Context: The Jallianwala Bagh massacre was carried out by British forces, with an estimate of 379-1,500 killed. Those killed were involved in a gathering of people to celebrate the Baisakhi festival and protest the Rowlatt Act - A law that allowed any Indian person to be arrested on suspicion, in an effort to stop a growing independence movement.
Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer surrounded the crowd, penning them into an enclosed area with only 1 exit that the British forces held and ordered his men to open fire. Many men, women, and children tried to flee but with no where to go, 120 of which jumped to their deaths into the ‘Martyrs’ Well. Dyer claims his goal “was not to disperse the meeting but to punish the Indians for disobedience.”
The House of Commons condemned Dyer for his ruthless act, but the House of Lords commended him and the British public raised over a million pounds in today’ money to fund for him.
I watched Tom Nichols’ documentary on the House Of Lords. Members of the House Of Lords told us (well, Brits) that we (they) need them because they have a longer-term view of politics whereas the House Of Commons is too bound by short-term politics required to get reelected.
Wonder what they would say about this particular incident.
Agreed, great video
I actually like the long term view thing. It’s a solid argument
But it absolutely doesn’t make up for all the downsides