[Over a thousand, when was that? The worst episode I know of is the infamous Massacre of Amritsar, when "only" 379 were killed but 1,200-1,500 wounded -- detailed as follows in the Encyclopedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/seo/m/massacre-of-amritsar/)]
Amritsar, Massacre of
(April 13, 1919), incident in which British troops fired on a crowd of unarmed Indian protesters, killing a large number. It left a permanent scar on Indo-British relations and was the prelude to Mahatma Gandhi's Non-cooperation Movement of 1920-22.
In 1919 the British government of India enacted the Rowlatt Acts, extending its World War I emergency powers to combat subversive activities. At Amritsar, Punjab (Pañjab) district, about 10,000 demonstrators unlawfully protesting these measures confronted troops commanded by Brig. Gen. Reginald E.H. Dyer in an open space known as the Jallianwalla Bagh, which had only one exit. The troops fired on the crowd, killing an estimated 379 and wounding about 1,200, according to one official report. The shooting was followed by the proclamation of martial law, public floggings, and other humiliations. The Hunter Commission condemned General Dyer (1920), but the House of Lords praised his action, and a fund was raised in his honour.
[Or from http://www.rediff.com/news/sep/20jal.htm]
General Dyer was hardly remorseful for Jallianwala massacre ...
"It was a horrible duty to perform. But I think it was a merciful thing. I thought I should shoot well and shoot straight so that I or anybody else would not have had to shoot again."
The words of Brigadier General Reginald Dyer himself -- the perpetrator of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre which left 379 dead and 1,500 injured in 1919.
Deposing before the Hunter commission inquiring into the shooting, General Dyer said his action was meant to punish the people if they disobeyed his orders. He thought from a military point of view, such an action would create a good impression in Punjab.
However, what was more damning was his statement, "I think it quite possible that I could have dispersed the crowd without firing but they would have come back again and laughed, and I would have made, what I consider, a fool of myself."
He contended that martial law existed de facto in Amritsar at that time although only demonstrations had been forbidden. He also claimed that his military column had stopped at every important point to announce that all meetings have been banned which were accompanied by the beating of drums.
However, when questioned with the help of a map of the city, General Dyer was forced to admit that important localities had been omitted, and a large number of people would not have known about the proclamation.
He confessed he did not take any steps to attend to the wounded after the firing. "Certainly not. It was not my job. Hospitals were open and they could have gone there," came his pathetic response.
[end]
Carl
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com