ide of severity.
The Government of India certainly did not so err, and one must turn to
the despatch embodying the views of the British Government for a
considered judgment which at least set forth in weighty terms the
principles of British policy that had been violated in the Punjab,
however short some may consider it to have fallen of the full
requirements of justice in appraising the gravity of the departure from
those principles in specific cases.

The Punjab tragedy has had such far-reaching effects in shaking the
confidence of the Indian people in the justice and even in the humanity
of British rule that it is best to quote the language in which the
British Government recorded their judgment in their despatch to the
Government of India:

The principle which has consistently governed the policy of His
Majesty's Government in directing the methods to be employed, when
military action in support of civil authority is required, may be
broadly stated as using the minimum force necessary. His Majesty's
Government are determined that this principle shall remain the
primary factor of policy whenever circumstances unfortunately
necessitate the suppression of civil disorder by military force
within the British Empire.

It must regretfully but without possibility of doubt be concluded
that Brigadier-General Dyer's action at Jallianwala Bagh was in
complete violation of this principle.

The despatch proceeded to take into account the provocation offered and
the great difficulties of the position in which General Dyer was placed.
His omission to give warning before opening fire was nevertheless
declared to have been "inexcusable," his failure to see that some
attempt was made to give medical assistance to the dying and the wounded
an "omission from his obvious duty," and the "crawling order" issued by
him six days later "an offence against every canon of civilised
government."

Upon a military commander administering martial law in a hostile
country there lies a grave responsibility; when he is compelled to
exercise this responsibility over a population which owes
allegiance and looks for protection to the Government which he
himself is serving, this burden is immeasurably enhanced. It would
prejudice the public safety, with the preservation of which he is
charged, to fetter his free judgment or action either by the
prescripti