Amritsar

Bitter was the feeling against the Rowlatt Act, which gave the administration power to make arbitrary arrests and inflict summary punishment for the suppression of revolutionary violence.

More bitter was the indignation following the Amritsar massacre.

At Amritsar in the Punjab, natives had committed several outrages, attacks on banks and particularly an attack on an Englishwoman.

General Dyer, the district military commander, endeavoured to restore respect for British authority.

When several thousand unarmed civilians essayed to hold a mass meeting against his general order, he mowed them down with machine guns without warning or chance to disperse.

The point of view is interesting when considered in connection with the affirmation which the same imperialists frequently make, that India is loyal to England, and that England's mission in India is one of peace and humanity.

It is only fair to add, however, that the prevailing English sentiment was condemnation of Dyer's deed as an unwarranted bit of frightfulness.

In India, of course, the Amritsar victims were martyrs, and Dyer's deed a bloody crime.

Bitter was the feeling against the Rowlatt Act, which gave the administration power to make arbitrary arrests and inflict summary punishment for the suppression of revolutionary violence.

More bitter was the indignation following the Amritsar massacre.

At Amritsar in the Punjab, natives had committed several outrages, attacks on banks and particularly an attack on an Englishwoman.

General Dyer, the district military commander, endeavoured to restore respect for British authority.

When several thousand unarmed civilians essayed to hold a mass meeting against his general order, he mowed them down with machine guns without warning or chance to disperse.

The point of view is interesting when considered in connection with the affirmation which the same imperialists frequently make that India is loyal to England and that England's mission in India is one of peace and humanity.

It is only fair to add, however, that the prevailing English sentiment was condemnation of Dyer's deed as an unwarranted bit of frightfulness.

In India, of course, the Amritsar victims were martyrs and Dyer's deed a bloody crime.

Bitter was the feeling against the Rowlatt Act, which gave the administration power to make arbitrary arrests and inflict summary punishment for the suppression of revolutionary violence.

More bitter was the indignation following the Amritsar massacre.

At Amritsar in the Punjab, natives had committed several outrages, attacks on banks and particularly an attack on an Englishwoman.

General Dyer, the district military commander, endeavoured to restore respect for British authority.

When several thousand unarmed civilians essayed to hold a mass meeting against his general order, he mowed them down with machine guns without warning or chance to disperse.

The point of view is interesting when considered in connection with the affirmation which the same imperialists frequently make, that India is loyal to England, and that England's mission in India is one of peace and humanity.

It is only fair to add, however, that the prevailing English sentiment was condemnation of Dyer's deed, as an unwarranted bit of frightfulness.

In India, of course, the Amritsar victims were martyrs, and Dyer's deed a bloody crime.

But my parents were the first Indians to move to this town over 60 years ago.

So they were from the area of Punjab, Amritsar.

My dad was born before the partition, actually.

So Amritsar is like the border town next to Lahore, now Pakistan.

So

I was able to go there and see his house where he grew up and I went to a place called Jallianwala Bagh, which was a garden and, you know, kind of felt into a very strong and traumatic vibration that exists there when the British opened fire on many of the Indians there when they were protesting and asking for emancipation.

There's a lot of fire in that lineage.

Yeah.

Bitter was the feeling against the Rowlatt Act, which gave the administration power to make arbitrary arrests and inflict summary punishment for the suppression of revolutionary violence.

More bitter was the indignation following the Amritsar "massacre." At Amritsar in the Punjab, natives had committed several outrages, attacks on banks and particularly an attack on an Englishwoman.

General Dyer, the district military commander, endeavored to restore respect for British authority.

When several thousand unarmed civilians essayed to hold a mass meeting against his general order, he mowed them down with machine guns without warning or chance to disperse.

The point of view is interesting when considered in connection with the affirmation which the same imperialists frequently make that India is loyal to England and that England's mission in India is one of peace and humanity.

It is only fair to add, however, that the prevailing English sentiment was condemnation of Dyer's deed as an unwarranted bit of frightfulness.

In India, of course, the Amritsar victims were martyrs and Dyer's deed a bloody crime.

The blood of martyrs is always a stimulant to nationalism.

Bitter was the feeling against the Rowlatt Act, which gave the administration power to make arbitrary arrests and inflict summary punishment for the suppression of revolutionary violence.

More bitter was the indignation following the Amritsar "massacre." At Amritsar in the Punjab, natives had committed several outrages, attacks on banks and particularly an attack on an Englishwoman.

General Dyer, the district military commander, endeavored to restore respect for British authority.

When several thousand unarmed civilians essayed to hold a mass meeting against his general order, he mowed them down with machine guns without warning or chance to disperse.

The point of view is interesting when considered in connection with the affirmation which the same imperialists frequently make that India is loyal to England and that England's mission in India is one of peace and humanity.

It is only fair to add, however, that the prevailing English sentiment was condemnation of Dyer's deed as an unwarranted bit of frightfulness.

In India, of course, the Amritsar victims were martyrs and Dyer's deed a bloody crime.

The blood of martyrs is always a stimulant to nationalism.

Bitter was the feeling against the Rowlatt Act, which gave the administration power to make arbitrary arrests and inflict summary punishment for the suppression of revolutionary violence.

More bitter was the indignation following the Amritsar "massacre." At Amritsar in the Punjab, natives had committed several outrages, attacks on banks and particularly an attack on an Englishwoman.

General Dyer, the district military commander, endeavored to restore respect for British authority.

When several thousand unarmed civilians essayed to hold a mass meeting against his general order, he mowed them down with machine guns without warning or chance to disperse.

The point of view is interesting when considered in connection with the affirmation which the same imperialists frequently make that India is loyal to England and that England's mission in India is one of peace and humanity.

It is only fair to add, however, that the prevailing English sentiment was condemnation of Dyer's deed as an unwarranted bit of frightfulness.

In India, of course, the Amritsar victims were martyrs and Dyer's deed a bloody crime.

The blood of martyrs is always a stimulant to nationalism.

Bitter was the feeling against the Rowlatt Act, which gave the administration power to make arbitrary arrests and inflict summary punishment for the suppression of revolutionary violence.

More bitter was the indignation following the Amritsar "massacre." At Amritsar in the Punjab, natives had committed several outrages, attacks on banks and particularly an attack on an Englishwoman.

General Dyer, the district military commander, endeavored to restore respect for British authority.

When several thousand unarmed civilians essayed to hold a mass meeting against his general order, he mowed them down with machine guns without warning or chance to disperse.

The point of view is interesting when considered in connection with the affirmation which the same imperialists frequently make that India is loyal to England and that England's mission in India is one of peace and humanity.

It is only fair to add, however, that the prevailing English sentiment was condemnation of Dyer's deed as an unwarranted bit of frightfulness.

In India, of course, the Amritsar victims were martyrs and Dyer's deed a bloody crime.

The blood of martyrs is always a stimulant to nationalism.