The Jallianwala Bagh Revisited - II

Lieutenant Colonel Nigel A Collett (Retd)
 

The Jallianwala Bagh

Fifteen depositions directly relate to accounts of the shooting in the Jallianwala Bagh. Some are accounts of the deaths of relatives, and how they came about.28 Many of these are by witnesses who had lost children who were playing or loitering in the Bagh. Most had received the going rate of Rs 8362 in compensation, others less (Rs 6000, 5575, or as low as 1394 for a death, and in one case Rs 9000 for a father and son). Others are accounts from members of the crowd in the Bagh. Sewa Ram, son of Lal Das, Brahman, resident of Katra Baghian Wala Amritsar, was in the Jallianwala Bagh, aged fifteen on that day. He was selling lemonade bottles from a hand cart outside the Bagh and went in with other boys. A bullet broke his shoulder bone and rendered his arm permanently useless, for which he got compensation of Rs 3300.29 Daulat Ram, son of Jagan Nath, Brahman, accountant to the firm of Kundan Lal Indar Jit, resident of Lohgarh Gate Amritsar, was also fifteen when he went into the Jallianwala Bagh. He went as his shop was closed and he had nothing to do. When the shooting started he tried to conceal himself behind a buffalo in the corner; even then he was hit in the leg. His relations took him home two hours later, and he was told he would get Rs300 compensation on reaching his majority.30

Dr Mani Ram, a dental surgeon of Amritsar, heard on 13 April that there would be a meeting in Amritsar under the auspices of the Chief Khalsa Diwan. His house was 100 yards from the Jallianwala Bagh, and his stables adjoined it. At 4.45 pm he went into the stables, saw a crowd which he estimated at between 20,000 and 22,000 and went in. After ten minutes the firing began. People around him asked him to lie down to save himself. Three or four were killed around him. A bullet knocked his cap off his head. During the interval of the second loading he jumped his wall and went into his stables to watch. He saw firing directed particularly at people fleeing to the exits. He found his son Madan Mohan, aged twelve, was not at home. He usually played in the Jallianwala Bagh, so Mani Ram went to look for him in the Bagh; "I saw a dreadful sight. There were the wounded crying and lying in pools of blood. There were two cows which had been killed as a result of the firing. The dead and wounded were heaped on one another and I had to look for my son among them. Some of the wounded were crying for water. There was nobody to give them water. I was unable to find my son there." He later returned with his wife and a servant with a large vessel of water, only to find his son dead under a mass of bodies. He received Rs 8362 in compensation.31 Shrimati Ratan Devi, who was immortalised in the Indian National Congress report by her harrowing statement describing her sojourn by the dead body of her husband, Lala Chhajju Mal, Khatri, made a similar deposition for the defence, adding detail of her failed attempt to secure help outside the Bagh after 8 pm due to the curfew by then in force.32 It is noteworthy that eleven witnesses specifically state that they were not aware of Dyer’s proclamation prohibiting meetings, as they lived in different parts of the city or had stayed indoors before the meeting.33

Significant details of course of events in the Bagh are also found in the depositions. Hardial Mal, son of Daryana Mal, Shikarpuri, proprietor of N D Hardial Mal and Company, embroidery workers of Amritsar, stated that his office and house were at the entrance to the Jallianwala Bagh. He had a very good view from the top of his house, which overlooked the Bagh. After an aeroplane came over, he saw Head Constable Bhagwan Singh and Sub-Inspector Ibadullah of CID going into the Jallianwala Bagh. Ibadullah returned alone a few minutes later. Some time later, 40 to 50 Baloch sepoys with rifles’ came from the direction of the police station and passed on into the Lakkar Mandi. A few minutes after, the Muhammedan City Inspector and Sub-Inspector Mir Singh arrived with 35 to 40 Gurkhas. Behind them came two motor cars carrying five to six European officers, and behind these came two armoured cars with an European soldier in each. Behind these came 30 to 40 constables on foot. The Inspector and Sub-Inspector stood at the entrance to the Jallianwala Bagh. the Gurkhas went in, followed by the European officers. He estimated there were about 15,000 to 20,000 in the Bagh listening to a lecture. As soon as the Gurkhas went in, they fired, the people ran in all directions and firing didn’t stop when they dispersed. It went on for five to seven minutes. Mir Singh later came in front of his house and made a proclamation that "no one was to stir out of his house after 8 pm"34
 
More details of the shooting are found in the deposition of Lala Rup Lal Puri, son of Lala Nand Lal, Khatri, merchant and resident of Amritsar, who was a Member of the Executive Committee of the Amritsar District Congress Committee in 1919. He attended the meeting at the Hindu Sabha School on 12 April at which Dr Gurbaksh Rai announced that there would be a meeting in the Jallianwala Bagh on 13 April to protest against the Rowlatt Acts. Hans Raj was also on the platform. Rup Lal attended the Jallianwala Bagh meeting, arriving at about 4 pm to find Gurbaksh Rai and Hans Raj there and a crowd of over 20,000. Some country people who usually carried sticks did so there but there were no weapons. He was asked to preside by Hans Raj, Gurbaksh and others. "I suggested that Dr Kitchlew’s photo be placed on the presidential chair. He was highly respected by the people." This was done, Gurbaksh proposing it in a speech. Rup Lal sat on the platform. The audience was quite orderly, and the meeting considered the resolutions agreed at the meeting the night before.35 At about 4.30, an aeroplane flew over from the west. "It did not hover over the meeting but turned back after taking a glimpse. A few minutes later two police constables came. They left after two or three minutes. A few minutes later some Gurkha sepoys accompanied by Mr Plomer, Deputy Superintendent of Police, General Dyer and a number of policemen came in. General Dyer ordered the sepoys to fire. The sepoys were in line when they were ordered to fire. They were standing on a raised platform which was higher than the dais of the meeting. The first volley passed over our heads and struck the wall opposite. The sepoys then knelt down and fired. I then jumped down from the dais on to the floor and ran. I was hit in my back. I saw a large number of people killed and wounded." No warning or order to disperse was given. The sepoys kept firing for about ten minutes. Rup Lal jumped over a wall on the east side of the Bagh but later went back to find his son, who was aged 18 and a student at the Hindu Sabha High School. He had been killed by three shots. Rup Lal did not apply for any compensation as "I was not prepared to accept any."36

What is clear from the depositions is an absence of any evidence indicating any form of conspiracy involving Sir Michael O’Dwyer in the shooting at the Bagh. It was necessary for Sir Sankaran Nair to demonstrate that O’Dwyer was at least complicit in the shooting, but the evidence he collected failed completely to do so. Not one piece of evidence was produced to indicate that Sir Michael O’Dwyer was even aware of the meeting in the Jallianwala Bagh or of Dyer’s actions there before they occurred. The depositions do give colour to theories that the Police in Amritsar were aware of the meeting in time to have enabled them, had they wished, to suggest to Brigadier Dyer that he should prevent it, and so give rise to the likely assumption that they were at the very least happy to see Dyer and his troops deploy to punish the townspeople. However, they do not show that there was any coordinated conspiracy to bring the meeting and the subsequent shooting to pass. That Hans Raj was at the meeting on 12 April at the Hindu Sabha School that organised the Jallianwala Bagh assembly is plain, as he later turned approver. But there is not one scrap of evidence in the depositions or elsewhere to indicate that Hans Raj was being used by the British authorities to arrange a meeting which they intended to crush. Hans Raj was a quixotic character of little brain and less probity, but he was himself present in the Jallianwala Bagh when the shooting began. He is hardly likely to have placed himself on the dais there had he known that the British were intriguing to set up the meeting to destroy it. The fact that he survived to turn approver was his good fortune, and was not something that he would have been able to foresee before the shooting began. The simplest explanation of his behaviour is that, having survived the shooting by the skin of his teeth, he was either frightened into turning approver or saw that course as his only profitable escape from being treated as a rebel.37

Aftermath of the Shooting in the City

Several depositions cast interesting light on the events immediately after the shooting. Dr Bal Mokand’s deposition states that on 13 April he was part of the team of two doctors and compounders attending over 100 wounded in front of Dr Ishar Dass’s house, treating 50 to 60 of them himself. The next day he attended two wounded persons at their houses. Both had serious fractures needing operations, and he advised them to go to the civil hospital. They wouldn’t go there as Colonel Smith was not treating patients properly and was turning them out of the hospital. Bal Mokand asked Smith’s favourite Nur Illahi to intercede for them, but Colonel Smith accused Bal Mokand of having been in the Jallianwala Bagh himself, and berated him for treating those wounded there. At the time, Smith was wearing uniform and carrying a gun (this was the time to which Brigadier Dyer referred at the Hunter Committee when he stated that the civilian hospitals were open to treat the wounded). He sent Bal Mokand to the railway dispensary, threatening him with flogging if he left it. He remained there for a full week without going home even for one night. Smith visited him once, and told him that the official casualty toll for the Jallianwala Bagh had been set at 1800. He said a lesson would be taught to the people and that for every European killed there would be 1000 Indians killed. He also said that the trade of Amritsar would be ruined and that Martial Law would be prolonged for a year.38

Dr Ishar Dass Bhatia, Sub-Assistant Surgeon, Karman Deohri, Amritsar, heard firing at about 5 pm after which some 400 to 500 wounded were brought to his house by relatives. Most of the wounded had been shot in the back or the back of their legs or arms. He rendered first aid, helped by Sub-Assistant Surgeon
Dr Ram Bakha Mall, and Sub-Assistant Surgeon Dr Bal Mokand and some compounders. "I had a man with me who was taking down the addresses of the wounded persons." He produced these to a Martial Law Summary Court in Amritsar but received no receipt and they were never returned. Not less than 300 were recorded in the register.39

Dr Kidar Nath Bhandari, who had treated wounded on the 10th, did so again on the 13th, when he called on four or five people at their houses, finding them shot in their arms and legs. He was unable to attend all those who needed him due to the curfew, and on the next day he saw about fifteen or twenty, also wounded in the arm or leg, generally on the back parts or on the soles of their feet.40

Lala Duni Chand, Vakil in the High Court of Amritsar, Member of the Municipal Committee of Amritsar, stated that he attended the meeting of city notables called on 14 April. Commissioner Kitchin, Deputy-Commissioner Irving, Brigadier Dyer and many police personnel were there. All the speeches were "very insulting in tone and were very offensive." Dyer asked them to end the hartal. After the meeting, those attending went round and persuaded people to open their shops, which they did. He was enrolled as a special constable before General Dyer in the Rambagh and witnessed flogging there. It was "very severe and cruel."41

Lala Sarab Dial, Vakil in the High Court of Amritsar, testified that on 22 April he was ordered to enroll as a special constable. With other lawyers he reported to the Rambagh Gardens where "the General addressed us in a very insulting manner and enrolled us as special constables. Rai Bahadur (later Sir) Gopal Dass Bhandari, Mr Toddar Mall, Barrister-at-Law, and Lala Duni Chand, MA, were told to divide Amritsar into wards and allocate members of the bar to them. Whilst these were preparing the scheme, we were called upon to witness two men being flogged. They were flogged in public and were fastened to a triangle with arms stretched. The men who were being flogged cried and wept and we could hardly bear the sight." They were ordered to present themselves three times a day in the Rambagh for roll call and patrol, a procedure which lasted up to 12 May. Some were very old and suffered greatly. "Pandit Mul Raj, Barrister-at-Law, fell down, broke his nose and fainted." The lawyers were treated like coolies; they were made to lift chairs and tables and do other menial work.42

Dyer’s Tours to Pacify the Country Districts of the Manjha

The depositions illustrate the events which took place in the country areas around Amritsar as Dyer progressed through them in the weeks following the shooting. Ganda Singh Soni, Vakil of the High Court of Lahore, who practised at Gurdaspur, stated that a hartal was held in Gurdaspur on 14 April to protest at Mahatma Gandhi’s arrest. There was no violence in Gurdaspur on that day. One week later, the Deputy-Commissioner, Harcourt, wrote to all respectable people to meet General Dyer at the railway station. Almost all the legal professionals were invited, and went to the station where they stood for two hours until Dyer’s special train arrived with a moveable column. General Dyer did not get down. The assembled notables were instructed to wait for General Dyer in the hall of the Government school. A display of military force was in place around the school, many soldiers with fixed bayonets were stationed in the hall, a soldier behind every lawyer. General Dyer "arrived in a very furious and excited mood and rushed to the dais." The Deputy-Commissioner was there too. The General ordered the assembly to stand "in a very contemptuous manner" and said: ‘You are badmashes. The Government has given you honours and means of livelihood and you are going against the Government. The British Government is very strong and defeated Germany. If there is anyone who wants to fight the British Government let him come out. If you realise the situation well and good otherwise I will come again and trample you all under foot.’ He then departed. The assembly was surprised by this insulting treatment as nothing had happened in Gurdaspur.43

Lala Sant Ram Agarwal, Pleader of the High Court of Lahore, practising in Batala, Gurdaspur, described a similar meeting. On 22 April or thereabouts, General Dyer came to Batala with a moving column, accompanied by the Deputy-Commissioner and some police personnel. All Pleaders were called to the railway station, then told to attend a darbar near the Court building. Mounted men went into the city to bring people to attend. They found a machine gun pointed at the assembly and many military around it. A line of soldiers with fixed bayonets stood behind the Pleaders. General Dyer spoke. He started with ‘Gentlemen’ but then said he did not know if he should call them that, and switched to vernacular. "You people are badmashes. If you want to fight against the Government come on. We have crushed the German Government, what can you people do? If there is anyone willing to fight let him come out […] I have come to teach you what the Rowlatt act is, you should read the Rowlatt Act and learn it. I will come again to test your knowledge of the Act, if I find you have not learnt the Rowlatt Act I will come with Martial Law." He sat down while all stood. General Dyer asked the Deputy-Commissioner if he wanted any badmashes presented before him. "We felt highly insulted. The General then left Batala."44

Attempts by the Government to Uncover a Conspiracy and to Coerce Witnesses

After the imposition of Martial Law, it is clear from the depositions that the Government made strenuous efforts to uncover what it believed was a conspiracy to bring British rule to an end, and that it resorted to coercion in an attempt to force witnesses to testify against those it suspected of leading this conspiracy. It also seems that the authorities were determined to gain convictions in the cases of the murder and assault of Europeans during the Disturbances. Dr Kidar Nath Bhandari, who was aged 64 and a retired Senior Assistant Surgeon, and who had treated casualties on both 10 and 13 April, was asked on 20 April by Sub-Inspector Sewak Ram for a list of the wounded he had treated. CID Inspector Jawahar Lal took him and his assistant to a police station where he found Deputy-Superintendent Plomer, Inspector Marshal, Sardar Sukha Singh, and other Police Officers with the City-Inspector of Police. He was told to give the names of the wounded, which he did. He was asked for the names of those who had attacked Mrs Easdon, and when he denied knowledge of this, he was arrested and held for eight days. He was told he would be released if he named two assailants of Mrs Easdon. He was handcuffed and made to march a mile to jail in chains with 60 men. He fainted on arrival at the next place. He had no spare clothes, and became filthy and lice-ridden. Deputy-Commissioner Irving came in front of his cell on one occasion and asked him why he was here, saying that I had made no efforts to save Mrs Easdon. He was not produced before a magistrate till 13 May.45

Ganda Singh Soni, Vakil of the High Court of Lahore, who was practising at Gurdaspur, was called before Commissioner Kitchin and the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 21 April. They came with the Deputy-Commissioner and addressed 10 to 12 members of the bar. Kitchin said he had come to arrest them all but would defer this if they gave evidence of conspiracy, and that, if they did, they would be pardoned. Ganda Singh did not give evidence and was arrested a few days later, remaining in jail from 4 May to 7 July 1919. He was then released without charge and threatened with the loss of his lawyer’s licence, though this did not happen.46

Lala Sant Ram Agarwal, Pleader in the High Court of Lahore, who practiced at Batala, Gurdaspur, was ordered to see Commissioner Kitchin at Gurdaspur. Kitchin told him he was to be arrested but gave him the opportunity to make statements about the conspiracy ‘to overthrow the British Government.’ He refused, and was jailed. Later he was marched off in handcuffs to Lahore, where he was released without trial on 7 or 8 July.47

Alienation of the Professional Classes

The depositions make clear the huge extent to which the Punjab Government had alienated the Indian professional classes by its actions in the suppression of the Punjab disturbances. Statement after statements describe the insults, abuse and judicial malpractice to which men who had hitherto been loyal citizens of the Raj were subjected. Lawyers, doctors, professors, teachers, newspaper magnates and businessmen, many of them educated at Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh and other bastions of British liberal education, had it rubbed in their faces that the British considered them little better than the lowest sweeper. Their faith in British justice was destroyed. Many had undergone the indignity and physical suffering of jail, and thus had been inoculated, so to speak, against the terrors of these in the future. The loss of the support among this educated middle class, and in many cases the creation of virulent opposition amongst it, was to be crucial in the national struggle of the decades to come. The depositions make clear the divisions which the suppression of the disturbances cut. Sir Michael O’Dwyer’s supporting witnesses were drawn solely from the old landed and privileged class. Their names and titles alone speak volumes. His six witnesses proudly declared themselves as:

Sir Sankaran Nair’s witnesses could not have been more different. Apart from many men and women of lowly status, they included fifteen lawyers, eleven medical men (doctors, surgeons and a dentist), three educators (professors or teachers) and six prominent businessmen. Some of their testimonies make it very clear why these men no longer felt it possible to offer allegiance to the Raj. Sardar Sant Singh, Vakil at Lyallpur, found himself arrested on 22 April 1919. After a series of abuses during the handling of the case that was brought against him by a Martial Law tribunal, he decided to take no further part in the proceedings and was convicted, sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and fined Rs1000. On appeal, all the proceedings were set aside as illegal and he was released. He was re-arrested in October after he started to practice again, but that case was eventually withdrawn.48 Lala Kanhaya Lal, Vakil in the High Court of Amritsar, who was 78 years old and had been a lawyer for 57 years, was advertised as president of the 13 April meeting in the Jallianwala Bagh (which he did not attend), was appointed special constable on 22 April and made to work like a coolie, lifting chairs and tables for Europeans under the command of a military officer. The authorities thought he was an agitator against the Rowlatt Acts. He attempted to get exemption but was told he was still young and strong looking. Though he was later released from roll call he was forced to go on patrol.49 Sardar Labh Singh MA, Barrister-at-Law in Gujranwala, and President of the Municipality since 1921, was arrested on 14 April, handcuffed, chained to others and sent to jail in Lahore. At a Martial Law tribunal he was sentenced on the evidence of an approver, another lawyer, but pardoned.50 Sardar Habib-Ullah Khan, Barrister-at-Law in Lahore, was arrested and interned on 5 May, brought before a Martial Law tribunal on 15 May, and after a trial of two months, acquitted.51 Rai Zada Bhagat Ram, Barrister-at-Law in Jullundur, Member of the Punjab Provincial Legislative Council since 1916, renounced his title of Rai Bahadur as a result of disappointment he felt in the Government of India. His brother, Hans Raj, also a Barrister-at-Law and Member of the Provincial Assembly, was prosecuted but discharged after it was proved that he had acted to disperse an illegal assembly.52

Sir Michael O’Dwyer’s Farewell to the Punjab

On his departure from office, O’Dwyer was proud of the subscription raised by ‘the Princes and people of the Province’ to build a memorial in his name, but in reality he had so severely embarrassed his supporters in the Punjab that only a minority of them were prepared to support laudatory addresses in farewell to him.53

The depositions make it plain that this was the case for both Muslims and Hindus. The Honourable Sir Muhammad Shafi, KCSI, CIE, Law Member and Vice President of the Executive Council of the Government of India, swore a deposition for the defence. Shafi was a very prominent politician, earlier Education Member of the Imperial Legislative Council and its non-official member representing Punjab Muhammadans. He was Honorary General Secretary of the All India Muslim Association and Chairman of the Council of the Punjab Provincial Muslim Association. In 1919 he was a Member of the Punjab Legislative Council and President of the India High Court Bar Association. He had practised law in Lahore under O’Dwyer’s rule. He had been tasked to deliver the Muslim community’s farewell address in the Punjab Legislative Council. In his deposition, Shafi states that the published copy of his address contained an encomium to O’Dwyer of which he had not been made aware and which he had not intended to deliver. He alleged that this had been interpolated by Malik Sir Umar Hayat Khan.54 Raja Narendra Nath of the Punjab Hindu Sabha gave a similar deposition. He was tasked to produce a Hindu farewell address, but after the events in Amritsar and Lahore he initially refused to do so. He stated that some prominent Hindus in the Punjab felt that it would be highly disadvantageous to the Hindu community were they not to deliver an address as the Muslims and Sikhs were intending to do so. As a result, he presented an address on 12 May 1919. He and others had to coerce many prominent co-religionists to sign the address, and in the event many refused to do so.55

When Sir Michael O’Dwyer left the Punjab he believed he had stamped out a rebellion, had removed from the political scene all those who had opposed him, and left his supporters firmly in control politically. In fact, he had so blotted his and their record that he made almost inevitable the opposition which would fight his successors for the next two and a half decades.

Conclusion

The cache of depositions in the O’Dwyer versus Nair case placed on record the voices of Indians of many walks of life. It is fitting that they should now be placed similarly in the historical record. It is ironic that the case which Sir Michael O’Dwyer brought to vindicate his rule in the Punjab should now be one of the principal sources for exposing it for the tyranny which it actually was.

                                                                                            (Concluded)
References