Amritsar bore the brunt of the violence during the events that unfolded. Initially, the protestors demonstrate peacefully by closing shops and ceasing normal trade, reflecting the Indian population’s discontent with British actions. On April 9, without provocation, British officials arrested nationalist leaders Saifuddin Kitchlew and Dr. Satyapal, fueling resentment among the protestors. On April 10, thousands took to the streets to show solidarity, and the situation turned violent when the police opened fire, resulting in casualties among the protestors. The city was tense, prompting the deployment of troops, led by Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer, to impose martial law.
Chronological Development
Restrictions Imposed by Dyer: Dyer issued a proclamation on April 13, restricting people from leaving the city without a pass and prohibiting demonstrations, processions, or assemblies of more than three individuals.
- Peaceful Gathering at Jallianwala Bagh: On Baisakhi day, a large crowd gathered in Jallianwala Bagh, unaware of the prohibitory orders, to celebrate the festival.
- The meeting proceeded peacefully, with resolutions against the Rowlatt Act and the April 10 firing passed.
- Dyer’s Attack on the Unarmed Crowd: Brigadier-General Dyer arrived and, without warning, ordered his men to open fire on the unarmed crowd, which included men, women, and children.
| The enormity of the measures taken by the Government in the Punjab for quelling some local disturbances has, with a rude shock, revealed to our minds the helplessness of our position as British subjects in India … [T]he very least that I can do for my country is to take all consequences upon myself in giving voice to the protest of the millions of my countrymen, surprised into a dumb anguish of terror. The time has come when badges of honour make our shame glaring in the incongruous context
of humiliation… —Rabindranath Tagore in a letter to the Viceroy |
- Account of Casualties: Official British Indian sources reported 379 identified dead and approximately 1,100 wounded.
- Indian National Congress, on the other hand, estimated more than 1,500 were injured, and approximately 1,000 were killed. However, it is known that more than 1,500 (1650 precisely) bullets were fired into the crowd.
- The Aftermath and Withdrawal of Rowlatt Satyagraha: The incident led to brutalities against the inhabitants of Amritsar, with martial law declared in Punjab and inhumane treatment, such as public floggings.
- Public Outrage: The nation was shocked, prompting Rabindranath Tagore to renounce his knighthood, and Gandhi surrendered his Kaiser-i-Hind title.
- Gandhi’s Withdrawal: Overwhelmed by the violence, Gandhi withdrew the movement on April 18, 1919.
- The Amritsar massacre convinced Gandhi that cooperation with a ‘satanic regime‘ was impossible, and it underscored the moral righteousness of the cause for Indian independence.
- Launch of the Non-Cooperation Movement: However, this withdrawal did not signify a loss of faith on Gandhiji’s part, either in his non-violent Satyagraha or in the Indian people’s capacity to adopt it as a method of struggle.
- A year later, he initiated another nationwide struggle (Non-Cooperation Movement), surpassing the scale of the Rowlatt Satyagraha.
- The injustice inflicted upon Punjab remained a major catalyst for launching this movement.
- Impact on British Rule: From an objective perspective, Dyer’s actions marked the beginning of the end of the British Raj. The non-cooperation movement found its way, and according to historian A.P.J. Taylor, the Jallianwala Bagh massacre was the “decisive moment when Indians were alienated from British rule.”
The Hunter Committee of Inquiry
The shocking Jallianwala Bagh massacre prompted a response from the Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu. In reaction, a committee was established to look into the incident. On October 14, 1919, the Government of India announced the formation of the Disorders Inquiry Committee, often known as the Hunter Committee, named after its chairman, Lord William Hunter.
- Objective and Scope: The committee had the objective of investigating recent disturbances in Bombay, Delhi, and Punjab, delving into their causes and the actions taken to address them.
- Composition of the Committee: The committee included three Indian members: Sir Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad, who served as the Vice-Chancellor of Bombay University; Pandit Jagat Narayan, a lawyer and Member of the Legislative Council of the United Provinces; and Sardar Sahibzada Sultan Ahmad Khan, a lawyer hailing from Gwalior State.
- Investigation Process: Starting their sessions in Delhi on October 29, the committee gathered statements from witnesses in Delhi, Ahmedabad, Bombay, and Lahore.
- By November, they were in Lahore examining key witnesses to the events in Amritsar, including Dyer, who remained confident that his actions were justified within the bounds of duty.
- Findings and Criticisms of Final Report: Despite racial tensions stemming from Dyer’s remarks, the committee’s final report, released in March 1920, unanimously denounced Dyer’s actions.
- It criticized the absence of a warning to disperse, the prolonged firing, Dyer’s motives, and his exceeding of authority.
- Lack of Penalties and Criticisms of the Indemnity Act: However, the Hunter Committee refrained from imposing any penalties or disciplinary measures against Dyer, citing that his actions had been sanctioned by superiors and protected by an Indemnity Act.
- This Act, labeled the “whitewashing bill,” faced substantial criticism.
- Political Reactions: In England, Winston Churchill, then Secretary of State for War, condemned the incident in the House of Commons, leading to Dyer’s dismissal from his command in March 1920.
- Despite differing opinions, Dyer did not face universal condemnation. The House of Lords predominantly supported him, passing a motion in his favor.
- The Morning Post raised funds for Dyer, and he was recognized as a Sikh by the clergy of the Golden Temple. This recognition fueled demands for reform in the management of Sikh shrines, culminating in the initiation of the Gurdwara Reform movement.
Congress View
The Indian National Congress formed a non-official committee comprising Motilal Nehru, C.R. Das, Abbas Tyabji, M.R. Jayakar, and Gandhi to present its perspective. The Congress’s stance criticized Dyer’s actions as inhumane and contested the justification for the imposition of martial law in Punjab.
| Must Read | |
| Current Affairs | Editorial Analysis |
| Upsc Notes | Upsc Blogs |
| NCERT Notes | Free Main Answer Writing |
Conclusion
The events of 1919 had a lasting impact on Punjab’s politics of resistance. Bhagat Singh, only 11 at the time, would later use the massacre as a symbol for overcoming apathy after the non-cooperation movement. Udham Singh, also known as Ram Mohammad Singh Azad, eventually assassinated Michael O’Dwyer, the lieutenant governor responsible for the brutal suppression in 1919, and was hanged in 1940 for his actions. (His ashes were returned to India in 1974. The Hunter Committee’s condemnation of Dyer and the Congress’s critical perspective underscores the diverse responses to an appalling tragedy. Gandhi’s enduring legacy lies in his unwavering belief in nonviolence, making him a beacon for social change and an eternal symbol of resilience against injustice.
