A Pyrrhic victory

HOWEVER much Sir Michael O’Dwyer and his friends, both in England and India, may congratulate themselves on the victory they have won in the famous suit that has just been disposed of, no impartial man, no man at any rate who takes into account the cost at which this victory has been won will for a moment join in the congratulations. It has been literally a Pyrrhic victory. So far as the parties are concerned — their respective positions in respect of the matters in dispute in this suit, in the eyes of India, of England and of the world — there was no new question of victory or defeat. No one, whether Englishman or Indian, thinks worse of Sir Sankaran Nair today than he did before the judgment in this case was delivered. Nor does anyone think better of Sir O’Dwyer’s administration of Punjab generally or of the Martial Law horrors in particular or finally of Gen Dyer’s infamous action at Jallianwala Bagh than he did a week ago. These are not matters in respect of which the judgment of nations depends upon the verdict of a judge or jury with necessarily limited commissions and having their full share of national and racial prejudice. Had the case been tried in India by an Indian judge and jury, the verdict would in all human probability have gone as decisively against Sir O’Dwyer as it has in this case gone against Sir Nair, but who among Sir O’Dwyer’s friends and admirers would have attached any importance to that verdict, or revised their opinion in any particular of the late Lieutenant Governor and his administration?