Showing 5 results

On 8 April Horniman published a passive resistance manifesto in the [Bombay] Chronicle. Gandhi was arrested in the Punjab, taken to Bombay, and ordered to remain in that Presidency. A serious riot at Ahmedabad resulted on the same day. On the 11th a large mob attacked and burnt the telegraph office and several other Government buildings, and injured the power house. On the 12th the Inspector General of Police and the Commissioner arrived with a military force, order was restored, and the city remains strongly picketed. Telegraphic communication has been restored. The casualties so far reported at Ahmedabad are one European sergeant and an Indian constable killed, and about 250 rioters killed or wounded. On the 12th a mob at Virangam attacked and burnt the railway station, and are reported also to have burnt Government buildings and stocks of famine grass. An Indian revenue official was murdered and telegraph communication was severed. On the same day two British officers and 200 Indian troops were dispatched from Ahmedabad to restore order. A telegraph and railway party also left to reopen communications. Order has now been restored at Virangam. On the 11th there was rioting at Bombay, but no casualties occurred. The city is now quiet. Gandhi arrived on the 11th and addressed a meeting, making an appeal against violence. He was allowed to go to Ahmedabad the next day. Military forces have been sent to various places in Gujarat where disturbances may be expected. Anticipating that Gandhi’s arrest would lead to disturbance, Lloyd decided to make no prominent arrests till military precautions had been taken in areas where disorder might arise. But immediately he heard of Gandhi’s arrest he made dispositions for maintaining order in Bombay and arranged a meeting with the Viceroy. On his way up, news of Ahmedabad came, and he and the Viceroy decided to leave Gandhi at liberty for the present but to deport Horniman and certain other leaders. Arrangements are being made to do so, but he is having trouble with Sir Ibrahim on this point, and may have to defer action for two or three days, as he does not want to risk the resignation of a Moslem member of the Council. Though he has been very patient, he cannot allow the open advocacy of law-breaking to continue. Opposition to the Rowlatt Bills is a pretext for a carefully planned revolution, of which Gandhi is a tool, not a principal. Mob violence has so far been directed against telegraphs and railways, and the attacks on Virangam show design, in as much as the seizure of that place cuts off all communications with Kathiawar.

(Carbon copy.)

The documents listed under this head mainly relate to 'private' or 'private and personal' telegrams sent by Montagu as Secretary of State for India to the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford. The distinction between these terms, if there is one, is uncertain, but there is a clear distinction between communications of these kinds on the one hand and correspondence designated 'official' on the other. However, since a topic initially raised in official correspondence might subsequently form the subject of a series of private telegrams, copies of some official telegrams will also be found here. Official communications are explicitly identified in the list. It is possible that there were other categories of correspondence, since the term 'demi-official' also occurs. Correspondents occasionally discussed what category was appropriate for the subject under discussion (cf. A2/22/14, A2/23/3).

These papers were formerly either loose or fixed together with treasury tags to form small files. In the latter case the subject-matter of the file, or some other title, was sometimes marked on the top sheet.

The documents comprise (i) drafts and texts of the telegrams themselves; (ii) memoranda exchanged between Montagu and other officials on the composition of telegrams; and (iii) documents consulted as part of this process, such as newspaper cuttings and copies of regulations.

The correspondence begins at the time of the riots in Delhi, Bombay, and the Punjab, the day before the Amritsar massacre, and mostly concerns those disturbances and the controversial measures taken to counter them. The topics discussed include the progress of efforts to restore law and order; Gandhi; the involvement of Muslims in the disorders, and the Hindu-Mohammedan entente; the use of flogging as a punishment under martial law; the 'crawling order' issued by General Dyer at Amritsar, and the 'salaaming order' issued by Colonel Hodgson in Gujrunwala and Lyallpur; the postponement of sentences of execution against persons convicted of involvement in the Amritsar riots; the issue of notices by the Bombay High Court to barristers for taking the satyagraha vow; the question of arranging an inquiry into the disorders, and the subsequent formation and report of the Hunter Committee; and the Indemnity Bill.

(Cf. A5/2, sheet 177.)

Concurs with the views expressed in A3/10/3. The recent reforms were not, like previous measures, a ‘sop to agitation’, but were based on a definite plan, and Indians must realise that they need to earn and work for further steps. To modify the reforms merely because people think them inadequate would destroy the whole basis of the scheme. Commends Chelmsford’s policy of using patience before force, but questions the wisdom of non-interference in cases of threats of violence, violent libels on British officers, seditious statements in newspapers, the preaching of race-hatred, and military drilling. It is idiotic to suggest that enforcement of the law is repression. He has received a letter from Ronaldshay and a report from Price, a member of the Legislative Assembly, to his constituents, and has read with anxiety communications from India in the Daily Telegraph.

(Typed, with handwritten alterations. Used for transmission. Marked '4'.)