How did the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre and the passing of The Rowlatt Acts mark the spread of Indian nationalism from the middle class to the masses?
Following the centenary anniversary of the Jallianwala bagh massacre, I believe that it’s important to take a look back into the history books. To introduce the topic, the Amritsar massacre was a ruthless and vindictive order given by Punjab’s Lieutenant governor, Michael O’Dwyer, to combat the protests that were increasing in volume all across the country. On April 13th 1919, O’Dwyer took charge of the situation and ordered the dispersion of over 1500 citizens who were celebrating the day of Baisakhi. However, his approach was extremely violent and unnecessary. Over-379 citizens were killed, and 1200 people injured (Britannica). General Dyer and his troop covered all exits of the site, before approaching the festivities and shooting 1600 bullets into the crowd. Indians across the country were shocked, however, it was the support that O’Dwyer and General Dyer received from the British officials that caused unrest.
Going back to the root of the issue, tensions initially arose following the passing of the Rowlatt acts. These acts allowed specific political cases to be tried without a jury, allowing the judges to grant detention without trial. The acts were voted against by all nonofficial Indian members of the council, but they were still passed, causing a number of protests and movements across the country. The acts took away one of the primary negative rights that the Indian people held.
The unrest lead to a lot of change amongst India’s most influential. Gandhi gave up the title given to him by the British and committed fully to Indian Nationalism, Rabindranath Tagore gave up his knighthood, and many more joined in. The Indian masses were attracted by these powerful figures, it was a chance to break the mold. The power of the Indian masses was immense, and Gandhi knew how to use this for the advantage of his ‘Satyagraha’ movement. Gandhi’s relinquished title acted as a symbol of protest to the masses and augmented his stance. He had faith in bringing India back to an individual entity that exhibited freedom and liberty. Gandhi called upon the Indian masses to boycott all British goods, institutions, courts, honors, and even taxes. The non-cooperation movement achieved their goal of ‘Swaraj’.
Looking back at the incident, we can say that the British rule was not only partisan, but also violated five UDHR laws. Article 9, 10, 19, 20, and 21. Article nine states, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile.” Which was contradicted when the Rowlatt Acts was passed. Article ten states, “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an impartial tribunal.” Which again was ignored due to the passing of the Rowlatt acts. Article 19 states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.” Which was suppressed by the British rulers, in fear of an uprising from the Indian masses. Article 20 stated, “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.” Which was what the protesters in Amritsar were doing before the massacre. This article would’ve also been beneficial for the leaders of India. Article 21 states, “Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country” Which was violated when the acts were voted against by all nonofficial Indian members of the council, but still passed.
“I fired and continued to fire until the crowd dispersed, and I consider this is the least amount of firing which would produce the necessary moral and widespread effect.” — General Dyer
“If more troops had been at hand, the casualties would have been greater in proportion.” — General Dyer
British Conservatives and even Indian elites cheered and collected money for General Dyer as he was forced to retire from the service due to his ruthless killing spree. Michael O’Dwyer, the one who ordered the act, supported Dyer’s actions. O’Dwyer was dismissed for his actions in Punjab, surprising most of the Indian leaders. In spite of their actions, O’Dwyer and General Dyer still had admirers from both sides. They ended up receiving £26000. Dyer even called the gathering a “rebel meeting”. He said it was an act of defiance of his authority that needed to be punished. He was incredibly insecure about his relationship with the Indians, he even went on to state that the people ‘would all come back and laugh at me’ if he had given warning shots (New York Times). Another perspective can be heard from a speech written by Mr. Udham Singh for the jury at his murder trial. Mr. Udham Singh assassinated Punjab’s Lieutenant governor, Michael O’Dwyer, the man responsible for the massacre.
“I would rather die for the cause of my people than live in under the British terrorism. These rulers of India enjoy the very highest standard of life at the expense of the people of India, not helping the country in any way.” — Udham Singh
The speech shows Udham Singh’s perspective on the issue, which was shared by many Indians at the time.
To conclude my blog, it’s important to take a glance at the recent years, where one can find many examples of events that depict a similar situation to the one at Jallianwala Bagh. One very prominent example was the Bloody Sunday massacre in Londonderry, Ireland during the 1972 conflict between Ireland and Britain. The protesters were Northern Catholic and were marching against the British policy that forced detention without trial. The British authorities had ordered the march be stopped and sent some of their soldiers to confront the situation, but instead the soldiers fired into the crowd, injuring 17 people and causing 13 deaths. The tensions between the two parties went on till 2005, when they both disarmed and ended decades long of politically fueled violence. Thank you for reading my thoughts and opinions in this blog, I look forward to seeing you on my page again in the future!
Works Cited
- Rowlatt, Justin. “Independence: Do Indians Care about the British Any More?” BBC News, BBC News, 12 Aug. 2017, www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40887900. Accessed 8 Dec. 2020.
- “Rowlatt Acts | 1919, India | Britannica.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 2020, www.britannica.com/event/Rowlatt-Acts. Accessed 6 Dec. 2020.
- “Opinion | The Massacre That Led to the End of the British Empire (Published 2019).” The New York Times, 2020, www.nytimes.com/2019/04/13/opinion/1919-amrtisar-british-empire-india.html. Accessed 7 Dec. 2020.
- “Non Cooperation Movement | Indian History | Britannica.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 2020, www.britannica.com/event/noncooperation-movement. Accessed 5 Dec. 2020.
- “Rowlatt Acts | 1919, India | Britannica.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 2020, www.britannica.com/event/Rowlatt-Acts. Accessed 5 Dec. 2020.
- Kaci, Yacine Ait, YaK, illustrator. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations. United Nations, UN.ORG. Accessed 7 Dec. 2020.
- HistoryExtra. “The Amritsar Massacre: The British Empire’s Darkest Day.” HistoryExtra, HistoryExtra, 21 Mar. 2019, www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/amritsar-massacre-india-british-empires-darkest-day-churchill-general-dyer/. Accessed 8 Dec. 2020.
- History.com Editors. “‘Bloody Sunday’ in Northern Ireland.” HISTORY, 9 Feb. 2010, www.history.com/this-day-in-history/bloody-sunday-in-northern-ireland. Accessed 6 Dec 2020.
- Sayer, Derek. “British Reaction to the Amritsar Massacre 19191920.” Past & Present, no. 131, 1991, pp. 130–164. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/650872?seq=1. Accessed 8 Dec. 2020.
