'1902. THE LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON. TELEGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA.' [‎187r] (384/412)

( 173 )
officers of regiment, its proceedings were of perfunctory description, and it
made no effort to discover guilty persons. These were the only proceedings
taken at that time by the regiment. Later on Lieutenant-GeneralCommanding
ordered a second Court, composed of independent officers; but when this
assembled on IVfay 5th, it was too late to ascertain the truth. Commander-in-
Chief subsequently deputed General Officer Commanding the Rawal Pindi
District to make further enquiries, but these proved abortive.
Meanwhile, on June 9th, a trooper of 9th Lancers kicked a Native punkah-
coolie A term used to describe labourers from a number of Asian countries, now considered derogatory. , and latter died of ruptured spleen. This case was disposed of in Civil
Court and trooper was fined.
It remained for Government of India to deal with earlier case, to enforce
stricter sense of discipline in regiment, and to mark their sense of wholly
inadequate attempts made by regiment to bring home crime to guilty parties.
Government of India, from careful study of the evidence, entertained little or
no doubt that assailants of Atu belonged to 9th Lancers, and that responsibility
for failure to bring them to justice rested both with officers and" men. A
prompt and thorough investigation at an earlier stage could hardly have failed
to elicit the truth: while the confession or surrender of offenders would at any
moment have relieved regiment from grave suspicion of harbouring in its ranks
the authors of a cruel and senseless crime.
Military Authorities recommended to Government of India following dis
ciplinary action : (1) that all officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of 9th
Lancers on leave in India (other than on medical certificate) should be recalled
to duty; (2) that no leave, except on medical certificate, should be granted to
any officer, non-commissioned officer, or man of the regiment until 1st June
1903; (3) that a sentry should be furnished for every barrack occupied by the
regiment in cantonment, up to 1st June 1903 (but not while at the manoeuvres
or on the march). These penalties were subject to discovery of guilty person
or persons. In unanimously accepting these recommendations Government of
India further ordered 9th Lancers to be addressed in following sense—“ The
9th Lancers lie under the stigma of concealing a criminal assault leading to
death of defenceless Native, committed by man or men of the regiment. In
the opinion of Government of India it is considered impossible to pass over the
conduct of a regiment which lies under the stigma of concealing in its ranks one
or more criminals, and such disciplinary action will be taken as will bring
home to men of 9th Lancers that Government of India are determined that
brutal assaults by our soldiers on defenceless Natives must be put down with
strong hand. ,,
The regiment was at the same time informed that a further proposal by the
Military Authorities to strike 9th Lancers off the strength of troops selected to
attend Delhi Durbar A public or private audience held by a high-ranking British colonial representative (e.g. Viceroy, Governor-General, or member of the British royal family). had not been accepted by the Government of India
because of illustrious record of the regiment, and the desire to spare it a public
disgrace. Dor publicity that has since ensued the Government, who have
throughout been solicitous of honour of Army, are in no wise responsible.