Jallianwalla Bagh and the curious equilibrium of British Imperialism

Kolkata: April 13, 1919, is the date of the horrific Jallianwalla Bagh massacre in Amritsar, which led to the savage deaths of 500-1500 peaceful protestors. Apart from every other dimension, it is an appropriate instance of the imperial equilibrium - straddling good and evil with effortless candour.

The fact that it was an act of evil was acknowledged sternly by the Secretary of State of War Sir Winston Churchill ( strangely enough) as well as former Prime Minister H H Asquith, with eloquent words that seemingly represented genuine outrage. Even the Parliament condemned Reginald Dyer’s actions by voting 247-37 against the murderous acts, in support of the Government.

While many Britons, including Michael O’ Dwyer the Lieutenant Governor of Punjab, did consider this to be an act of heroism and a necessary blow to dissenting natives. This, in spite of the official rebuke given to Dyer’s actions, represented a significant mainline thinking of the empire, divided between the dual ploys of fair play and subjugation.

Perhaps the greatest amplifier of this massacre was the poet Rabindranath Tagore, who renounced his Knighthood ( conferred in 1915) through a heart-wrenching yet scathing letter to Viceroy Lord Chelmsford. This surely managed to draw the world’s attention to this tragedy and also interestingly is yet another anecdotal nugget of liberal imperialism - a native conferred with the finest stature yet with the liberty to be relieved from its privileges.

This curious equilibrium continued in the proceedings of the Hunter Commission, the body of enquiry, which incidentally had three Indians in the panel. Dyer was chutzpah personified during his interrogation ( depicted sharply in the movie Gandhi) and surely showed no remorse for his actions. Over the months, the British Public in favour of him earlier seemed to cross sides as the murderous intent was established, he was hellbent on crushing a rebellion which did not exist in the first place. Eventually, he was terminated from his services but not ‘punished’ further as was operating with authority bestowed by superiors, with justice both delivered and denied in equal magnitude.

But the larger point I wish to revert to is the case of the curious equilibrium which defined the British brand of imperialism and separated it from say the Dutch, French, Belgians and Germans. On one hand, the viciousness to loot and subjugate was clearly intact - Kala Pani and the Bengal Famine were both inglorious illustrations. While on the other, there was a welcoming to the fold of the willing natives, to be granted the highest forms of education, opportunity and recognition, in India and the UK. This is not a common pattern at all and however much we rightfully detest the first part, the second was also a reality and why we had a headstart as a free nation on academic and scientific parameters.

In the Dutch East Indies, for instance, The Ethical Policy, a view to upgrading a lot of the locals was done only in the early 20th century and not earlier. During the Belgian occupation of Congo, the atrocities of the Leopold fiefdom were only marginally reduced by the takeover by the Government and we all know the plight of these lands. Between 1954 and 1962 France engaged in a brutal war to retain its Algerian territory and in 1961 a demonstration by immigrants in Paris was brutally suppressed with apparently hundreds of dead bodies floating in The Seine. I am not even considering the short-lived Nazi occupation and the alarmingly long-lived Soviet annihilation of Eastern Europe, the two competing head-to-head on orchestrated brutality.

The British, especially in India, operated from an agenda of creating an annexe for their much-cherished civilization - inhabited by their own as well as clones of suitable native blood infused with education. Any dissent was directly suppressed but for those locals who qualified as surrogate gentry, the rulebook was quite the same as in London, with the finest institutions of the home country welcoming ‘deserving’ Indians. Clearly, this was a smart strategy at a fundamental level as it would be well nigh impossible to sustain an empire with sheer unilateral brute force, without the collaboration of a functional society. This does not quite excuse the atrocities but at the same time, provokes the inquisitive mind to understand this queer thinking of the Islanders - stroke players by instinct yet blessed with a sound defensive technique.

In historical and hysterical hindsight, Jallianwalla Bagh worked against the British in many ways, not least of which was the recognition of Tagore as a global statesman, not just writer. It was an important momentum builder for the nationalist movement in the wake of the Rowlatt Act and provided like-minded Indians with a decisive adhesive - a gruesome context yet evocatively inspirational. Most valuable, it fostered serious disenchantment in Great Britain, as many started questioning the validity of the empire after the draining First World War.

Like I began, I must end with this notion of the curious equilibrium and how the massacre in Amritsar was a sad yet ironic case study of its pros and cons. Here was a British Officer-In-Charge, empowered to fire on innocent civilians by the very same establishment which later condemned his actions and effectively ended his career and life. Thus revealing the duality in British society towards colonies, with further evidence being the tacit admiration of intelligentsia and the fourth estate for the actions of Tagore who effectively insulted the venerated monarchy. At a fundamental level, it was an avoidable human tragedy and words must give way for the truest emotions to flow.

To end on a trivial note, inappropriately I must say, General Dyer’s father set up a brewery in Kasauli ( 1855), which later became a distillery owned by Mohan Meakin. Old Monk, born right there, may well be an appropriate accompanist to dwell on the horrors of the day and do pardon the excesses in analysis. But then, the Raj is too juicy a subject to let pass.