Resistance to Rowlatt Act: Hartals (business strikes)/Mass Satyagraha
British India contributed massively to the British WWI effort by providing men and resources. About 1.25 million Indian soldiers and labourers served in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. In the aftermath of World War I, high casualty rates, increasing inflation compounded by heavy taxation, the deadly 1918 flu pandemic, and the disruption of trade during the war escalated human suffering in India. The costs of the protracted war in both money and manpower were great. In India, long the "jewel in the crown" of the British Empire, Indians were restless for independence. More than 43,000 Indian soldiers had died fighting for Britain.
WWI was over and with the coming expectation of peace Gandhi said India expected the restoration of civil liberties. Nationalist leaders like Bal Gangadhar (aka “Lokamanya” or Respected by the People”) and Mrs. Annie Besant had been arrested during the war. A committee headed by Sir Sidney Rowlatt, who had come from England to study administration of justice, issued a report which recommended, in effect, a continuation of wartime rigours.
Gandhi said the recommendations of the Rowlatt Committee “seemed to me….such that no self-respecting people could submit to them.” Later the Rowlatt Bill had been published as an Act on March 18, 1919.
By 1919 Gandhi wished to hasten India's freedom and led agrarian and labor reform demonstrations. The Russian Revolution had also begun to influence Indians. Revolt was in the air, many Army officers believed, and they prepared for the worst. Ominously for the British, in 1919, the third Anglo-Afghan war began and in India, Gandhi's call for protest against the Rowlatt Act achieved an unprecedented response of furious unrest and protests.
Gandhi said the idea to protest came to him as if in a dream: “Let all the people of India, therefore suspend their business on [the] day [the Rowlatt Act becomes law], and observe the day as one of fasting and prayer. [because by religious custom] the Moslems may not fast for more than one day...the durationof the fast should be twenty-four hours...” The people had short notice of the hartal [business strike]. The 2 hartals in Amritsar, a city of 150,000 in the Punjab, were successful. The situation especially in Punjab was deteriorating rapidly, with disruptions of rail, telegraph and communication systems and no police collission or violence.
Five days later Brigadier-General reginald Edward Henry Dyer of the British Army arrived. He issued a proclamation on April 12, 1919 prohibiting processions and meetings. The Hunter Committee, an official board of inquiry into what happened later stated, “From an examination of the map showing the different places where the proclamation was read, it is evident that in many parts of the city the proclamation was not read.”
Peaceful demonstration—1919 Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre: Murder in an Indian Garden
The Hunter Report then tells the story of the April 13, 1919 massacre.
About one o’clock, General Dyer heard that the people intended to hold a big meeting about 4:30 p.m. On being asked why he did not take measures to prevent its being held, he replied: ‘I went there as soon as I could. I had to think it out.’
The meeting took place at Jallianwalla Bagh. Bagh means garden, but it could be considered an enclosed park in the city of Amristar. Gandhi said there were few imperfect entrances and exits. Without giving the large crowd any notice, General Dyer ordered his troops to fire and the firing continued for 10 minutes. The crowd was not armed with firearms.
The Report estimated that there were 3 times as many wounded dead. This adds up to 379 dead plus 1137 wounded, or 1516 casualties with 1650 rounds fired. The number of deaths caused by the shooting is disputed. While the official figure given by the British inquiry into the massacre is 379 deaths, the method used by the inquiry has been subject to criticism.The crowd, penned in the low-lying garden, was a perfect target.
Louis Fisher added, ‘Dyer’s unnecessary massacre was the child of the British mentality then dominating India. Jallianwalla Bagh quickened India’s political life and drew Gandhi into politics.’
The Amristar massacre of 1919 stirred Indian nationalist consciousness and Gandhi instigated a policy of non-cooperation with the British as well as a number of Satyagraha campaigns. Gandhi was opposed to India's caste system. His program included a free, united India and complete abolition of the caste system.
Although Gandhi's ideas met with opposition from some Indians, they were widely and vigorously espoused: Indians began to squat in the streets to protest. Parents began removing their children from government-run schools. Even when faced with harsh physical punishments, the Indian people refused to move. Their position was steadfast.
Another look at Dyer testifying before the Hunter committee
Dyer explained his sense of honour to the Hunter Commission by saying, "I think it quite possible that I could have dispersed the crowd without firing but they would have come back again and laughed, and I would have made, what I consider, a fool of myself."
Dyer said he would have used his machine guns if he could have got them into the enclosure, but these were mounted on armoured cars. He said he did not stop the shooting when the crowd began to disperse because he thought it was his duty to keep shooting until the crowd dispersed, and that a little shooting would not do any good.
In fact he continued the shooting until the ammunition was almost exhausted. He stated that he did not make any effort to tend to the wounded after the shooting: "Certainly not. It was not my job. Hospitals were open and they could have gone there."
The inquiry, chaired by Lord William Hunter, condemned Dyer, arguing that in "continuing firing as long as he did, it appears to us that General Dyer committed a grave error."
Dissenting members argued that the martial law regime's use of force was wholly unjustified. "General Dyer thought he had crushed the rebellion and Sir Michael O'Dwyer was of the same view," they wrote, "(but) there was no rebellion which required to be crushed." The committee reported
• lack of notice to disperse from the Bagh in the beginning was an error
• length of firing showed a grave error
• Dyer's motive of producing a sufficient moral effect was to be condemned
• lack of attention to the wounded was not acceptable
The Hunter Commission did not impose any penal or disciplinary action because Dyer's actions were condoned by various superiors (later upheld by the Army Council). However, he was finally found guilty of a mistaken notion of duty and relieved of his command.
Resistance to Rowlatt Act: Hartals (business strikes)/Mass Satyagraha
ReplyDeleteBritish India contributed massively to the British WWI effort by providing men and resources. About 1.25 million Indian soldiers and labourers served in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. In the aftermath of World War I, high casualty rates, increasing inflation compounded by heavy taxation, the deadly 1918 flu pandemic, and the disruption of trade during the war escalated human suffering in India. The costs of the protracted war in both money and manpower were great. In India, long the "jewel in the crown" of the British Empire, Indians were restless for independence. More than 43,000 Indian soldiers had died fighting for Britain.
WWI was over and with the coming expectation of peace Gandhi said India expected the restoration of civil liberties. Nationalist leaders like Bal Gangadhar (aka “Lokamanya” or Respected by the People”) and Mrs. Annie Besant had been arrested during the war. A committee headed by Sir Sidney Rowlatt, who had come from England to study administration of justice, issued a report which recommended, in effect, a continuation of wartime rigours.
Gandhi said the recommendations of the Rowlatt Committee “seemed to me….such that no self-respecting people could submit to them.” Later the Rowlatt Bill had been published as an Act on March 18, 1919.
By 1919 Gandhi wished to hasten India's freedom and led agrarian and labor reform demonstrations. The Russian Revolution had also begun to influence Indians. Revolt was in the air, many Army officers believed, and they prepared for the worst. Ominously for the British, in 1919, the third Anglo-Afghan war began and in India, Gandhi's call for protest against the Rowlatt Act achieved an unprecedented response of furious unrest and protests.
Gandhi said the idea to protest came to him as if in a dream: “Let all the people of India, therefore suspend their business on [the] day [the Rowlatt Act becomes law], and observe the day as one of fasting and prayer. [because by religious custom] the Moslems may not fast for more than one day...the durationof the fast should be twenty-four hours...” The people had short notice of the hartal [business strike].
The 2 hartals in Amritsar, a city of 150,000 in the Punjab, were successful. The situation especially in Punjab was deteriorating rapidly, with disruptions of rail, telegraph and communication systems and no police collission or violence.
Five days later Brigadier-General reginald Edward Henry Dyer of the British Army arrived. He issued a proclamation on April 12, 1919 prohibiting processions and meetings.
The Hunter Committee, an official board of inquiry into what happened later stated, “From an examination of the map showing the different places where the proclamation was read, it is evident that in many parts of the city the proclamation was not read.”
Peaceful demonstration—1919 Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre: Murder in an Indian Garden
ReplyDeleteThe Hunter Report then tells the story of the April 13, 1919 massacre.
About one o’clock, General Dyer heard that the people intended to hold a big meeting about 4:30 p.m. On being asked why he did not take measures to prevent its being held, he replied: ‘I went there as soon as I could. I had to think it out.’
The meeting took place at Jallianwalla Bagh. Bagh means garden, but it could be considered an enclosed park in the city of Amristar. Gandhi said there were few imperfect entrances and exits. Without giving the large crowd any notice, General Dyer ordered his troops to fire and the firing continued for 10 minutes. The crowd was not armed with firearms.
The Report estimated that there were 3 times as many wounded dead. This adds up to 379 dead plus 1137 wounded, or 1516 casualties with 1650 rounds fired. The number of deaths caused by the shooting is disputed. While the official figure given by the British inquiry into the massacre is 379 deaths, the method used by the inquiry has been subject to criticism.The crowd, penned in the low-lying garden, was a perfect target.
Louis Fisher added, ‘Dyer’s unnecessary massacre was the child of the British mentality then dominating India. Jallianwalla Bagh quickened India’s political life and drew Gandhi into politics.’
The Amristar massacre of 1919 stirred Indian nationalist consciousness and Gandhi instigated a policy of non-cooperation with the British as well as a number of Satyagraha campaigns. Gandhi was opposed to India's caste system. His program included a free, united India and complete abolition of the caste system.
Although Gandhi's ideas met with opposition from some Indians, they were widely and vigorously espoused: Indians began to squat in the streets to protest. Parents began removing their children from government-run schools. Even when faced with harsh physical punishments, the Indian people refused to move. Their position was steadfast.
Another look at Dyer testifying before the Hunter committee
ReplyDeleteDyer explained his sense of honour to the Hunter Commission by saying, "I think it quite possible that I could have dispersed the crowd without firing but they would have come back again and laughed, and I would have made, what I consider, a fool of myself."
Dyer said he would have used his machine guns if he could have got them into the enclosure, but these were mounted on armoured cars. He said he did not stop the shooting when the crowd began to disperse because he thought it was his duty to keep shooting until the crowd dispersed, and that a little shooting would not do any good.
In fact he continued the shooting until the ammunition was almost exhausted. He stated that he did not make any effort to tend to the wounded after the shooting: "Certainly not. It was not my job. Hospitals were open and they could have gone there."
The inquiry, chaired by Lord William Hunter, condemned Dyer, arguing that in "continuing firing as long as he did, it appears to us that General Dyer committed a grave error."
Dissenting members argued that the martial law regime's use of force was wholly unjustified. "General Dyer thought he had crushed the rebellion and Sir Michael O'Dwyer was of the same view," they wrote, "(but) there was no rebellion which required to be crushed." The committee reported
• lack of notice to disperse from the Bagh in the beginning was an error
• length of firing showed a grave error
• Dyer's motive of producing a sufficient moral effect was to be condemned
• lack of attention to the wounded was not acceptable
The Hunter Commission did not impose any penal or disciplinary action because Dyer's actions were condoned by various superiors (later upheld by the Army Council). However, he was finally found guilty of a mistaken notion of duty and relieved of his command.
Read more about "Murder in an Indian Garden" in your text (pages 128-132)
ReplyDelete