In hindsight, a number of events could be seen as short term, long term or triggers to the events of Amritsar. For example, the military presence that was at hand in the Punjab, could be argued as a trigger for the events of Amritsar even though it may not seem as obvious.
It is arguable that the Rowlatt Acts that was put into place beforehand was another major factor for the Massacre. It was only prior of the main event (Amritsar Massacre) and could be seen as a trigger to the events of Amritsar. This is because the reason the protestors were there at the scene in the first place, was to protest about the Rowlatt Acts which including laws such as, imprisonment without trial. These acts forced, the trigger, for the people of Amritsar to protest at Jallianwala Bagh. It was the government that passed the highly unpopular and unsuccessful Rowlatt Acts, had they not the whole event would have been prevented.
The ‘Crawling Order’ that was installed by General Dyer was in place for every Indian that walked past Kucha Tawarian, the narrow lane where Marcia Sherwood (a British woman) was assaulted. This was done so that every Indian could crawl in the filth and muck that lay on the narrow lane. No Indian was exempt from this treatment as British soldiers were on hand to enforce the ‘Crawling Order.’ In addition, selected Indian schoolboys were publicly whipped at random, guilty or innocent. These humiliating punishments outraged Indians and Secretary of State, Edwin Montagu. He said, in the House of Commons, that the humiliating martial laws are ‘enforcing racial humiliation’ and continued ‘Are you going to keep your hold on India by terrorism, racial humiliation, and subordination, and frightfulness, or are you going to rest it upon the growing goodwill of the people of the Indian Empire?’ But it was these kinds of situations that were all too familiar with the relationship between the British Raj and the Indian people in the reign of the British Empire. And the happenings of the Amritsar Massacre were just another chapter of the treatment of Indians in response to protest.
Another clear example of the British answer to Indian protest is the Indian Mutiny that occurred in 1857. Indian soldiers refused to bite gun cartridges because it contained pig and cow grease which broke religious grounds of Hinduism and Islam. In response, the Indians mutinied and the British unleashed a brutal answer. Many convicted Indian mutinied soldiers were to lick blood wounds of their victims and were also hanged. The harshness of the consequences showed how brutal the government in response to the minor Indian protest. And the stark similarity of Mutiny and the Amritsar Massacre shows how the British responded to Indian protest. Moreover, because the responses was very similar it cannot be possible to blame the Massacre on one person; General Dyer. This is because it clearly shows what the British mentality was and the ongoing tussle between the Raj and Indian protestors led to one outcome: brutal British response.
Moreover to the fact that the primary cause for the Amritsar Massacre was not General Dyer, was the number of short-term events that led up to the events of Jallianwala Bagh. For example, the effects of World War One that India had to endure post-war. The post war recession and post war communism scare evidently led to social unrest within India. The widespread social unrest and fear led to many active Indians to voice their concerns and protest about the current situation of the country. There was a distinct ‘anti-British feeling’ as the toll of ‘heavy war taxes, inflation and over-recruiting in the Punjab by press gang methods created discontent’ occurred on Indian, even, ‘soldiers found themselves once again “natives” rather than British allies.’ However, as seen in the past, the British did not take lightly to the protesting and discontent, and their knee-jerk reaction was to quickly install the Rowlatt Acts. The situation in India was not a fruitful one and had the British issued a more thoughtful response, instead of, basically bringing out a new law which silenced Indians, then situation within India could have been eased. Also, had the Rowlatt Acts not been installed then the protestors of the acts would not have been massacred by General Dyer at Jallianwala Bagh. Therefore, this shows that the British government kept ignoring the situation and it cost them as the British were severely criticised and embarrassed by the Amritsar Massacre. The fact was that General Dyer was the final cause of the events but the whole situation could have been avoided had the British put more thought into their actions before the Amritsar Massacre.
Another reason for the Rowlatt Acts being set up was because of the angry response from Indians to the rather tame reforms of the Chelmsford-Montagu reforms. The angry response largely came from the Punjab and it drew riots, violence and unrest. This angry response was because the reforms were ‘not good enough to please the extremists. Many Indians were angry and began to agitate for self-government.’ Amidst the problems, some Indians were strongly critical of the Empire so the British responded by setting up the Rowlatt Acts. Again, had the British imposed a more thoughtful response, than the Rowlatt Acts, to the situation then the Amritsar Massacre could have been avoided.
Britain’s fear of post-war Bolshevism within India also warranted to the instalment of the Rowlatt Acts. ‘British government’s very real fear of Bolshevism taking hold in post-war India’ shows that the government also feared of this occurring in India and was another reason why the Rowlatt Acts was set up. Yet again, had they avoided their spontaneous reaction to the problems with the terrible Rowlatt Acts the massacre could have been evaded.
The ongoing ‘hartals’ within India which encouraged people to close businesses, workplaces and shops as civil disobedience in protest to affairs, was very active during Britain’s tenure in India. For example, Gandhi ordered a nationwide ‘hartal’ within India on April 6, 1919 and ‘the entire country responded magnificently.’ This is just an example of how popular ‘hartals’ were and they were also another reason why the Rowlatt Acts were placed; to stop growing Indian discontent, concern and animosity. Conversely, it worked the other way, as it fuelled even more anger within Indians. And, of course, the Rowlatt Acts worked as a trigger for the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh in 1919.
Finally, there were also other unfortunate incidents that were not directly Britain’s fault but harmed their position nonetheless. The Spanish Flu epidemic which killed ‘at least five million people’ added further despair to the current situation. To compound the misery, there was complete failure of the monsoon. All this added to the complete and utter despair and discontent within India which led to the British imposing the Rowlatt Acts. The acts eventually proved to be disastrous as it became a major factor behind the massacre at Amritsar.
After reviewing all the incidents that occurred beforehand the events of the Amritsar Massacre and also reviewing the actions of General Dyer, it is quite obvious that the blame for the Amritsar Massacre was squarely on Dyer but wrongly. The government could have dealt the pre-Amritsar issues much better had they avoided placing the utterly dreadful Rowlatt Acts. Furthermore, the inquiry was led by British government’s Secretary of State of India, Edwin Montagu, and it is rather obvious that the Secretary of State of India himself would not come of the inquiry and hold up his hands and concur it was the government’s fault. Agreed, that General Dyer’s actions were the final cause for the events of Amritsar. However, it was not an event that sprung out of the blue in a situation where Indian affairs were rosy. The number of events that occurred before the Amritsar Massacre was largely down to the ineptitude of the British government and their poor handling of India. There was a little bit of pressure with ‘hartals’ commonplace and the British panicked and installed a law which more or less told Indians to ‘keep quiet or prison.’ Instead of improving relations with the Indian public and the Raj, they gave out harsh and severe punishments to offenders, for example, licking blood wounds of victims. Raising taxes while Indians volunteered for fight for the Empire did not go down well with Indians. Not giving good enough reward for their endeavours, installing Rowlatt Acts and failure of monsoons all added up to the misery and ‘anti-British feeling.’ The Amritsar Massacre was the final piece as it angered Indians even more and buckling under the pressure, the British government squarely put the blame on General Dyer. Failing to realise their own failure beforehand, Dyer actions made him the scapegoat. Therefore, I do not agree with the findings of the Hunter Committee that General Dyer was the primary cause of the Amritsar Massacre, however, I do believe he was the final cause. The British government failure to solve the ongoing problems within India beforehand, makes them the primary cause for the events of Jallianwala Bagh in 1919; the Amritsar Massacre.
