The "Massacre at Amritsar" on 13th April 1919 was a pivotal event in the Independence of India. Unlike the "First War of Indian Independence" in the mid nineteenth century the accounts of the massacre at Amritsar are widely agreed, despicable and largely true. A British army officer named General Dyer decided that he would teach the insurgents a "lesson". According to his own wife the rebels concentrated in the open space of the Jallianwalla Bagh (a stretch of waste ground) and this "..gave him such an opportunity as he could not have devised. It separated the guilty from the innocent, it placed them where he would have wished them to be - within reach of his sword." This was his own wife speaking. Having found the "rebels" to be concentrated he ordered 25 Ghurkhas and 25 mixed Pathan, Baluchi and Sikh infantry to continue firing into a mass of between 5000 and 25000 people for 10-15 minutes. Around 2000 shots were fired and between 400 and 500 people were killed with over a thousand injured. Dyer led the troops personally and the firing was performed in a systematic fashion with a round of shots, a cessation of firing, a selection of a new target then another round of shots. The firing only ceased when the ammunition had reached a minimum level to assure a safe withdrawal for the troops. The action was premeditated. There can be little doubt that Dyer knew that the meeting was going to take place and selected the troops who did the murders with great care and ensured that these troops carried about 50 bullets each of the heavy 303 calibre ammunition.
This outrage had two effects, the first was to remove from the British Raj any shred of respectability and the second was to provide the martyrs that a revolution requires. Dyer's action began in earnest the path to final independence in 1947.
It is interesting that over 90% of the dead were Hindus and Moslems given that Amritsar is a Sikh town. A few weeks after the massacre Dyer was made an honorary Sikh in a special ceremony at the Golden Temple, an honor seldom ever given. The emnity between Hindus and Sikhs is still livid: "The Sikhs are a lawless people and a menace to the law abiding Hindus ... The [Government] should take strict measures against them." (Pandit Nehru, Indian Prime Minister, on Sikhs), "You do not know the might of our armed forces. We will eliminate 10,000 Sikh youths and the world will know nothing about it." (Chander Shekhar, former Prime Minister of India, CK, 21st October, 1991)
It is also interesting that Dyer avoided the use of British or mainstream Indian troops. The deliberate murder of civilians would have caused difficulties for either of these and would have led to strong testimony against Dyer later. When the truth finally emerged Dyer was reviled in Britain as well as India.
On reflection it is intriguing that the scale of deaths caused by Moslems against Hindus, Hindus against Sikhs and Hindus against Moslems utterly dwarf General Dyer's actions (Note: Dyer's action was loathsome, and comparisons must not diminish our revulsion, but equally we should be free to explore history). Dwarf them by orders of magnitude, millions compared with hundreds. This makes me wonder about national myth formation. It is not the fact of an atrocity that is important. Had General Dyer not existed it would have been the killing of 10 rebels or the execution of 5 insurgents that would have been the terrible event and martyrdom from which a country was born. This is a puzzle. It is not the scale of an atrocity that triggers the rise of a national spirit. So what is nationalism? India was united by the British Raj in 1858 - before then the East India Company had kept it divided into numerous states united to the Company by treaty and before that the sub-continent had but the briefest of moments when invaders claimed to have forged most of the country into a single government. The state that is modern India was largely founded by the British Raj but the modern Indians do not identify at all with that origin. Most Indians would probably deny it.
So why do Indians refuse to think of themselves as "Rajians"? The unsavoury key to nationalism lies in the way that the violence of the Mutiny of 1857 and the riots of the twentieth century were directed at all caucasians, whether from the USA or Europe. Another clue lies in Malleson's Victorian accounts of the 1857 Mutiny in which the "british race" is always proving its qualities and is separate from the natives. Modern Indians like to think of those Asians who are racially similar to themselves as Indians. This racial origin of a national identity is not peculiar to India but the discussion of Indian history highlights its existence. Nationalism is about race, religion and culture in various degrees depending on when and where it happens. Eventually people resent being governed by alien races, religions or cultures. Even colonists experienced this nationalist force, "Colonialism" is a boon to colonists for several generations but eventually the culture of the colonists diverges and the culture of the "mother country" becomes alien.
A bit of archaeology:
There is no need for national myth makers to exaggerate this incident. It was terrible and there is a clear historical record. But just look at this wall showing how the soldiers were able to hit the mortar with almost unerring accuracy:
(Click on the picture to enlarge it). Or was it just easier for people to poke a screwdriver into mortar to create a bullet hole? Had there not been a clear historical record this sort of nonsense could lead to denials that the incident ever took place.
This outrage had two effects, the first was to remove from the British Raj any shred of respectability and the second was to provide the martyrs that a revolution requires. Dyer's action began in earnest the path to final independence in 1947.
It is interesting that over 90% of the dead were Hindus and Moslems given that Amritsar is a Sikh town. A few weeks after the massacre Dyer was made an honorary Sikh in a special ceremony at the Golden Temple, an honor seldom ever given. The emnity between Hindus and Sikhs is still livid: "The Sikhs are a lawless people and a menace to the law abiding Hindus ... The [Government] should take strict measures against them." (Pandit Nehru, Indian Prime Minister, on Sikhs), "You do not know the might of our armed forces. We will eliminate 10,000 Sikh youths and the world will know nothing about it." (Chander Shekhar, former Prime Minister of India, CK, 21st October, 1991)
It is also interesting that Dyer avoided the use of British or mainstream Indian troops. The deliberate murder of civilians would have caused difficulties for either of these and would have led to strong testimony against Dyer later. When the truth finally emerged Dyer was reviled in Britain as well as India.
On reflection it is intriguing that the scale of deaths caused by Moslems against Hindus, Hindus against Sikhs and Hindus against Moslems utterly dwarf General Dyer's actions (Note: Dyer's action was loathsome, and comparisons must not diminish our revulsion, but equally we should be free to explore history). Dwarf them by orders of magnitude, millions compared with hundreds. This makes me wonder about national myth formation. It is not the fact of an atrocity that is important. Had General Dyer not existed it would have been the killing of 10 rebels or the execution of 5 insurgents that would have been the terrible event and martyrdom from which a country was born. This is a puzzle. It is not the scale of an atrocity that triggers the rise of a national spirit. So what is nationalism? India was united by the British Raj in 1858 - before then the East India Company had kept it divided into numerous states united to the Company by treaty and before that the sub-continent had but the briefest of moments when invaders claimed to have forged most of the country into a single government. The state that is modern India was largely founded by the British Raj but the modern Indians do not identify at all with that origin. Most Indians would probably deny it.
So why do Indians refuse to think of themselves as "Rajians"? The unsavoury key to nationalism lies in the way that the violence of the Mutiny of 1857 and the riots of the twentieth century were directed at all caucasians, whether from the USA or Europe. Another clue lies in Malleson's Victorian accounts of the 1857 Mutiny in which the "british race" is always proving its qualities and is separate from the natives. Modern Indians like to think of those Asians who are racially similar to themselves as Indians. This racial origin of a national identity is not peculiar to India but the discussion of Indian history highlights its existence. Nationalism is about race, religion and culture in various degrees depending on when and where it happens. Eventually people resent being governed by alien races, religions or cultures. Even colonists experienced this nationalist force, "Colonialism" is a boon to colonists for several generations but eventually the culture of the colonists diverges and the culture of the "mother country" becomes alien.
A bit of archaeology:
There is no need for national myth makers to exaggerate this incident. It was terrible and there is a clear historical record. But just look at this wall showing how the soldiers were able to hit the mortar with almost unerring accuracy:
(Click on the picture to enlarge it). Or was it just easier for people to poke a screwdriver into mortar to create a bullet hole? Had there not been a clear historical record this sort of nonsense could lead to denials that the incident ever took place.
Comments