Page:Speeches And Writings MKGandhi.djvu/66

 could no further go! Mr. Montagu, however, passionately denounced Gen. Dyer’s savagery as inconsistent with the principles of British Government but curiously enough paid a tribute to Sir Micheel’s sagacity and firmness and the Viceroy’s policy of masterly inactivity! This was bad enough from the Indian point of view. But there sprang up a wild scream from the Anglo-Indian Press, and Mem Sahebs in search of sensation and notoriety discovered in Gen. Dyer the saviour of British India. The Pioneer and other prints followed the lead of the London Morning Post and appealed for funds towards a memorial to this gallant soldier who shot men like rabbits, while a section of the Indian Press urged that "Chelmsford must go." Then followed the debate in the House of Commons which was looked forward to with some excitement. The House ultimately retained its honour in the debate and though Mr. Montagu, Mr. Asquith and Mr. Churchill spoke with a profound sense of justice and carried the day, there was no doubt of the mentality of the average Englishmen. But it was left to the House of Peers to betray the utter demoralisation that had set in. Lord Finlay’s motion condoning Gen. Dyer was passed in spite of the masterly speeches of Lord Curzon and Lord Sinha. Though the noble Lords’ action could have no constitutional value it was yet an index to the depth of English ignorance and prejudice. Above all, some officers who had misbehaved in the late tragedy still continued to exercise authority in the Punjab, and Mr. Lajpat Bai started a propaganda to boycott the New Councils so long as they were not dispensed with. Mr, Gandhi who had already made up his mind to offer Satyagraha in varying forms in connection with the Khilafat question readily joined the Lala and issued the following note in July 1920:—