Jallianwala Bagh Massacre - Amritsar Tragedy of 1919

Overview

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre stands as one of the darkest chapters in the history of British colonial rule in India. On the evening of April 13, 1919, Brigadier-General Reginald Edward Harry Dyer ordered troops of the British Indian Army to open fire on a large crowd of unarmed civilians who had gathered at Jallianwala Bagh, a public garden in Amritsar, Punjab. The gathering included peaceful protesters demonstrating against the repressive Rowlatt Act and the recent arrest of pro-independence leaders, as well as pilgrims attending the annual Baisakhi fair, one of the most important festivals in the Sikh calendar.

Without warning, Dyer positioned his troops—51 soldiers from the 9th Gurkha Rifles and 54 from the 54th Sikhs—at the only exit to the enclosed garden and ordered them to fire into the densest sections of the crowd. The firing continued for approximately ten minutes until the soldiers’ ammunition was nearly exhausted. With walls approximately 20 feet high on three sides and the only exit blocked, thousands of men, women, and children were trapped. Many were killed instantly by the rifle fire, while others died attempting to escape by jumping into a well or climbing the walls.

The death toll remains disputed to this day. The official British inquiry, known as the Hunter Commission, acknowledged 379 deaths, but Indian National Congress estimates placed the figure between 1,000 and 1,500. Approximately 1,500 people were injured, with 192 sustaining serious injuries. The massacre lasted only minutes, but its impact reverberated for decades, fundamentally altering India’s relationship with British colonial rule and galvanizing the independence movement in unprecedented ways.

Background

The Rowlatt Act and Growing Unrest

The roots of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre lie in the political atmosphere of post-World War I India. During the war, the British government had promised Indians greater self-governance in exchange for their support. Nearly 1.5 million Indian soldiers had served in the British forces, and India had contributed substantially to the war effort. However, instead of granting promised reforms, the British administration tightened its control through repressive legislation.

In March 1919, the British colonial government enacted the Rowlatt Act, officially called the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act. This legislation allowed the government to imprison any person suspected of sedition or terrorism without trial for up to two years. It permitted trials without juries and gave provincial governments emergency powers to silence the press, detain political activists, and search homes without warrants. The Act was passed despite unanimous opposition from Indian members of the Imperial Legislative Council.

The passage of the Rowlatt Act sparked widespread protests across India. Mahatma Gandhi called for a nationwide hartal (strike) on April 6, 1919, which saw unprecedented participation across the country. The Act represented, for many Indians, a betrayal of British promises and a demonstration that constitutional methods would never yield genuine reforms.

Situation in Punjab

Punjab was particularly volatile in early 1919. The province had contributed disproportionately to the British war effort, with Punjabi soldiers forming a substantial portion of the Indian Army. The economic hardships of the post-war period, including inflation and food shortages, combined with political grievances to create a tense atmosphere.

In Amritsar, a commercial and religious center sacred to Sikhs as the home of the Golden Temple (Harmandir Sahib), the protests against the Rowlatt Act were especially strong. Two popular local leaders emerged at the forefront of the movement: Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew, a Muslim barrister and Congress leader, and Dr. Satyapal, a Hindu physician and ardent nationalist. Both men advocated for peaceful, non-violent protest following Gandhi’s principles.

The Arrests

On April 10, 1919, ignoring the peaceful nature of the protests, the British authorities arrested both Kitchlew and Satyapal. They were secretly deported from Amritsar to Dharamsala without trial. When news of the arrests spread, thousands of protesters marched to the residence of Miles Irving, the Deputy Commissioner of Amritsar, demanding the leaders’ release.

The authorities responded with force. Troops fired on the crowd near the railway footbridge, killing several protesters. The violence escalated, and by the end of the day, several British officials and civilians had been killed, telegraph lines had been cut, and government buildings had been set on fire. A British female missionary, Miss Marcella Sherwood, was assaulted while bicycling through a narrow street, though she was rescued by local Indians who hid her.

These events prompted the Lieutenant Governor of Punjab, Sir Michael O’Dwyer, to hand over control of Amritsar to Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer, recently arrived from Jullundur with military reinforcements. Dyer immediately imposed martial law, though this was not formally proclaimed until April 13. He issued orders banning public gatherings and assemblies, but the communication of these orders was inadequate, reaching only a fraction of the city’s population.

Prelude

Baisakhi Festival

April 13, 1919, coincided with Baisakhi (also spelled Vaisakhi), one of the most significant festivals in the Sikh religious calendar. Baisakhi marks the Punjabi New Year and commemorates the formation of the Khalsa by Guru Gobind Singh in 1699. The festival traditionally draws large crowds of pilgrims to Amritsar to visit the Golden Temple.

Many of those who gathered at Jallianwala Bagh on the afternoon of April 13 were not political protesters but pilgrims who had come to Amritsar for the festival. The garden served as a common gathering place and resting spot for visitors. Others came specifically to attend a peaceful meeting called to protest the deportation of Kitchlew and Satyapal and to discuss the Rowlatt Act.

General Dyer’s Intentions

General Dyer was aware that a meeting was planned for the afternoon of April 13 at Jallianwala Bagh. Rather than preventing the gathering or dispersing it peacefully, he later testified that he decided to use the occasion to make a dramatic demonstration of British power. In his own words, he intended to “teach a moral lesson” to the people of Punjab and produce “a sufficient moral effect from a military point of view not only on those who were present, but more specially throughout the Punjab.”

Dyer’s mindset was shaped by the racial attitudes and fears prevalent among British colonial officials. The violent events of April 10 had shaken British confidence, and rumors of a coordinated uprising circulated among the European community. The 1857 Rebellion remained a traumatic memory in British colonial consciousness, and many officials believed harsh measures were necessary to prevent another such uprising.

At approximately 4:00 PM, Dyer set out for Jallianwala Bagh with a detachment of 90 soldiers (51 from the 9th Gurkha Rifles and 54 from the 54th Sikhs, along with 40 Gurkhas armed with knives). He also brought two armored cars mounted with machine guns, though the narrow entrance to the Bagh prevented these vehicles from entering.

The Massacre

The Geography of Jallianwala Bagh

Jallianwala Bagh was an enclosed public garden covering approximately 6 to 7 acres. Its unique and tragic geography made it a death trap. The Bagh was surrounded on three sides by buildings with walls approximately 20 feet high. There were only four to five narrow exits, and the main entrance—a passage barely wide enough for two people to walk abreast—was the primary access point.

At approximately 5:15 PM on April 13, a crowd estimated at between 10,000 and 25,000 people (accounts vary significantly) had gathered in the Bagh. The crowd included men, women, and children. Some were attending the political meeting, while others were simply resting after visiting the Golden Temple or shopping at the adjacent bazaar.

The Firing Begins

General Dyer entered the Bagh with his troops and immediately positioned them at the main entrance, effectively blocking the only practical exit. Without any warning, without ordering the crowd to disperse, and without firing warning shots into the air, Dyer ordered his men to open fire directly into the crowd.

The troops were ordered to aim at the densest sections of the gathering. Dyer later testified that he directed his soldiers to fire where the crowd was thickest and to aim at the exits to prevent escape. The firing was systematic and sustained, continuing for approximately ten minutes. Witnesses reported that the soldiers fired in volleys, reloading and firing again and again.

The trapped crowd panicked. People tried desperately to escape, rushing toward the walls and the few narrow exits. Many were trampled in the chaos. Some attempted to climb the high walls; others threw themselves into a well in the garden—known today as the Martyrs’ Well—in desperate attempts to escape the bullets. More than 120 bodies were later recovered from this single well.

Ammunition Expended

Dyer’s troops fired approximately 1,650 rounds in those ten minutes. The firing stopped not because Dyer ordered it to cease out of mercy, but because the ammunition was running low. He later testified to the Hunter Commission that had more ammunition been available and had the armored cars with machine guns been able to enter the Bagh, the casualties would have been even higher. He stated explicitly that his purpose was to inflict maximum casualties to create a “moral effect.”

After the firing ceased, Dyer and his troops withdrew immediately. No medical assistance was provided to the wounded. A curfew was in effect, preventing the injured from seeking help or families from searching for their loved ones. Many wounded died during the night from their injuries, unable to receive any medical attention.

Participants

Brigadier-General Reginald Edward Harry Dyer

Reginald Dyer, born in 1864 in Murree (now in Pakistan), was the son of a British brewery owner. He had served in the British Indian Army throughout his career, seeing action in several frontier campaigns. By 1919, he was a Brigadier-General commanding forces in the Jullundur Brigade.

Dyer was described by contemporaries as a strict disciplinarian who viewed himself as a defender of British prestige and order. His actions at Jallianwala Bagh were consistent with a colonial mindset that prioritized harsh punishment over measured response, viewing collective punishment as an acceptable means of maintaining control.

After the massacre, Dyer became a controversial figure. Among many British in India, particularly in the European community and the military, he was viewed as a hero who had prevented another 1857-style rebellion. The Morning Post, a conservative British newspaper, raised £26,000 (equivalent to approximately £1.3 million today) for Dyer after he was censured. He was presented with a sword inscribed “Saviour of the Punjab” by the women of the British community in India.

However, in Britain itself, opinion was divided. While many conservatives supported him, liberal politicians and newspapers condemned the massacre. Dyer was eventually removed from his command and forced into retirement without pension or honor, though he escaped criminal prosecution.

The Victims

The victims of Jallianwala Bagh came from all walks of life and represented the diverse fabric of Punjabi society. They included Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs; men, women, and children; merchants, farmers, pilgrims, and political activists. Many had no connection to the protest movement and were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Among the confirmed dead were young children and elderly people. Families were torn apart, with multiple members killed or wounded. The exact number of casualties remains disputed, reflecting both the chaos of the event and the British authorities’ attempts to minimize the scale of the tragedy.

Aftermath

Immediate Response

In the immediate aftermath of the massacre, Amritsar and much of Punjab came under strict martial law. A reign of terror ensued, with British authorities implementing humiliating and punitive measures. In one notorious incident, Indians were forced to crawl on their bellies down the street where Miss Sherwood had been attacked. Public floggings were administered, and arbitrary arrests were commonplace.

General Dyer continued to serve in Amritsar for several days after the massacre, believing he had acted correctly. He imposed a curfew and restricted movement, effectively preventing news of the scale of the tragedy from spreading initially.

News Spreads

Despite British attempts at censorship, news of the massacre gradually spread throughout India and eventually reached Britain. Indian newspapers that managed to evade censorship published accounts of the atrocity. Indian National Congress leaders, including Mahatma Gandhi, Motilal Nehru, and others, conducted their own investigations.

The descriptions of what had happened at Jallianwala Bagh shocked the Indian public and many in Britain. The key elements that made the massacre particularly horrifying were Dyer’s admission that he had fired without warning, that he had aimed at the densest parts of the crowd, that he had directed fire at the exits, that he had continued firing until ammunition ran low, and that he had provided no medical assistance afterward.

The Hunter Commission

Under public pressure, the British government established the Disorders Inquiry Committee, commonly known as the Hunter Commission after its chairman, Lord Hunter. The Commission began its proceedings in October 1919 and took testimony from numerous witnesses, including General Dyer himself.

Dyer’s testimony was shockingly frank. He admitted all the key facts and defended his actions as necessary to prevent rebellion. He stated that his purpose was to create a “moral and widespread effect” and that he would have used machine guns if he could have gotten them into the Bagh. This testimony, rather than exonerating him, made his actions seem even more calculated and brutal.

The Hunter Commission’s report, published in March 1920, was divided. The British members mildly censured Dyer but absolved higher authorities of blame. The Indian members, including Pandit Jagat Narayan and C.H. Setalvad, issued a dissenting report that condemned Dyer’s actions as inhumane and unjustifiable, and criticized the martial law regime that followed.

Official Response

In 1920, the British House of Commons debated the massacre. Secretary of State for War Winston Churchill called it “monstrous” and “an extraordinary event, a monstrous event, an event which stands in singular and sinister isolation.” The Army Council in London removed Dyer from his command and forced him into early retirement, but he faced no criminal charges.

The House of Lords, however, passed a motion supporting Dyer by 129 votes to 86, reflecting the deep divide in British opinion. Many British officers and officials in India supported Dyer, viewing him as a scapegoat who had acted according to the unwritten rules of colonial governance.

Impact on Indian National Consciousness

The massacre had a profound and lasting impact on Indian public opinion. It shattered whatever faith remained among moderate Indians in British justice and the possibility of achieving self-governance through constitutional reforms. Rabindranath Tagore, the revered poet and India’s first Nobel laureate, renounced the knighthood that the British had bestowed upon him, writing to the Viceroy that he could no longer retain a title from a government that had demonstrated such callousness toward its subjects.

Mahatma Gandhi, who had previously counseled cooperation with the British during World War I, concluded that meaningful reform was impossible under colonial rule. The massacre reinforced his conviction that complete independence—Purna Swaraj—was the only acceptable goal, not dominion status or gradual constitutional advancement.

Jawaharlal Nehru, who would become India’s first Prime Minister, wrote in his autobiography that Jallianwala Bagh was a turning point for him personally: “The Punjab happenings… made our family, like so many others, very angry and bitter.”

Historical Significance

Catalyst for the Independence Movement

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre marked a point of no return in India’s relationship with British colonial rule. Before 1919, the Indian National Congress had primarily sought constitutional reforms within the British Empire. After Jallianwala Bagh, the demand for complete independence gained widespread support.

The massacre directly contributed to the launch of the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1920, led by Mahatma Gandhi. This movement saw unprecedented mass participation across India, with people from all social classes joining in boycotts of British goods, institutions, and honors.

Radicalization of the Independence Movement

While Gandhi maintained his commitment to non-violence, the massacre inspired a more militant strand of the independence movement. Revolutionary groups saw it as proof that British rule could not be reformed and must be overthrown. The brutality of British response radicalized many young Indians who might otherwise have pursued moderate paths.

Notably, Udham Singh, a witness to the massacre who had helped serve water to some of the wounded, vowed revenge. Twenty-one years later, in 1940, he assassinated Michael O’Dwyer, the former Lieutenant Governor of Punjab, in London. At his trial, Udham Singh explicitly stated he was avenging the massacre.

International Impact

The massacre also damaged British prestige internationally. The brutality of Dyer’s actions and the divided British response to it tarnished Britain’s claim to represent civilization and democracy. This was particularly significant as Britain and other European powers were establishing the League of Nations and presenting themselves as champions of international justice and human rights.

Historiographical Debate

Historians have debated various aspects of the massacre, including the exact death toll, the degree of planning versus spontaneity in Dyer’s actions, and the extent to which higher British authorities were complicit. Recent scholarship has emphasized how the massacre must be understood within the broader context of colonial violence and racial attitudes that pervaded British rule in India.

Some historians have also explored the gendered dimensions of the massacre, noting that the assault on Miss Sherwood was used by British authorities to justify collective punishment, reflecting colonial obsessions with protecting white women’s bodies while showing no such concern for Indian women who were killed or wounded at Jallianwala Bagh.

Legacy

The Memorial

Today, Jallianwala Bagh has been converted into a national memorial. The site preserves the well into which people jumped, now known as the Martyrs’ Well, and sections of walls showing bullet marks from the firing. A memorial structure was inaugurated by the President of India in 1961.

The memorial includes a museum with contemporary accounts, photographs, and artifacts from the massacre. It has become a site of pilgrimage for Indians and a powerful reminder of colonial brutality. The preserved bullet marks in particular serve as visceral evidence of what transpired on that April evening.

Cultural Remembrance

The massacre has been commemorated in literature, film, and art. Richard Attenborough’s 1982 film “Gandhi” includes a powerful recreation of the massacre. Numerous books, both historical and fictional, have explored the event and its impact.

In Punjab, the massacre is remembered through annual commemorations. For Sikhs particularly, the fact that the massacre occurred on Baisakhi, one of their holiest days, adds a special poignancy to the memory of the event.

Political Symbolism

Successive Indian governments have used Jallianwala Bagh as a symbol of colonial oppression and the sacrifice made during the independence struggle. Prime Ministers and Presidents regularly visit the memorial, especially on significant anniversaries.

The massacre has also featured in India-Britain diplomatic relations. In 2013, during a visit to Amritsar, British Prime Minister David Cameron called the massacre “a deeply shameful event in British history,” though he stopped short of a formal apology. In 2019, marking the centenary of the massacre, British Prime Minister Theresa May expressed “deep regret” in Parliament, but again did not offer a formal apology—a continued source of disappointment for many Indians.

Educational Impact

Jallianwala Bagh features prominently in Indian school curricula as a watershed moment in the independence movement. The massacre is taught as an example of colonial violence and the moral bankruptcy of imperial rule. It serves as a foundational narrative in modern Indian national identity—a moment when peaceful civilians were transformed into martyrs for the cause of freedom.

Historiography

Contemporary Accounts

Contemporary accounts of the massacre varied dramatically depending on their source. British military and administrative reports initially minimized the casualties and emphasized the threat of rebellion. The Hunter Commission’s British members tried to characterize the massacre as an error in judgment rather than a calculated act of brutality.

Indian accounts, including those compiled by Congress leaders and Indian members of the Hunter Commission, emphasized the peaceful nature of the gathering, the excessive force used, and the lack of warning. Eyewitness testimonies collected by Indian investigators painted a vivid picture of the horror.

Evolution of Historical Interpretation

Early British histories of the Raj tended to treat Jallianwala Bagh as an unfortunate aberration or an understandable if excessive response to a threatening situation. This interpretation has been thoroughly discredited by subsequent scholarship.

Post-independence Indian historians have emphasized the massacre as emblematic of colonial violence and racial supremacy inherent in British rule. Scholars like Bipan Chandra have positioned it as a turning point that exposed the true nature of imperialism.

Recent historical work has placed the massacre in the broader context of colonial violence worldwide, comparing it to other instances of imperial forces firing on civilians. Scholars have examined how racial attitudes, military culture, and the psychology of colonial domination contributed to the massacre.

Controversies and Debates

Several aspects of the massacre remain subjects of historical debate:

Death Toll: The official British figure of 379 deaths is widely considered an undercount. Indian estimates of 1,000-1,500 are based on eyewitness accounts and the chaos that prevented accurate counting. The true number may never be known with certainty.

Premeditation: Historians debate whether Dyer planned the massacre in advance or made the decision upon arriving at the Bagh. His own testimony suggests he had decided before arriving to use maximum force if a gathering occurred.

Wider Complicity: The extent to which higher British authorities, particularly Lieutenant Governor O’Dwyer, were complicit remains debated. While Dyer alone ordered the firing, the martial law regime he operated under was established and supported by senior officials.

Military Discipline: Some military historians have examined whether Dyer’s actions violated British military codes and regulations, concluding that they did, though enforcement of such codes in colonial settings was selective.

Timeline

See Also

• The Rowlatt Act and Civil Liberties
• Non-Cooperation Movement
• Mahatma Gandhi and Civil Disobedience
• British Raj in Punjab
• Indian Independence Movement