- Rowlatt Act (1919): indefinite detention without trial
- Gandhi’s first all-India protest: Rowlatt Satyagraha
- Jallianwala Bagh Massacre (April 13, 1919): General Dyer, over 1000 killed
- Hunter Committee: no accountability
- Mass awakening, Rabindranath Tagore renounces knighthood
Rowlatt Act (1919): A Comprehensive Explanation for UPSC Content
Background:
- Context: The Rowlatt Act, officially known as the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act of 1919, was introduced by the British government in India to extend the emergency powers of the British government to deal with revolutionary activities. The act was named after Justice Sydney Rowlatt, who chaired the committee that recommended its provisions.
- Post-World War I: The British government was concerned about the potential for revolutionary activities in India following World War I. The Rowlatt Act was seen as a necessary measure to maintain law and order and prevent any uprisings.
Key Provisions:
- Indefinite Detention Without Trial:
- Legal Framework: The act allowed the government to detain individuals suspected of sedition or revolutionary activities without trial. This meant that individuals could be held in custody indefinitely without being charged or given the opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law.
- Rationale: The British government justified this provision by arguing that it was necessary to prevent revolutionary activities and maintain law and order. However, this rationale was widely disputed by Indian leaders and the public, who saw it as a violation of basic human rights.
- Impact on Civil Liberties: The provision of indefinite detention without trial was a significant erosion of civil liberties. It undermined the principle of habeas corpus, which guarantees the right to a fair trial and protection against arbitrary detention.
- Search and Seizure:
- Legal Framework: The act empowered the police to search any place and seize any document without a warrant.
- Rationale: This provision was intended to facilitate the gathering of evidence and the prevention of revolutionary activities.
- Impact on Civil Liberties: It allowed for extensive and arbitrary searches, infringing on the privacy and property rights of individuals.
- Trial Without Jury:
- Legal Framework: Suspects could be tried without a jury, and trials were conducted in secret.
- Rationale: The British government argued that jury trials could be influenced by public sentiment and might not be impartial.
- Impact on Civil Liberties: This provision further eroded the rights of the accused by denying them a fair and public trial.
Public Reaction:
- Widespread Outrage: The Rowlatt Act was met with widespread public outrage and protests across India. It was seen as a severe curtailment of civil liberties and a direct attack on the rights of Indians.
- Political Consequences: The act led to a significant shift in the Indian political landscape. It marked the beginning of a more organized and widespread resistance to British rule, setting the stage for future movements such as the Non-Cooperation Movement and the Civil Disobedience Movement.
Gandhi’s Response:
- Rowlatt Satyagraha: Mahatma Gandhi called for a nationwide Satyagraha (non-violent protest) against the Rowlatt Act, marking his first major attempt at leading an all-India struggle. This protest, known as the Rowlatt Satyagraha, galvanized the Indian masses and demonstrated the potential of non-violent resistance.
- Strategies: Gandhi’s strategies of non-violence and Satyagraha gained widespread support. He emphasized the importance of moral force and constructive work, such as the revival of village crafts, to build a strong foundation for the independence movement.
Impact:
- Mass Awakening: The events surrounding the Rowlatt Act and Gandhi’s leadership led to a mass awakening and a significant boost in the anti-imperialist sentiment. The Indian people were galvanized to resist British rule in a more organized and widespread manner.
- Symbolic Actions: Rabindranath Tagore renounced his knighthood in protest against the Rowlatt Act and the subsequent Jallianwala Bagh massacre, symbolizing the growing resistance to British rule.
- Leadership: Gandhi’s leadership in these events solidified his position as a key figure in the Indian independence movement. His ability to mobilize the masses and his commitment to non-violent resistance transformed the national movement into a mass movement, fostering a sense of national unity and purpose.
Gandhi’s First All-India Protest: Rowlatt Satyagraha
Background
Rowlatt Act (1919):
- Context: The Rowlatt Act was passed by the British government in 1919. It was named after Justice Rowlatt, who chaired the committee that recommended the measures.
- Provisions: The act allowed the British authorities to arrest and imprison individuals suspected of sedition without a trial. It also gave the government the power to detain suspects indefinitely and to try them in special courts without a jury.
- Public Reaction: The act was widely seen as a severe infringement on civil liberties and sparked widespread outrage among Indians. Many viewed it as a direct attack on their rights and freedoms.
Gandhi’s Role
Emergence as a Leader:
- Background: Gandhi had recently returned from South Africa, where he had successfully led non-violent resistance movements against discriminatory laws.
- Prominence: He quickly gained prominence as a leader in the Indian National Congress, a political party that was at the forefront of the Indian independence movement.
- Philosophy: Gandhi was known for his philosophy of non-violent resistance, or “Satyagraha,” which emphasized the power of truth, love, and non-violence in achieving social and political change.
Call to Action
Non-Violent Resistance:
- Announcement: Gandhi called for a nationwide protest against the Rowlatt Act.
- Method: He advocated for a non-violent form of resistance, urging Indians to peacefully protest the act by refusing to cooperate with the British government.
- Message: Gandhi emphasized the importance of maintaining non-violence and discipline during the protests.
Initial Protest
March 30, 1919:
- Day of Fasting and Prayer: Gandhi urged Indians to observe a day of fasting and prayer to show their opposition to the Rowlatt Act.
- Purpose: This day was intended to raise awareness and build solidarity among the Indian people.
Nationwide Response
Participation:
- Widespread Support: People across India responded to Gandhi’s call, participating in various forms of protest.
- Actions: Strikes, demonstrations, and other forms of civil disobedience were organized in cities and towns throughout the country.
- Impact: The protests demonstrated the deep dissatisfaction of the Indian people with British colonial policies and the widespread support for Gandhi’s leadership
British Response
Brutal Force:
- Suppression: The British authorities responded to the protests with harsh measures, including the use of force and arrests.
- Violence: The government deployed the military and police to quell the demonstrations, often using excessive force.
- Rationale: The British justified their actions by claiming that the protests were a threat to public order and security.
Jallianwala Bagh Massacre
April 13, 1919:
- Location: Amritsar, a city in Punjab.
- Event: A peaceful gathering of thousands of people in the Jallianwala Bagh (a public garden) was fired upon by British troops under the command of General Reginald Dyer.
- Casualties: The event resulted in hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries. The exact number of casualties is still debated, but it is estimated that at least 379 people were killed and over 1,200 were wounded.
- Aftermath: The massacre was widely condemned and became a symbol of British brutality. It further fueled anti-British sentiment and galvanized the Indian people in their struggle for independence.
Impact
Turning Point:
- Public Outrage: The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre sparked widespread public outrage and increased support for the independence movement.
- Political Consequences: The event led to a significant shift in the political landscape, with more Indians joining the struggle for independence.
- Gandhi’s Influence: The massacre reinforced Gandhi’s call for non-violent resistance and solidified his position as a national leader.
Historical Significance
Gandhi’s Leadership:
- Emergence: The Rowlatt Satyagraha marked Gandhi’s emergence as a national leader and a key figure in the Indian independence movement.
- Philosophical Impact: It demonstrated the power of non-violent protest and the effectiveness of Satyagraha as a tool for social and political change.
- Future Movements: The success of the Rowlatt Satyagraha set the stage for future non-violent resistance movements, including the Non-Cooperation Movement and the Salt March.
Jallianwala Bagh Massacre (April 13, 1919)
Background
The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre occurred in the context of widespread unrest and protest against the Rowlatt Act of 1919. The Rowlatt Act, passed by the British government, extended the emergency powers used during World War I, allowing for the arrest and imprisonment of individuals suspected of sedition without trial. This act was seen as a severe infringement on civil liberties and sparked widespread outrage among Indians. Gandhi called for a nationwide protest, known as the Rowlatt Satyagraha, against the act, which set the stage for the tragic events in Amritsar.
Setting of the Massacre
On April 13, 1919, a peaceful gathering of thousands of people, including women and children, assembled in Jallianwala Bagh, a public garden in Amritsar, Punjab. The gathering was not only a protest against the Rowlatt Act but also a part of the Baisakhi festival, a major Sikh celebration. Jallianwala Bagh is a small, enclosed space surrounded by walls with only a few narrow entrances, making it difficult for the crowd to escape.
General Dyer’s Actions
General Reginald Dyer, the British commander, arrived at Jallianwala Bagh with a group of 90 soldiers, including 25 Gurkhas, 25 Baluchis, 25 Sikhs, and 15 Pathans. He ordered the soldiers to block the main entrance to the garden and then commanded them to fire on the crowd without any warning. The firing continued for about 10 minutes, with over 1,600 rounds being fired. Dyer’s actions were deliberate and aimed at instilling fear and suppressing the protest.
Casualties
The official British figures reported 379 deaths and 1,200 wounded. However, Indian sources and historians estimate that the number of deaths was over 1,000, with thousands more wounded. Many people were trampled in the panic to escape, and others died from the bullets, suffocation, or injuries sustained during the chaos. The sheer scale of the casualties and the brutal nature of the attack shocked the nation.
Immediate Aftermath
The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre led to widespread shock and outrage across India. It increased anti-British sentiment and support for the independence movement. Protests and strikes broke out in various parts of the country, and the Indian National Congress, led by Gandhi, intensified its efforts to mobilize the masses. The British government initially praised Dyer for his actions but later set up the Hunter Commission to investigate the incident. Dyer was eventually censured and forced to retire, and martial law was imposed in Amritsar and other parts of Punjab.
Long-Term Impact
The massacre had profound and lasting impacts on the Indian independence movement:
Political Consequences: It became a turning point, galvanizing the Indian people and uniting them against British rule. The Indian National Congress gained significant strength and support, and more Indians joined the struggle for independence.
Gandhi’s Response: Gandhi was deeply affected by the massacre. He returned his medals and honors from the British government and called for a nationwide hartal (strike). The event reinforced his commitment to non-violent resistance and inspired future movements.
Global Reaction: The incident drew international condemnation, highlighting the brutal nature of British colonial rule and garnering sympathy for the Indian cause. Reports and investigations by international bodies further exposed the atrocities.
Historical Significance
The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre is remembered as one of the most tragic events in the history of the Indian independence movement. It symbolized British brutality and injustice, and its impact was far-reaching:
- Symbol of British Brutality: The massacre became a symbol of the harsh and oppressive nature of British rule in India.
- Influence on Future Movements: It inspired future non-violent resistance movements led by Gandhi, such as the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-1922) and the Salt March (1930). These movements were directly influenced by the events of Jallianwala Bagh.
- Cultural and Social Impact: The massacre had a profound impact on Indian society and culture. It is commemorated annually, and numerous books, films, and memorials have been dedicated to remembering the victims and the event.
The Hunter Committee: Lack of Accountability
Formation and Composition
- Formation: The Hunter Committee, officially known as the Disorders Inquiry Committee, was established by the British government in October 1919 to investigate the events leading up to and following the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre.
- Composition: The committee was headed by Lord William Hunter and included both British and Indian members. However, the majority of the committee members were British, which raised concerns about its impartiality and the potential for bias in its findings.
Scope and Mandate
- Scope: The committee was tasked with investigating the disturbances in Punjab, including the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, and the actions of British officials and military personnel.
- Mandate: The committee was supposed to provide a comprehensive and impartial report on the events, recommend appropriate actions, and suggest measures to prevent such incidents in the future.
Investigation Process
- Hearings: The committee conducted hearings and gathered evidence from various sources, including witnesses, officials, and military personnel.
- Evidence Collection: Despite the extensive evidence of the brutal and unprovoked nature of the massacre, the committee’s approach was criticized for being inadequate and biased. Many witnesses were intimidated, and the committee did not thoroughly investigate the scale of the atrocities.
Findings and Recommendations
- Acknowledgment of Excesses: The committee’s report acknowledged that General Dyer’s actions were excessive and unnecessary. It stated that the firing was “a grave error” and that Dyer had acted without proper judgment.
- Censure of Dyer: The committee recommended that Dyer be censured and forced to retire. However, it stopped short of calling for criminal charges or any form of legal accountability.
- Lack of Broader Accountability: The report did not hold the British administration or other officials accountable for the massacre. It failed to address systemic issues and the broader context of British colonial policies that contributed to the incident.
Public Reaction
- Disappointment and Anger: The findings of the Hunter Committee were met with widespread disappointment and anger in India. Many felt that the committee had failed to deliver justice and that it was a whitewash of the British government’s responsibility.
- Criticism of the Committee: Indian leaders and the public criticized the committee for its lack of impartiality and for not holding the British officials fully accountable. The committee was seen as a tool to protect British interests rather than to seek the truth and justice.
Impact on the Independence Movement
- Increased Anti-British Sentiment: The perceived lack of accountability and justice further fueled anti-British sentiment among the Indian population. It reinforced the belief that the British were unwilling to treat Indians fairly or respect their rights.
- Political Mobilization: The Hunter Committee’s findings and the subsequent lack of action galvanized the Indian National Congress and other nationalist organizations. They intensified their efforts to mobilize the masses and push for greater autonomy and eventual independence.
- Gandhi’s Response: Gandhi was deeply affected by the committee’s findings. He returned his medals and honors from the British government and called for a nationwide hartal (strike). The event reinforced his commitment to non-violent resistance and inspired future movements.
International Reaction
- Condemnation: The Hunter Committee’s report and the British government’s handling of the massacre drew international condemnation. Many countries and international bodies criticized the British for their brutal actions and the lack of accountability.
- Exposure of Atrocities: The committee’s findings, though limited, helped to expose the atrocities committed in Jallianwala Bagh to a global audience, further damaging the reputation of British colonial rule.
Historical Significance
- Symbol of Injustice: The Hunter Committee’s failure to hold General Dyer and the British administration accountable became a symbol of the injustice and lack of accountability inherent in British colonial rule.
- Catalyst for Change: The committee’s shortcomings served as a catalyst for the Indian independence movement, highlighting the need for a more thorough and impartial investigation of colonial abuses and the importance of self-governance.
Mass awakening, Rabindranath Tagore renounces knighthood
Immediate Reactions to the Massacre
- Public Outrage: The massacre led to immediate and widespread outrage among the Indian population. People were shocked and deeply affected by the scale of the violence and the lack of provocation.
- Protests and Strikes: Protests and strikes broke out in various parts of the country, with many Indians demanding justice and an end to British rule.
- Political Mobilization: The Indian National Congress, led by leaders like Gandhi, intensified its efforts to mobilize the masses and organize resistance against British policies.
Rabindranath Tagore’s Response
- Initial Shock and Disbelief: Rabindranath Tagore, a renowned poet, philosopher, and Nobel laureate, was deeply shocked and disturbed by the news of the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre.
- Renunciation of Knighthood: In a symbolic act of protest, Tagore renounced his knighthood, which he had received from the British in 1915. This was a powerful statement against the British government and its policies.
- Letter to the Viceroy: Tagore wrote a letter to Lord Chelmsford, the Viceroy of India, expressing his deep disappointment and disillusionment with British rule. The letter is a poignant expression of his moral and ethical stance against the atrocities committed by the British.
Content of Tagore’s Letter
- Moral Stance: Tagore emphasized the moral and ethical implications of the massacre, stating that the British government’s actions had deeply wounded the Indian people’s sense of dignity and justice.
- Disillusionment: He expressed his disillusionment with the British government’s failure to uphold the principles of fairness and humanity, which he believed were essential for any civilized society.
- Symbolic Act: Tagore’s renunciation of his knighthood was a symbolic act of protest, demonstrating his solidarity with the Indian people and his rejection of British honors in the face of such brutal actions.
Impact of Tagore’s Renunciation
- Moral Leadership: Tagore’s renunciation of his knighthood provided moral leadership and inspiration to the Indian people. It showed that even those who had been honored by the British were willing to stand against injustice.
- International Attention: Tagore’s act and his letter drew international attention to the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, further exposing the brutal nature of British colonial rule.
- Cultural Significance: As a respected cultural figure, Tagore’s actions had a significant cultural impact, reinforcing the idea that cultural and intellectual leaders could play a crucial role in the struggle for independence.
Broader Mass Awakening
- Increased Nationalism: The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre and the subsequent lack of accountability by the British government led to a significant increase in nationalist sentiment among the Indian people.
- Non-Cooperation Movement: Gandhi launched the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1920, which saw widespread participation from various sections of society. The movement called for the boycott of British institutions, goods, and honors, and Tagore’s renunciation of his knighthood was in line with this call.
- Social and Political Mobilization: The massacre and the mass awakening it triggered led to greater social and political mobilization. More Indians joined the struggle for independence, and the movement gained momentum.
Historical Significance
- Turning Point: The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre and the mass awakening it sparked are considered turning points in the Indian independence movement. They marked a shift from isolated protests to a more organized and widespread resistance.
- Symbol of Resistance: Tagore’s renunciation of his knighthood became a symbol of resistance and a powerful statement against British colonialism. It inspired other Indians to take similar actions and stand up against injustice.
- Global Impact: The international attention and condemnation that followed the massacre and Tagore’s renunciation further isolated the British government and bolstered the Indian cause for independence.
