Stuk 23b - Note by A. J. W. Kitchin

The Police Act does not refer to ‘punitive police’, only ‘additional police’. In every district there are always some quartered on some village or other on account of misconduct. In English and the vernacular they are called punitive police. They may be levied for either punishment or security, but the Punjab Government had already decided not to levy any for the former rea-son. It may easily be necessary to levy extra police for reasons of security, e.g. the banks in Am-ritsar were promised protection to induce them to return to business; there is no such need in Lahore. The military garrison at Amritsar is being increased, at Kitchin’s suggestion, but the maintenance of order is the duty of the police, the function of the military being to restore or-der if necessary. With regard to compensating dependents of those killed in Amritsar, he points out that most of those who suffer under severe military action are more or less innocent, and, whatever the Hunter Commission decides, he is inclined to be liberal to those who were destitute and asked for help. The municipalities concerned all accept liability for paying com-pensation assessed under the Police Act. But, if unnecessary pressure is to be avoided, collec-tion will take several years, and those injured need prompt payment in full. Suggests that Government should pay the claims in full and recover the money from the municipalities at leisure, charging the usual interest. Restrictions are presented by the Local Bodies Loans Act, which it will be necessary to find a legal way out of. The Government of India’s ‘letter’ [probably A2/23/18] does not seem to meet the real difficulty, namely that both prompt payment and slow recovery are es-sential to an easy settlement. Most rational people agree that, in general, compensation should be paid by local people and not the Provincial or Imperial Government.