Beginning of Gandhian Phase: The Era of Mass Based Struggle 

After the end of the First World War, there was a resurgence of nationalist activity in India and in many other colonies in Asia and Africa. The Indian struggle against imperialism took a decisive turn towards a broad-based popular struggle with the emergence of a mass leader - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi on the Indian political scene who became the undisputed leader of the National Movement.

Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and Government of India Act, 1919

The Mont-Ford (Montague Chelmsford) commission submitted its report in 1918. It professed to pave way for self-government in India, however it also aimed at appeasing Indians to persuade to support British during First World War (1914-18). For the first time government showed its intention of gradual introduction of responsible government in India.

The Government of India Act, 1919 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was passed to expand participation of Indians in the government of India. The Act covered ten years, from 1919 to 1929.

This retraction of British imperialism was also partially a result of India's enthusiastic participation in World War I and continued struggle of Indians which was growing stronger. The structure of this Act also allowed Britain to use the Princely States (who were directly represented in the Council of States) to offset the growing power of the native political parties. The main provisions were the following:

1. Provincial Government: Introduction of Dyarchy

The Act introduced dyarchy for the executive at the level of the provincial government. 

Executive

(i) Dyarchy, i.e., rule of two—executive councillors and popular ministers—was introduced. The governor was to be the executive head in the province.

(ii) Subjects were divided into two lists: ‘reserved’ which included subjects such as law and order, finance, land revenue, irrigation, etc., and ‘transferred’ subjects such as education, health, local government, industry, agriculture, excise, etc. The reserved subjects were to be administered by the governor through his executive council of bureaucrats, and the transferred subjects were to be administered by ministers nominated from among the elected members of the legislative council. 

(iii) The ministers were to be responsible to the legislature and had to resign if a no-confidence motion was passed against them by the legislature, while the executive councillors were not to be responsible to the legislature.

(iv) In case of failure of constitutional machinery in the province the governor could take over the administration of transferred subjects also.

(v) The secretary of state for India and the Governor General could interfere in respect of reserved subjects while in respect of the transferred subjects, the scope for their interference was restricted.

Legislature

(i) Provincial legislative councils were further expanded and 70 per cent of the members were to be elected.

(ii) The system of communal and class electorates was further consolidated.

(iii) Women were also given the right to vote.

(iv) The legislative councils could initiate legislation but the governor’s assent was required. The governor could veto bills and issue ordinances.

(v) The legislative councils could reject the budget but the governor could restore it, if necessary.

(vi) The legislators enjoyed freedom of speech.

2. Central Government: Still Without Responsible Government

No responsible government was envisaged in the Act for the government at the all-India level. The main points were:

Executive

(i) The governor-general was to be the chief executive authority.

(ii) There were to be two lists for administration—central and provincial.

(iii) In the viceroy’s executive council of eight, three were to be Indians.

(iv) The governor-general retained full control over the reserved subjects in the provinces.

(v) The governor-general could restore cuts in grants, certify bills rejected by the central legislature and issue ordinances.

Legislature

(i) A bicameral arrangement was introduced. The lower house or Central Legislative Assembly would consist of 145 members (41 nominated and 104 elected—52 General, 30 Muslims, 2 Sikhs, 20 Special) and the upper house or Council of State would have 60 members, of which 26 were to be nominated and 34 elected—20 General, 10 Muslims, 3 Europeans and 1 Sikh.

(ii) The Council of State had a tenure of 5 years and had only male members, while the Central Legislative Assembly had a tenure of 3 years.

(iii) The legislators could ask questions and supplementaries, pass adjournment motions and vote a part of the budget, but 75 per cent of the budget was still not votable. Some Indians found their way into important committees including finance.

3. On the home government front (in Britain)

The Government of India Act, 1919 made an important change—the Secretary of State for India was henceforth to be paid out of the British exchequer.

Limitations

The reforms suffered from many limitations:

(i) Franchise was very limited. The electorate was extended to some one-and-a-half million for the central legislature, while the population of India was around 260 million, as per one estimate.

(ii) At the centre, the legislature had no control over the viceroy and his executive council.

(iii) Division of subjects was not satisfactory at the centre.

(iv) Allocation of seats for central legislature to the provinces was based on ‘importance’ of provinces— for instance, Punjab’s military importance and Bombay’s commercial importance.

(v) At the level of provinces, division of subjects and parallel administration of two parts was irrational and, hence, unworkable. Subjects like irrigation, finance, police, press and justice were ‘reserved’.

(vi) The provincial ministers had no control over finances and over the bureaucrats; this would lead to constant friction between the two. Ministers were often not consulted on important matters too; in fact, they could be overruled by the governor on any matter that the latter considered special.

Review Provision for Reforms

The Montagu-Chelmsford report stated that there should be a review after 10 years.

• Sir John Simon headed the committee (Simon Commission) responsible for the review which recommended further constitutional change.
• Three Round Table Conferences were also held in London later in 1930, 1931 and 1932 with representation of the major interests to consider further constitutional measures.
• Gandhi attended the 2nd Round Table Conference of 1931 after negotiations with the British Government.

One important significance of the reforms was that, demand by nationalists for self-government or Home Rule couldn’t be termed as seditious since attainment of self-government for Indians now officially became a government policy which was indicated in August Declaration of Montegue. 

Nationalists Stand on 1919 Reforms

The 1919 reforms did not satisfy political demands in India for various reasons:

• These measures were rammed through the Legislative Council with the unanimous opposition of the Indian members. Indians were resentful that British would decide what was good and what was bad for Indians. Several members of the council including Jinnah resigned in protest.
• The British repressed opposition, and restrictions on the press and on movement were re-enacted in the Rowlett Act introduced in 1919.
• Other major disagreement between Congress and the British was separate electorates for each community which Congress opposed but which were retained in Ramsay MacDonald's ‘Indian Communal Award’ of 1932.

However, another faction of Congress wanted to go ahead with constitutional means and were in favor of accepting government proposals. Led by Surendra Nath Banerjee, they formed ‘Indian Liberal Federation’ and were known as Liberals. They, however, failed to make an impact on Indian political scene and didn’t perform well in any elections.

Emergence of Mahatma Gandhi: Beginning of Gandhian Phase

Emergence of Mahatma Gandhi in Indian politics marked the beginning of a new phase in the Indian national movement and this phase is described as the era of mass mobilisation.

Before Gandhi’s entry into Indian politics in 1915, and from 1893 to 1914, he was in South Africa where the racial arrogance shown by the colonial rulers and the exploitation of the local people made Gandhi to think seriously of taking up the battle against colonialism.

In the course of his struggle in South Africa he developed his political philosophy based on non-violence and Satyagraha to give new direction to mass movement. His knowledge of India’s rich cultural tradition and religious ideas and his reading of western thinkers like Leo Tolstoy, John Ruskin, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau largely shaped his political ideas.

Moving ahead from the early nationalist leaders Gandhi gave new meaning to nationalist politics through mass mobilisation. Gandhi’s intervention in the movements of peasants and workers at Champaran, Kheda and Ahmedabad brought him closer to Indian national politics.

Gandhi and His Political Experiment In South Africa

‘Truly speaking, it was after I went to South Africa that I became what I am now.’ These words of Gandhi are of immense importance to understand his political philosophy and contribution to the Indian national movement.

Gandhi was in South Africa from 1893 to 1914 and in between for brief interludes he came to India. In the course of his stay in South Africa he provided effective leadership to local Indians to fight against racial discrimination. It was in South Africa that he developed his philosophy of passive resistance and civil disobedience which was popularised later on as Satyagraha as an effective means of political mobilisation.

• After completing his degree in law from England, Gandhi reached Durban in 1893 as a young attorney to work for an Indian firm as a legal adviser to Indians living and working in South Africa.
• On his way to South Africa his painful personal experience of racial arrogance by the whites familiarised him with humiliations and sufferings that Indians were facing in South Africa.
• Indians in South Africa at that time were primarily engaged in trading and many lacked not only education but also political sophistication. Gandhi tried to activate their political consciousness and to mobilise them for their rights and justice.
• Gandhi was instrumental in establishing the Natal Indian Congress in 1894. For creating public opinion in support of their grievances, he started a newspaper—the Indian Opinion. Through regular comments in the Indian Opinion and by drafting petitions to the Governments of Natal, India, and Britain Gandhi tried to create pressure on the local government against any form of discrimination.
• He represented the Indian merchants who questioned the applicability of Transvaal Law No. 3 of 1885 which restricted where they could trade and reside, and gave a petition to the Colonial Secretary signed by over 1,000 Indians.
• While visiting India in 1896 Gandhi was called back to South Africa to deal with a fresh problem of discriminatory legislation by the Natal Parliament which aimed at disfranchising Indians.
• When Gandhi returned to Durban in 1896 after a short visit to India, he decided to make a new experiment by moving away from urban comfort and settled at a communal settlement at Phoenix, north of Durban. 
• In South Africa, Gandhi’s reading of the writings of Leo Tolstoy, John Ruskin and Henry David Thoreau shaped his ideas on non-violent and civil disobedience movement.

In 1906, the Transvaal government promulgated a new Act compelling registration of the colony’s Indian population. Gandhi presiding over a mass protest meeting held in Johannesburg in that year adopted his new methodology of protest, Satyagraha, for the first time. He appealed to the gathered protesters to defy the new law and suffer the punishments for doing so, rather than going for any violent protest.

The struggle continued for years and thousands of Indians, including Gandhi, were jailed. But still people refused to register. The public outcry finally forced South African General Jan Christiaan Smuts to negotiate a compromise with Gandhi and the government conceded to some of the demands.

Gandhi’s ideas of mass mobilisation, peaceful protest and the concept of Satyagraha matured during his struggle in South Africa and gave him the required confidence to provide leadership to the Indian national struggle.

Gandhi’s Learning in South Africa

(i) Gandhi found that the masses had immense capacity to participate in and sacrifice for a cause that moved them.

(ii) He was able to unite Indians belonging to different religions and classes, and men and women alike under his leadership.

(iii) He also came to realise that at times the leaders have to take decisions unpopular with their enthusiastic supporters.

(iv) He was able to evolve his own style of leadership and politics and new techniques of struggle on a limited scale, untrammelled by the opposition of contending political currents.

Technique of Satyagraha

Gandhi evolved the technique of Satyagraha during his stay in South Africa. It was based on truth and nonviolence. He combined some elements from Indian tradition with the Christian requirement of turning the other cheek and the philosophy of Tolstoy, who said that evil could best be countered by non-violent resistance. Its basic tenets were as follows:

• A satyagrahi was not to submit to what he considered as wrong, but was to always remain truthful, non-violent and fearless.
• A satyagrahi works on the principles of withdrawal of cooperation and boycott.
• Methods of satyagraha include non-payment of taxes, and declining honours and positions of authority.
• A satyagrahi should be ready to accept suffering in his struggle against the wrong-doer. This suffering was to be a part of his love for truth.
• Even while carrying out his struggle against the wrong-doer, a true satyagrahi would have no ill feeling for the wrong-doer; hatred would be alien to his nature.
• A true satyagrahi would never bow before the evil, whatever the consequence.
• Only the brave and strong could practise satyagraha; it was not for the weak and cowardly. Even violence was preferred to cowardice. Thought was never to be separated from practice. In other words, ends could not justify the means.

Gandhi in India

Gandhi returned to India in January 1915. His efforts in South Africa were well known not only among the educated but also among the masses. He decided to tour the country the next one year and see for himself the condition of the masses. He also decided not to take any position on any political matter for at least one year.

As for the political currents prevalent at that time in India, he was convinced about the limitations of moderate politics and was also not in favour of Home Rule agitation which was becoming popular at that time. He thought that it was not the best time to agitate for Home Rule when Britain was in the middle of a war.

He was convinced that the only technique capable of meeting the nationalist aims was a non-violent satyagraha. He also said that he would join no political organisation unless it too accepted the creed of nonviolent satyagraha.

During 1917 and 1918, Gandhi was involved in three struggles—in Champaran, Ahmedabad and Kheda— before he launched the Rowlatt Satyagraha.

Champaran Satyagraha, 1917: First Civil Disobedience

Gandhi was requested by Rajkumar Shukla, a local man, to look into the problems of the farmers in context of indigo planters of Champaran in Bihar. The European planters had been forcing the peasants to grow indigo on 3/20 part of the total land (called tinkathia system).

• When towards the end of the nineteenth century German synthetic dyes replaced indigo, the European planters demanded high rents and illegal dues from the peasants in order to maximise their profits before the peasants could shift to other crops. Besides, the peasants were forced to sell the produce at prices fixed by the Europeans.
• When Gandhi, joined now by Rajendra Prasad, Mazharul-Haq, Mahadeo Desai, Narhari Parekh, and J.B. Kripalani, reached Champaran to probe into the matter, the authorities ordered him to leave the area at once. Gandhi defied the order and preferred to face the punishment. This passive resistance or civil disobedience of an unjust order was a novel method at that time.
• Finally, the authorities retreated and permitted Gandhi to make an enquiry. Now, the government appointed a committee to go into the matter and nominated Gandhi as a member.
• Gandhi was able to convince the authorities that the tinkathia system should be abolished and that the peasants should be compensated for the illegal dues extracted from them. As a compromise with the planters, he agreed that only 25 per cent of the money taken should be compensated.
• Within a decade, the planters left the area. Gandhi had won the first battle of civil disobedience in India.
• Other popular leaders associated with Champaran Satyagraha were Brajkishore Prasad, Anugrah Narayan Sinha, Ramnavmi Prasad and Shambhusharan Varma.

In the course of Champaran movement a group of local intelligentsia like Rajendra Prasad, Rajkumar Shukla, J. B. Kripalani, Indulal Yajnik, etc. came in close contact with Gandhi and worked as his emissaries among masses in organising movement. Till Champaran people in India knew Gandhi for his heroic struggle in South Africa and Gandhi maintained a distance from the Congress-led national movement.

Gandhi’s participation in the movement of Champaran peasants and whatever success he achieved in compelling the government to redress the grievances of peasants created an image of Gandhi’s leadership quality across different groups and different regions. The Champaran Agrarian Act of 1918 which was the immediate outcome of the movement brought some respite for the peasants and put certain restrictions on the planters.

Ahmedabad Mill Strike, 1918: First Hunger Strike

In March 1918, Gandhi intervened in a dispute between cotton mill owners of Ahmedabad and the workers over the issue of discontinuation of the plague bonus.

• The mill owners wanted to withdraw the bonus. The workers were demanding a rise of 50 per cent in their wages so that they could manage in the times of wartime inflation (which doubled the prices of food-grains, cloth, and other necessities) caused by Britain’s involvement in World War I. The mill owners were ready to give only a 20 per cent wage hike. The workers went on strike.
• The relations between the workers and the mill owners worsened with the striking workers being arbitrarily dismissed and the mill owners deciding to bring in weavers from Bombay. The workers of the mill turned to Anusuya Sarabhai for help in fighting for justice.
• Anusuya Sarabhai was a social worker who was also the sister of Ambalal Sarabhai, one of the mill owners and the president of the Ahmedabad Mill Owners Association (founded in 1891 to develop the textile industry in Ahmedabad), for help in fighting for justice. Anusuya Behn went to Gandhi who was respected by the mill owners and workers, and asked him to intervene and help resolve the impasse between the workers and the employers.
• Though Gandhi was a friend of Ambalal, he took up the workers’ cause. Anusuya too supported the workers and was one of the chief lieutenants of Gandhi’s. (It was Anusuya Behn who went on later to form the Ahmedabad Textile Labour Association in 1920.)
• Gandhi asked the workers to go on a strike and demand a 35 per cent increase in wages instead of 50 per cent. Gandhi advised the workers to remain non-violent while on strike.
• When negotiations with mill owners did not progress, he himself undertook a fast unto death (his first) to strengthen the workers’ resolve. But the fast also had the effect of putting pressure on the mill owners who finally agreed to submit the issue to a tribunal.

The strike was withdrawn. In the end, the tribunal awarded the workers a 35 per cent wage hike.

Kheda Satyagraha, 1918: First Non-Cooperation

Because of drought in 1918, the crops failed in Kheda district of Gujarat. According to the Revenue Code, if the yield was less than one-fourth the normal produce, the farmers were entitled to remission.

• The Gujarat Sabha, consisting of the peasants, submitted petitions to the highest governing authorities of the province requesting that the revenue assessment for the year 1919 be suspended.
• The government, however, remained adamant and said that the property of the farmers would be seized if the taxes were not paid.
• Gandhi asked the farmers not to pay the taxes. Gandhi, however, was mainly the spiritual head oFthe struggle.
• It was Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and a group of other devoted Gandhians, namely, Narahari Parikh, Mohanlal Pandya and Ravi Shankar Vyas, who went around the villages, organised the villagers and told them what to do and gave the necessary political leadership. Patel along with his colleagues organised the tax revolt which the different ethnic and caste communities of Kheda supported.
• The revolt was remarkable in that discipline and unity were maintained. Even when, on nonpayment of taxes, the government seized the farmers’ personal property, land and livelihood, a vast majority of Kheda’s farmers did not desert Sardar Patel.
• Gujaratis in other parts who sympathised with the cause of the revolt helped by sheltering the relatives and property of the protesting peasants. Those Indians who sought to buy the confiscated lands were socially ostracised.
• Ultimately, the government sought to bring about an agreement with the farmers. It agreed to suspend the tax for the year in question, and for the next; reduce the increase in rate; and return all the confiscated property.

The struggle at Kheda brought a new awakening among the peasantry. They became aware that they would not be free of injustice and exploitation unless and until their country achieved complete independence.

Significance of Champaran, Ahmedabad and Kheda

• Gandhi demonstrated to the people the efficacy of his technique of satyagraha.
• He found his feet among the masses and came to have a surer understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the masses.
• He acquired respect and commitment of many, especially the youth.

Rowlatt Satyagraha and Jallianwala Bagh Massacre

Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act or Rowlatt Act

Just six months before the Montford Reforms were to be put into effect, two bills were introduced in the Imperial Legislative Council. One of them was dropped, but the other—an extension to the Defence of India Regulations Act 1915—was passed in March 1919. It was what was officially called the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act, but popularly known as the Rowlatt Act.

• It was based on the recommendations made in the previous year to the Imperial Legislative Council by the Rowlatt Commission, headed by the British judge, Sir Sidney Rowlatt, to investigate the ‘seditious conspiracy’ of the Indian people.
• The committee had recommended that activists should be deported or imprisoned without trial for two years, and that even possession of seditious newspapers would be adequate evidence of guilt.
• All the elected Indian members of the Imperial Legislative Council voted against the bill but they were in a minority and easily overruled by the official nominees. All the elected Indian members— who included Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Madan Mohan Malaviya and Mazhar Ul Haq – resigned in protest.
• The act allowed political activists to be tried without juries or even imprisoned without trial. It allowed arrest ofIndians without warrant on the mere suspicion of ‘treason’. Such suspects could be tried in secrecy without recourse to legal help.
• A special cell consisting of three high court judges was to try such suspects and there was no court of appeal above that panel. This panel could even accept evidence not acceptable under the Indian Evidences Act. The law of habeas corpus, the basis of civil liberty, was sought to be suspended.

The object of the government was to replace the repressive provisions of the wartime Defence of India Act (1915) by a permanent law. So the wartime restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly were re-imposed in India. There was strict control over the press and the government was armed with a variety of powers to deal with anything the authorities chose to consider as terrorism or revolutionary tactics.

Rowlatt Satyagraha: First Mass Strike

Just when the Indians expected a huge advance towards self-rule as a reward for their contribution to the war, they were given the Montford Reforms with its very limited scope and the shockingly repressive Rowlatt Act.

Not surprisingly the Indians felt betrayed. More so Gandhi, who had been at the forefront in offering cooperation in the British war effort, and who had even offered to encourage recruitment of Indians into the British Indian forces. He called the Rowlatt Act the “Black Act” and argued that not everyone should get punishment in response to isolated political crimes. Jinnah declared – ‘A government which enacts such Acts during peace time has no right to be called as a civilian government’

Gandhi called for a mass protest at all India level. Butsoon, having seen the constitutional protest meet with ruthless repression, Gandhi organised a Satyagraha Sabha and roped in younger members of Home Rule Leagues and the Pan Islamists. The forms of protest finally chosen included observance of a nationwide hartal (strike) accompanied by fasting and prayer, and civil disobedience against specific laws, and courting arrest and imprisonment. There   was a radical change in the situation by now.

(i) The masses had found a direction; now they could ‘act’ instead of just giving verbal expression to their grievances.

(ii) From now onwards, peasants, artisans and the urban poor were to play an increasingly important part in the struggle.

(iii) Orientation of the national movement turned to the masses permanently. Gandhi said that salvation would come when masses were awakened and became active in politics.

Satyagraha was to be launched on April 6, 1919 but before it could be launched, there were large-scale violent, anti-British demonstrations in Calcutta, Bombay, Delhi,Ahmedabad, etc. In Punjab, the situation became so explosive due to wartime repression, forcible recruitments and ravages of disease, that the Army had to be called in. April 1919 saw the biggest and the most violent anti-British upsurge since 1857.

The protests gathered huge momentum. It was during such protests that Jalianwalan Massacre took place. The Indians had been promised extension of democracy during the war. They felt humiliated and were filled with anger when they found that their civil liberties were going to be curtailed still further.

The protests were particularly intense in the Punjab, where many men had served on the British side in the War – expecting to be rewarded for their service. Instead they were given the Rowlatt Act. This Satygraha launched Gandhi as a truly national leader. During the protests against the Act two prominent leaders of Congress were arrested in Punjab – Saifudin Kitchlew and Satya Paul. People protested their arrest in Jalianwala Bagh which later saw the Jalianwala Massacre.

British Reaction to Satyagraha

• Alarmed by the popular upsurge, and scared that lines of communication such as the railways and telegraph would be disrupted, the British administration decided to clamp down on nationalists.
• Local leaders were picked up from Amritsar, and Mahatma Gandhi was barred from entering Delhi. On 10 April, the police in Amritsar fired upon a peaceful procession, provoking widespread attacks on banks, post offices and railway stations. Martial law was imposed and General Dyer took command.

Jallianwala Bagh Massacre

Amritsar was the worst affected by violence. In the beginning there was no violence by the protestors. Indians shut down their shops and normal trade and the empty streets showed the Indians’ displeasure at the British betrayal.

On April 9, two nationalist leaders, Saifuddin Kitchlew and Dr Satyapal, were arrested by the British officials without any provocation except that they had addressed protest meetings, and taken to some unknown destination. This caused resentment among the Indian protestors who came out in thousands on April 10 to show their solidarity with their leaders. Soon the protests turned violent because the police resorted to firing in which some of the protestors were killed. Tension ran high.

• In the riot that followed, five Englishmen are reported to have been killed and Marcella Sherwood, an English woman missionary going on a bicycle, was beaten up. Troops were sent immediately to quell the disturbances.
• Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer was the senior British officer with the responsibility to impose martial law and restore order. By then the city had returned to calm and the protests that were being held were peaceful.
• Dyer, however, issued a proclamation on April 13 (which was also Baisakhi) forbidding people from leaving the city without a pass and from organising demonstrations or processions, or assembling in groups of more than three. 
• On Baisakhi day, a large crowd of people mostly from neighbouring villages, unaware of the prohibitory orders in the city, gathered in the Jallianwala Bagh, a popular place for public events, to celebrate the Baisakhi festival. Local leaders had also called for a protest meeting at the venue. It is not clear how many in the 20,000 odd people collected there were political protestors, but the majority were those who had collected for the festival. 
• Meanwhile, the meeting had gone on peacefully, and two resolutions, one calling for the repeal of the Rowlatt Act and the other condemning the firing on April 10, had been passed. It was then that Brigadier-General Dyer arrived on the scene with his men. 
• The troops surrounded the gathering under orders from General Dyer and blocked the only exit point and opened fire on the unarmed crowd. No warning was issued, no instruction to disperse was given. An unarmed gathering of men, women and children was fired upon as they tried to flee.

According to official British Indian sources, 379 were identified dead, and approximately 1,100 were wounded. The Indian National Congress, on the other hand, estimated more than 1,500 were injured, and approximately 1,000 were killed. But it is precisely known that 1650 bullets were fired into the crowd.

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

Aftermath

The entire nation was stunned.

• Rabindranath Tagore renounced his knighthood in protest. Gandhi gave up the title of Kaiser-iHind, bestowed by the British for his work during the Boer War. Gandhi was overwhelmed by the atmosphere of total violence and withdrew the movement on April 18, 1919.
• Seen in an objective way, Dyer ensured the beginning of the end of the British Raj. According to the historian, A.P.J Taylor, the Jallianwala Bagh massacre was the “decisive moment when Indians were alienated from British rule”.
• What had happened 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. The way to the non-cooperation movement was ready.

The events of 1919 were to shape Punjab’s politics of resistance. Bhagat Singh was just 11 at the time of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. For Bhagat Singh’s Bharat Naujawan Sabha, the massacre was to act as a symbol that would help overcome the apathy that came in the wake of 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 brutal British suppression of the 1919 protests in Punjab. Udham Singh was hanged in 1940 for his deed.

Hunter Committee/Commission, 1920

The massacre at Jallianwalla Bagh shocked Indians and many British as well. The Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu, ordered that a committee of inquiry be formed to investigate the matter.

• On October 14, 1919, the Government of India announced the formation of the Disorders Inquiry Committee, which came to be more widely and variously known as the Hunter
• 
  
• Committee/Commission after the name of its chairman, Lord William Hunter, former SolicitorGeneral for Scotland and Senator of the College of Justice in Scotland. The purpose of the commission was to “investigate the recent disturbances in Bombay, Delhi and Punjab, about their causes, and the measures taken to cope with them”.
• There were three Indians among the members, namely, Sir Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad, ViceChancellor of Bombay University and advocate of the Bombay High Court; Pandit Jagat Narayan, lawyer and Member of the Legislative Council of the United Provinces; and Sardar Sahibzada Sultan Ahmad Khan, lawyer from Gwalior State.
• In November, the committee reached Lahore and examined the principal witnesses to the events in Amritsar. Dyer was called before the committee. He was confident that what he had done was only his duty. Dyer stated that his intentions had been to strike terror throughout the Punjab and in doing so, reduce the moral stature of the ‘rebels’. He also stated that he did not make any effort to tend to the wounded after the shooting as he did not consider it his job.
• Though Dyer’s statement caused racial tensions among the members of the committee, the final report, released in March 1920, unanimously condemned Dyer’s actions.
• The report stated that the lack of notice to disperse from the Bagh in the beginning was an error; the length of firing showed a grave error; Dyer’s motive of producing a sufficient moral effect was to be condemned; Dyer had overstepped the bounds of his authority; there had been no conspiracy to overthrow British rule in the Punjab.
• The minority report of the Indian members further added that the proclamations banning public meetings were insufficiently publicised; there were innocent people in the crowd, and there had not been any violence in the Bagh beforehand; Dyer should have either ordered his troops to help the wounded or instructed the civil authorities to do so; Dyer’s actions had been “inhuman and unBritish” and had greatly injured the image of British rule in India.
• The Hunter Committee did not impose any penal or disciplinary action because Dyer’s actions were condoned by various superiors (later upheld by the Army Council).
• Also, before the Hunter Committee began its proceedings, the government had passed an Indemnity Act for the protection of its officers. The “white washing bill” as the Indemnity Act was called, was severely criticised by Motilal Nehru and others.
• In the end, Dyer was found guilty of a mistaken notion of duty and relieved of his command in March 1920. He was recalled to England. No legal action was taken against him; he drew half pay and received his army pension.

Dyer was not, however, universally condemned. In the House of Lords, most of the peers favoured Dyer and the house passed a motion in his support. Interestingly, the clergy of the Golden Temple, led by Arur Singh, honoured Dyer by declaring him a Sikh. The honouring of Dyer by the priests of Sri Darbar Sahib, Amritsar, was one of the reasons behind the intensification of the demand for reforming the management of Sikh shrines already being voiced by societies such as the Khalsa Diwan Majha and Central Majha Khalsa Diwan. This resulted in the launch of what came to be known as the Gurudwara Reform movement.

Share

& Comment

Tweet