, writers and others (since @DailyMailUK is not alone here), simply cannot be bothered to get these things right. And it’s not as if this is complicated or somehow secret information… #FactsMatter

the end

9/