As we step onto the 101st year of commemorating the horror that was the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, it is worthwhile to discuss and debate the multitude of layers that surround the butchery by the bloodthirsty fighters under General Reginald Dyer, on that fateful day of 13th April 1919. The popular and widely accepted notion that the act was perpetrated in response to the murder and rampage trail left by the natives is only superficial at best. The Jallianwala Bagh lives on today as a grim reminder of the discord that prevailed during the British Raj and has been hailed by many as the single-most definitive moment in India’s quest for freedom. Notable historian A.J.P Taylor recalled the incident as “the decisive moment when Indians were alienated from the British Rule”. By standing up to an act as violative and wrongful as the Jallianwala Bagh, the British had lost the moral authority to reign India- and united millions in India with a strong fervent of patriotic passion. The brute display of might may as well be thought of a planned act of genocide; an act intended to impress terror upon the minds of defiant rebels who dared to question the authority of the Crown.
India’s immense contribution to the British war efforts in the First World War had inspired hope among certain sections of the society that their benefaction would not go unnoticed; many aspired for the remuneration to be some form of local self-governance. Such hopes were quickly dashed by the Montague-Chelmsford ‘Reforms’ and the punitive Rowlatt Act- which designated competent authority with impunity, and upon their whims, to search, arrest, harass or even kill civilians suspected of crimes against the empire- all without the necessity of a trial. On 6th April, Gandhi had called for a nation-wide hartal to condemn the malicious design of the Britishers. In Amritsar, too, the call for strike was religiously obeyed- and there were no reported incidents of violence. Yet, in an unprecedented act of undue aggression, the Provincial Government of Punjab arrested Dr Kitchlew and Dr Satyapal on 9 April- both of whom held sway and considerable influence over the masses. This triggered protests all over Amritsar, and in the ensuing anarchy, ten demonstrators were fired upon. The crowd, maddened by a taste of vengeance, reacted by killing five Englishmen and assaulting a woman missionary (who was later rescued and carried to safety by Indians themselves).
The British wasted no time and sent troops to cordon the holy city of Amritsar. By 11 April, over 600 fully armed troops had been stationed under the command of General Reginald Dyer. He made several arrests to stamp his mark of authority, and on the 13th, issued prohibitory orders that forbade people to leave the city, engage in demonstrations, or even meet in groups larger than three. Oblivious to such orders, some ten to fifteen thousand people from outlying districts gathered in the city to celebrate the auspicious occasion of Baisakhi- ushering in the new year. They had assembled at the confines of the Jallianwala Bagh, an enclosed walled garden that lay at the heart of the city. The spot was accessible only through five narrow passageways. When Dyer learnt of this development, without caring to know whether the attendees were indeed in defiance of his orders, he did not hesitate to park vehicles mounted with artillery outside the complex. He ordered his troops to open fire, and in a span of a mere ten minutes, the vivacious crowd was silenced by the stench of death and sorrow. 1650 rounds of bullet fire had been unleashed on those present, and by official reports, 379 were killed in the heinous act of cold-blooded mass murder!
Salman Rushdie suggests that the immediate trigger to the genocide was the assault of a lady missionary. He wrote, “the calumny… that frail English roses were in constant sexual danger from lust-crazed wogs” may also have played a part in Dyer’s mind. In retrospect, it was much more than that. No other punishment meted out by the Empire was as barbarous as the Jallianwala Bagh. The Peterloo massacre had claimed only eleven lives. Across the Atlantic, British soldiers who had fired upon the Boston Commons had killed five men- and had been accused of deliberate massacre. In contrast, figures established by an independent fact-finding committee appointed by the Congress for the Jallianwala Bagh pegged the dead at nearly a thousand, with countless many bruised beyond recovery. This was no ordinary act of retribution, but also an unabashed display of egoistic assertiveness. The establishment was up in arms to suppress the news of Dyer’s notorious act and effectively contained it for six months before all hell broke loose and the news spread like wildfire.
The British, who advocated themselves as crusaders of human rights and democracy, were now in a desperate bid to cleanse themselves of the unholy taint. An official commission was established to enquire into the misdeeds of General Dyer, popularly called the Hunter Commission. While deposing before the commission, Dyer had not the slightest of remorse or guilt for his actions. He claimed that the congregation was a ‘rebel meeting’, a direct challenge to his authority which had to be responded to in kind. He noted with satisfaction that it was him that had ordered the troops to fire towards the exits, where the crowd was swelled in an attempt to escape. He described with absolute iniquity, ‘… the targets [innocent civilians], were good’. When they had exhausted their ammunition and innumerable people lay writhing in pain on that harrowed compound, Dyer forbade his soldiers to provide aid to any of the injured. He consequently ordered all natives to stay off the roads for twenty-four hours, thereby denying help to even those who watched their life chipping away under the obstinacy of the General’s whims. It was perhaps not a surprise that the commission only found him guilty of ‘grave error’, and refused to accept the outrageous violation of life that had been carefully orchestrated under Dyer’s sadistic watch. This made it quite discernible that the commission was set up as an eyewash- and that homicide of the hapless was at best inconsequential to those placed comfortably away in the High Command.
When public distrust and anger against the Hunter Commission unfolded, Jawaharlal Nehru was deputed to ascertain the facts. He found several more ignominies hurled at Indians, all of which he meticulously noted. He described with a sense of utter repugnance, that Indians using the street where the missionary was assaulted were condemned to crawl on their bellies, in ‘the manner of snakes and worms’. Perhaps the greatest surprise of all lay not in the ruthless killing itself, but the reaction of the British public to such a despicable act. While being dismissed from service later, he continued to enjoy stately privileges and lapped up a handsome pension granted to him. Rudyard Kipling- who is a favourite among bibliophiles- hailed Dyer as ‘The Man who Saved India’. The Britons, in full complicity, ran a crowdfunding campaign for Dyer, and presented to him a princely sum of £26,317 – equivalent to almost a quarter of a million pounds today! In stark contrast, the kith and kin of the deceased in the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy were compensated a poorly £37. Nehru later penned, “… the cold-blooded approval of that deed shocked me greatly. I realised then, more vividly than I had ever before, how immoral imperialism had eaten into the souls of the British upper classes.”
The Jallianwala Bagh massacre hit the last nail in the coffin which reinforced the construct that the British Raj did not value Indian lives. It was not a mere exercise in saving the honour of British women or responding to defiance of authority. Rather, it was an exhibition of brute power by bloodthirsty hoodlums who donned the garb of mannered diplomats. In 1928, Sir William Hicks- Home Minister under the Conservative government led by Prime Minister Baldwin- made it amply clear: “We went with a yardstick in one hand and a sword in the other, and with the latter we continue to hold them helpless while we force the former down their throats.” The tragedy was nothing but a clear-cut case of egregious racism solidified by the British intractability and authoritative obstinance, and shoved upon helpless civilians who would go on to be framed forever in the annals of contemporary Indian history.