(This article of mine about Jallianwala massacre was published in The Tribune dated October 20, 1991.)
The Montague Chelmsford Reforms of 1919 did not pacify the agitated Indian – mind and a nation – wide agitation was launched to oppose it tooth and nail. The Rowlatt Act was passed the same year to meet the situation. Under the Act, the Government armed itself with unlimited powers to detain and arrest any person without producing him before a court which caused resentment among the people throughout the country.
On March 30, 1919, there was a complete hartal at Amritsar which passed off peacefully, though in some parts of the country the police had to open fire to disperse crowds. On April 9, 1919, two popular Punjab leaders, Dr. Saif–ud-Din Kitchlew and Dr. Satyapal, were arrested and taken to Dharamsala on April 10. This step was taken strictly on the orders of Lt. Governor Sir Michael O’Dwyer who was boorish, tactless and grossly oblivious about the political exigencies. According to him, the Government was always right and the educated community always wrong. He used to cite a Persian couplet, which when translated into English language reads: ‘A stream can be stopped at its source by a twig; let it flow, and it will drown even an elephant.’
According to Mr. V. N. Datta, when Raizada Bhagat Ram, a leading advocate of Jalandhar, told O’Dwyer that Gandhiji was using the “soul force”, O’Dwyer is reported to have thumped the table, retorting that the right answer to it was the “fist force.”
On April 11, Brig. Gen. Edward Hary arrived at Amritsar with troops and armoured cars from Jalandhar. The next afternoon, when he marched his troops from Amritsar bazaars, he was greeted with the shouts of “Hindu Musalmaan ki Jai” and Mahatma Gandhiji ki Jai”. On April 13, the birthday of the Khalsa, a large number of men and women had gathered in the holy city from far and near. They assembled at jallianwala Bagh near the Golden Temple. As soon as General Dyer received the news of the meeting, he marched a platoon of infantry to Jallianwala, blocked the only avenue of exit from this private enclosure, trained his machine – guns on the gathering and continued to fire till his ammunition was exhausted. More than 379 persons were killed and many wounded.
When an English missionary, Miss Marcia Sherwood, was beaten to death in Amritsar street, men and women were made to crawl to their homes and respectable leaders as well students were flogged and made to report to the police our time a day. The General imposed a curfew in the city and returned to his camp, leaving the dying with the dead without any possibility of help reaching them.
When the news conveyed to Sir Michael O’Dwyer, he contemptuously dismissed the tragic event with the observation:
“I approved of General Dwyer’s action in dispersing by force the rebellious gathering and thus preventing further rebellious acts…. I have no hesitation in saying that General Dwyer’s action that day was the decisive factor in crushing the rebellion, the seriousness of which is only now being generally realized.”
When the General received information of cutting of telegraph wires and tampering with fish plates on the railway tracks, a state of emergency was proclaimed and all meetings were declared illegal. Colonel Smith, the Civil Surgeon, and Rev Machanzie, a missionary, goaded the Government at a meeting of British officials at Amritsar to teach the Indians a lesson after a few Europeans had been killed by an Indian mob. They demanded the bombardment of Amritsar city. It was Mr. G.A. Wathen, the British Principal of Khalsa College, Amritsar, who protested that if any harm came to the Golden Temple, the Sikh soldiers would rebel and the Sikhs would stand totally alienated. It was that warning that made General Dyer desist from committing the worse crime.
The jallianwala Bagh massacre and the martial law regime were subjected to the most searching enquiry by a committee appointed by the Indian National Congress headed by Mahatma Gandhi himself. The committee severely censured the Lieutenant Governor, Sir Michael O’Dwyer, General Dyer, and the English officers concerned. Subsequently, the Government appointed its own committee for the purpose. It was presided over by Lord Hunter and had seven other members including three Indians.
The Hunter Commission was unanimous in its verdict on General Dyer’s action and recommended his dismissal. On the other issues, the English and Indian members were at variance and the letter submitted a minor report.
The matter was also debated in the British Parliament. Winston Churchill made the most scathing criticism of General Dyer’s action. He described it as an episode which appeared to be without parallel in the modern history of the British Empire, an extraordinary event, a monstrous event, an event which stood in singular and sinister isolation.
Sir Michael O’ Dwyer who claimed that he has saved the Empire, had, in fact, dealt it the most grievous blow by alienating from it almost all Indians irrespective of caste, creed or political affiliations.
The British Government could not appreciate that non – violence would ultimately triumph over violence and that the weapon of ‘Satyagraha’ and the technique of passive resistance could prove to be more enduring and effective than the omnipresent might of the British Empire. History bears ample testimony to the fact that the ill – conceived and un – warranted 1919 – military operation proved to be a catalyst for bringing the doom of the British Raj as it created an unbridgeable gulf between the British Government and the Indian people, leaving the British with no other option but to transfer power to the Indians.
General Dwyer
Lord Chelmsford
Sir Michael O'Dwyer
Lord Hunter
General Dwyer
Lord Chelmsford
Sir Michael O'Dwyer
Lord Hunter
No comments:
Post a Comment