What was the short term significance of the Amritsar Massacre?

Indeed, the Amritsar Massacre wonderfully succeeded to completely alienate the Indian elites and middle class who were previously Moderates or even pro-British. Tagore, the renowned Indian poet, rejected his knighthood, which was shameful “in their incongruous context of humiliation”; Motial Nehru, who was so staunchly pro-British that he sent his only son to school at Harrow and university at Cambridge, manifested his disrespect for the British by discarding dresses, ties, boas and homburgs into a bonfire. Chaudhuri said, “Even I felt like rest of my countrymen (angry)”, further commenting that the Dyer affair was the “worst exhibition of the spurious and arrogant imperial sentiment”. The word “even” suggests that Chaudhuri was one of those who strongly supported the Empire; therefore his denunciation of the Empire suggests that other previous pro-British Indians began to oppose British rule following the Massacre. Although the elites were few in number, their alienation was significant, as they could affect the opinions of many people. Tagore’s rejection of his knighthood propagated the brutality of British rule to other countries, as Tagore was a prominent poet throughout Europe and North America as a Nobel laureate. Motial Nehru also had considerable influence on the opinion of the Indians (in Allahabad) as he published a leading newspaper, the Leader. The elites and the middle class were especially influential as they dominated the Congress, which henceforth became the centre of nationalist movements, responsible for bringing out reforms and concessions from the British.

The most significant Indian who turned his back against the British after the Massacre was Gandhi. He too, like most middle class Indians, had favourable views on the British rule. In 1915, he had graciously accepted the Kaiser-i-Hind medal from the British Empire, and he had professed his admiration for British institutions and conventions of fair play. After the Massacre, however, he was a changed man; calling the British rule “satanic”, Gandhi said that Britain no longer enjoyed any moral right to rule India. In his letter to the Viceroy, he stated that he would no longer give his “loyal co-operation” to the British Government of India; Gandhi’s opposition to British rule was massively significant, as he were to have a profound influence in leading the Congress with nationalist movements, winning reforms and concessions from the British. As the main author of Congress’s report on the Punjab issue, he acquired new standing in the Congress. Under his leadership, and under the conditions of non-co-operation, Congress was changed from an elite body, dominated by the professional middle classes from the presidencies of Bengal and Bombay, into a mass organisation, with representatives from wide range of localities. Members increased dramatically from under 100,000 to 2 million by 1921. Thus the Amritsar Massacre led to the rise of Congress, which gradually began to represent the whole subcontinent. The Congress, under Gandhi’s leadership, became the centre of nationalist movements; in 1920, it led the non-co-operation movement. Non-co-operation was extremely significant in that it elicited from the British a changed attitude to political agitation which posed them a new problem because it was non-violent and so wide-scale. British policy changed considerably; it became less repressive, as the British saw that violent repression was ineffective and costly. Henceforth, the Congress was responsible for pressing the British rule for more reforms with nationalist movements (eg. Salt March, Quit India), which was a significant in bringing India independence.

        On the other hand, it is possible to argue that the Amritsar Massacre was not so significant, because the popular support from Indians that Gandhi and the Congress received was not so much came from the nationalism induced by the Massacre, but from different groups who were motivated to support Gandhi and the Congress for their own interests. The Muslims supported Gandhi not so much because of the Amritsar Massacre, but because Gandhi supported the Khilafat movement, which was important to many Muslims. Some local parties supported Gandhi because they found it attractive to appear ‘extreme’ under Gandhi’s banner; the Marwaris in Calcutta were drawn by his religious reputation and his western Indian origins; some local party leaders, such as C. R. Das, allied with the Congress so as not to provoke hostility from people from their own region who increasingly supported the Gandhi and the Congress. By 1922, the non-cooperation movement had failed, with Gandhi in jail. However, this is not to say that there was no nationalism among the Indian public. After the Amritsar Massacre, Motial Nehru started another daily newspaper called the Independent, and the name clearly implies that it was of a nationalist nature. The fact that the daily was met with great success implies that there was a strong nationalist feeling among the Indians. It is also important to note that the non-cooperation movement, which had failed by 1922, allowed nationalism to grow all over India as wider and deeper range of social groups had become articulate in public life. The fact that people all over India who were previously isolated in the countryside had joined in a nationalist movement made the Indians feel that they were part of one nation. Therefore it could be argued that the Amritsar Massacre and the non-cooperation movement that followed led to the rise of nationalism, which was significant in changing the relationship between Britain and India.

        The Amritsar Massacre and the treatment of Dyer had convinced all Indians that the whole British people stood behind the inhumanity of Dyer and no fair treatment of India could be expected from them; however, this is not to say that all British people supported Dyer. The debate on the treatment of Dyer shows that some British people opposed Dyer. Montague was one of them, and he criticized Dyer for his racism which had violated the ‘principles upon which our Indian empire had been built. Churchill declared to the House of Commons that the Massacre was a “monstrous” event; this is significant because Churchill was a diehard conservative, who abhorred the idea of giving India independence, let alone concessions. His alarm implies that he realised how the Amritsar Massacre and its implications might weaken the British control of India.

        In this essay, I have used various sources from wide ranging authors to minimize any biases. Of the contemporary sources, I have used those from Gandhi, the pacific radical; Nehru, the “hooligan”; Chaudhuri, an Indian commentator on culture; and Tagore, the renowned Indian poet. Thus, I have tried to see how different Indians have reacted differently to the Amritsar Massacre. Unfortunately, there were no sources to be found written by Indians who were neither elites nor middle class but poor peasants, who was the main bulk of the Indian population, so this essay cannot claim that it has considered the views of all Indians. To minimize this flaw, I have used secondary sources of Judith Brown, Lawrence James and John Keay which describe the mood and the thoughts of the Indian public as a whole. The variety of the secondary sources also gave me a balanced view of events: Brown concentrated more on the perspective of Indians, James on that of the British, and Keay gave balanced viewpoints from both the British and the Indians.

        The Amritsar Massacre was clearly a significant event, although there are some arguments which suggest that it was less so. The Amritsar Massacre was the death of British philanthropy in the eyes of Indians, as Indians believed that the British public supported Dyer and his actions. However, this didn’t mean that British philanthropy was dead, as there were British people who condemned Dyer and called for less repressive measures in India. The Massacre sparked off the flames of nationalism in the hearts of Gandhi and many other Indians (usually the elite and the middle class); although the mass of people may have joined the non-co-operation movement not so much due to nationalism, as they took part in the movement which united the subcontinent, they began to feel that they were all part of a nation. The Amritsar Massacre was, in a sense, a catalyst for Indian independence.

Bibliography

Primary sources

Nirad Chaudhuri, Autobiography of an Unknown Indian, published in 2008

Jawarharlal Nehru, An Autobiography, published in 2004

Rabindranath Tagore, Selected letters of Rabindranath Tagore

Gandhi to the Viceroy of India, 1 August, 1920; Copland, Ian, India 1885-1947, published in 2001

Churchill’s Speech in the House of Commons, 1920

Secondary sources

Judith Brown, Modern India, published in 1994

Ian Copland, India 1885-1947, published in 2001

Lawrence James, Rise & Fall of the British Empire, published in 1998

John Keay, India: A History, published in 2000

Tim Leadbeater, Britain and India 1845-1947, published in 2008

---