Jallianwala Bagh Massacre and the Hunter Committee

At a Glance

• What happened Firing on an unarmed crowd at Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar
• Date 13 April 1919, Baisakhi
• Officer Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer
• Inquiry Hunter Committee, announced 14 October 1919; report March 1920
• Exam link UPSC Prelims, Modern History: Emergence of Gandhi

Where Does It Fit?

This is the sixth topic of the category on the emergence of Gandhi. The previous topic covered the Rowlatt Act and the satyagraha against it. This topic describes the massacre at Amritsar and the Hunter Committee. The next topic describes the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, which complete the picture of 1919. Previous topic: Rowlatt Act and the Satyagraha Against It.

What Led to the Massacre?

Amritsar was the worst affected by violence in April 1919. At first the protesters were not violent. Indians shut their shops, and empty streets showed their displeasure at the British betrayal. On 9 April two nationalist leaders, Saifuddin Kitchlew and Dr Satyapal, were arrested without any provocation except that they had addressed protest meetings, and were taken to an unknown destination. On 10 April thousands came out in solidarity. The protests turned violent when police fired and killed some protesters. In the riot that followed, five Englishmen are reported to have been killed and Marcella Sherwood, an English woman missionary on a bicycle, was beaten up.

Troops were sent to quell the disturbances. Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer was the senior officer responsible for imposing martial law and restoring order. By then the city had returned to calm. Dyer issued a proclamation on 13 April, which was also Baisakhi, forbidding people to leave the city without a pass and to organise demonstrations or processions, or assemble in groups of more than three.

What Happened at Jallianwala Bagh on 13 April 1919?

On Baisakhi day a large crowd, mostly from neighbouring villages and unaware of the prohibitory orders, gathered in Jallianwala Bagh, a popular place for public events, to celebrate the festival. Local leaders had also called a protest meeting there. About 20,000 people had collected, and it is not clear how many were political protesters, since most had come for the festival. The meeting was peaceful and had passed two resolutions, one calling for repeal of the Rowlatt Act and the other condemning the firing of 10 April, when Dyer arrived with his men.

The troops surrounded the gathering, blocked the only exit and opened fire on the unarmed crowd. No warning was given and no instruction to disperse. Men, women and children were fired upon as they tried to flee.

It is precisely known that 1,650 bullets were fired into the crowd. The sources differ on the toll, so the figures above are attributed and not reconciled.

What Followed in Punjab?

The massacre was followed by brutalities on the inhabitants of Amritsar. Martial law was proclaimed in the Punjab, and public floggings and other humiliations were perpetrated. In one instance, Indians were forced to crawl on their bellies down the road on which the English missionary had been assaulted.

The entire nation was stunned. Rabindranath Tagore renounced his knighthood in protest, and Gandhi gave up the title of Kaiser-i-Hind, which the British had given him for his work during the Boer War. Gandhi, overwhelmed by the atmosphere of total violence, withdrew the movement on 18 April 1919.

Why Was the Massacre a Turning Point?

The events in Amritsar made Gandhi declare that cooperation with a satanic regime was now impossible. He realised that the cause of Indian independence from British rule was morally righteous, and the way to the Khilafat Committee Congress approval Special session at Calcutta, September 1920 Nagpur session…">non-cooperation movement was ready. The historian A.P.J. Taylor called the massacre the decisive moment when Indians were alienated from British rule. One assessment is that Dyer ensured the beginning of the end of the British Raj.

The events of 1919 shaped Punjab’s politics of resistance. Bhagat Singh was just 11 at the time, and for his Bharat Naujawan Sabha the massacre was a symbol to help overcome the apathy that came after the end of the non-cooperation movement. Udham Singh, who bore the name Ram Mohammad Singh Azad, later assassinated Michael O’Dwyer, the Lieutenant Governor who presided over the suppression of the 1919 protests in Punjab; he was hanged in 1940 and his ashes were returned to India in 1974.

What Was the Hunter Committee?

The massacre shocked Indians and many British. The Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu, ordered an inquiry. On 14 October 1919 the Government of India announced the Disorders Inquiry Committee, more widely known as the Hunter Committee, after its chairman Lord William Hunter, a former Solicitor-General for Scotland. Its purpose was to investigate the recent disturbances in Bombay, Delhi and Punjab, their causes and the measures taken to cope with them.

It had three Indian members: Sir Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad, Pandit Jagat Narayan and Sardar Sahibzada Sultan Ahmad Khan. After meeting in Delhi on 29 October, it examined witnesses from Delhi, Ahmedabad, Bombay and Lahore, and in November reached Lahore, where Dyer was called. Dyer said his intention was to strike terror throughout the Punjab and reduce the moral stature of the rebels, and that he did not tend the wounded because he did not consider it his job.

What Did the Hunter Committee Find, and What Followed?

The final report, released in March 1920, unanimously condemned Dyer. It said that the lack of notice to disperse was an error, that the length of firing showed a grave error, that his motive of producing a moral effect was to be condemned, that he had overstepped his authority, and that there had been no conspiracy to overthrow British rule in the Punjab. The minority report of the Indian members added that the proclamations banning meetings were insufficiently publicised, that innocent people were in the crowd and there had been no violence in the Bagh beforehand, that Dyer should have helped the wounded, and that his actions were inhuman and un-British.

The Congress appointed its own non-official committee including Motilal Nehru, C.R. Das, Abbas Tyabji, M.R. Jayakar and Gandhi. It criticised Dyer’s act as inhuman and found no justification for martial law in Punjab.

As an analytical point, the gap between the committee’s condemnation and the absence of any penalty is what made the official inquiry unsatisfying to Indians, which strengthened the argument for non-cooperation. The movement that followed is in The Khilafat Issue and Its Link With Non-Cooperation.

Why Is This Topic Important?

• Turning point The massacre is among the most asked topics in Modern History
• Details of the inquiry Hunter Committee facts are common in Prelims
• Link to non-cooperation It led Gandhi to conclude that cooperation was impossible

What Came Next?

The next topic describes the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and the Government of India Act, 1919, the constitutional side of the same year. Next topic: Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and the Government of India Act, 1919.

Key People and Terms

• Reginald Dyer Brigadier-General who ordered the firing
• Saifuddin Kitchlew Nationalist leader arrested on 9 April 1919
• Satyapal Nationalist leader arrested with Kitchlew
• Hunter Committee The Disorders Inquiry Committee under Lord William Hunter
• Indemnity Act Law protecting officials; called the white washing bill
• Michael O’Dwyer Lieutenant Governor of Punjab in 1919
• Udham Singh Assassinated O’Dwyer; hanged in 1940

Exam Corner

Mains Angle

Questions ask about the impact of the massacre and the Hunter Committee. These points add depth.

• Events Martial law and the firing
• Reactions Tagore, Gandhi and Congress
• Limits of the inquiry Condemnation without punishment