It was the year 1919. Britain owed a great debt of gratitude to the Indian soldiers who had just fought valiantly and selflessly in a war that was not theirs, alongside British soldiers and against enemy countries they had barely even heard of.
Instead of rewarding the Indians for sacrificing their lives in World War 1, the British government in India repaid its Indian subjects with the enactment of harsher, draconian laws like the Rowlatt Act to contain the so-called “seditious behavior of the natives”, the imposition of Martial Law in Punjab and the butchering of unarmed citizens.
April 13 is a dark day in India’s colonial history and marks the 100th anniversary of the brutal Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Amritsar, where Brigadier General Reginald Dyer opened fire on thousands of unarmed Indians, who had peacefully assembled in the Bagh on Baisakhi day to protest peacefully against the recent arrests of Gandhi and other leaders. They had assembled to show their resentment towards the repressive new laws the government was imposing on India, which would allow arrests and convictions without warrants and trials.
I have just finished reading a remarkably well-researched book by Kishwar Desai titled Jallianwala Bagh 1919, The Real Story. Today being the centenary of that tragic event, I felt compelled to write about it. Her findings are shocking and heart-rending. The book has enough evidence to prove that the massacre and subsequent imposition of martial law in Punjab, with its harsh and sadistic punishments, were not just random acts of madness of a tyrannical and whimsical army officer General Dyer, but part of a larger programme to humiliate, crush and punish the citizens of Punjab for participating in Gandhi’s Satyagraha movement and agitating against the Rowlatt Act.
The then Lieutenant Governor of Punjab, Sir Michael O. Dwyer was determined to teach his citizens a ‘moral lesson’, and his administration was given a carte blanche to do as they pleased with the natives.
On April 10, 1919, Amritsar witnessed riots, which resulted in the killing of five Europeans—a ‘blasphemous act’ in the eyes of the administration. However, what the Britishers did not realise is that these unfortunate deaths were in retaliation to the killing of 20 unarmed Indian protestors by police the same morning. The people had taken to the streets of Amritsar to protest against the arrests of Gandhi, Satya Pal and Kitchlew.
What alarmed O. Dwyer and his officials even more was the growing unity among Hindus and Muslims, who were now bound together by a common cause. In fact, for the first time, both the communities were gathering together at mosques. Hindus were delivering speeches at these gatherings, such as at the Badshahi Mosque in Lahore. What’s more, the Mohammedins were participating in Hindu festivals like Ram Naumi. The Punjab government felt extremely threatened by this and had to act fast.
The people of Punjab had to be shown their place. Lieutenant Governor O. Dwyer was retiring soon and he could not leave office on a weak note, where the natives had the upper hand. Drastic measures were needed and the right man for the job was Brigadier General Reginald Dyer who was brought in from Jalandhar, where he was commanding a division at the time. Dyer arrived in Amritsar on the night of April 11, and proceeded to unleash a reign of terror.
Dyer issued a proclamation forbidding public gatherings on the morning of April 13. However, it is doubtful whether sufficient announcements were made in order to inform the public about this order.
Moreover, this proclamation wasn’t even posted at the entrance of Jallianwala Bagh, a popular venue for most public gatherings in Amritsar. A meeting was advertised for 4:30pm that day and the authorities were well aware of it. But nothing was done to stop the gathering. All this points to the fact that the rulers of Punjab wanted a large crowd to defy the proclamation and gather there so that they could be taught a cruel lesson.
Shortly after the meeting commenced at 4:30pm, Dyer, accompanied by 25 gurkhas and 25 Baluchis, armed with rifles, made their way to Jallianwala Bagh through a narrow road, and without any warning opened fire at the unarmed crowd who had gathered there to listen to a few prominent citizens of Amritsar. There were very few exits, which were very narrow.
People stumbled upon each other as they tried to make their way out, but the bullets rained on them relentlessly. In fact, they fired targeting the exit points so as to cause maximum damage. Even though the crowd began to disperse, the bullets did not stop for at least 10 minutes. People lying down were also fired upon. Many young boys who had accompanied their fathers to the meeting, and were busy playing on one side of the open ground, were also killed.
What was worse was that a curfew was imposed on Amritsar and people could not leave home after 8 pm. This meant that the relatives of the deceased could not go and search for the victims at Jallianwala Bagh. The dead bodies lay rotting and the wounded bled to death, with no one to give them even a sip of water through the night. Many who escaped died on their way home and several died over the next few days, as they had no access to medical help.
The government put the toll at about 300. However, the Indian National Congress estimated the number of deaths to be around 2,000. Many more were injured. Indian lives did not matter and the Punjab government was not interested in compiling a detailed list of the victims.
It was only in August 1919, that the Indian government fully learnt of the circumstances that led to Jallianwala Bagh. It was also around then that the news reached the shores of England. In July 1920, after hearings in both the houses of the UK parliament, Dyer was dismissed or rather “retired from service on half pay with no future prospects of employment”.
However, the right-wingers sympathised with Dyer and even hailed him as the hero of Jallianwala Bagh. The House of Lords actually voted in favor of Dyer during the hearing. After Dyer’s dismissal from duty, a right wing newspaper raised a fund worth 26,000 pounds for him. Amongst the main contributors was Mumbai-born, British Nobel Laureate Rudyard Kipling who referred to Dyer as “the man who saved India”.
When Dyer himself was giving his evidence in Lahore before the Hunter Committee of enquiry, he spoke of the people of Amritsar as if they were errant schoolchildren in a British Public School who needed to be disciplined. “It would be doing a jolly lot of good and they would realise that they were not to be wicked,” said Dyer about his actions at the Bagh. “I wanted to punish the naughty boy.”
Fast forward to a 100 years later, British PM Theresa May has expressed “deep regret” for the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh. Why is it so hard for the British government to offer us a sincere and straightforward apology? She referred to it as a “shameful scar on British-Indian history”.
Hundreds of innocent people killed in cold blood is a mere scar?? Even Churchill had referred to it as a “monstrous event”, while Edwin Montague, then secretary of state for India, had asked in the House of Commons during the hearing of Dyer’s case if the British intended to hold on to India by “terrorism, racial humiliation, subordination and frightfulness”.
I am not surprised though. Theresa May is the leader of the Conservative party, and back in 1920, it was the conservatives who praised Dyer’s actions in Amritsar and elevated him to the status of a hero. The passage of 100 years does not diminish the monumental tragedy.
A century later in India, we are on the threshold of a general election, and we do not need the British to divide and rule us. Our own leaders are doing an efficient job of it. Isn’t it tragic?
In 1919, Ram Naumi was celebrated amidst great fanfare with Muslim participation. Now, Lord Ram is invoked for political gains in a very different way. As tragic as Jallianwala Bagh was, we can learn a lot from our Indian leaders of that era. May the victims of that massacre rest in peace. Their contribution to our freedom struggle should never be forgotten.
Jai Hind!
(The author is a former journalist and has a postgraduation in Comparative Politics from the London School of Economics and Political Science)
