Stuk 2 - Telegram from Lord Chelmsford to Edwin Montagu

Has read the report and discussed it informally with colleagues, though it will not be considered in Council till next week. His provisional opinion is that they should endorse the findings of the majority report. It is regrettable that the cleavage of opinion was so radical as to make two reports necessary, but there is much common ground. The main difference relates to the question of whether martial law was necessary, but by accepting the majority findings regarding the number of outrages, the animus of the rioters, etc., the minority have, he thinks, undermined their case. The minority also condemn more vehemently such incidents as the Jallianwala Bagh firing. With regard to this incident they [the Government of India] will probably endorse the majority opinion, though Chelmsford is prepared to go further and say that General Dyer’s action in fact checked a dangerous rising against Government. As regards action to be taken, the main problem is the case of Dyer. Chelmsford accepts the majority view that at Jallianwala Bagh he acted beyond what a reasonable man would think necessary, and without humanity. He should therefore be asked or compelled to retire, and since he is in poor health and not considered fit for promotion he will probably want to do so. It is not incumbent on the Government to prosecute him, but if he is prosecuted privately they must remain neutral. Dyer did himself scant justice in his evidence by excusing or mitigating nothing and exaggerating some points, and if he was wrong to consider himself responsible for the state of the province, he was justified in considering the position in the area under his command. Believing, correctly, that Amritsar was in a state of rebellion, he thought that the gathering [at Jallianwala Bagh] was the beginning of an influx of outsiders which might have resulted in general looting and the killing of Europeans. The Punjab Government should be asked to take disciplinary action against the other officers whose conduct is blamed.

(Typed. Continued in A2/27/4.)