Jallianwala Bagh Massacre

Jallianwala Bagh: Will An Apology 100 Yrs Late Help?

An apology that comes a hundred years after the bloodbath in Amritsar is mere tokenism. Britain has failed even in this belated act.

Of numerous incidents of violence perpetrated on the unarmed by the British while colonizing much of the world, the carnage at Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar on April 13, 1919, is and shall remain unique.

Many say that firing 1,650 bullets on the unarmed civilians that day, Britain shot itself in the foot, eventually losing India, its “Jewel in the Crown”. And that, in turn, unleashed the global process of de-colonization.  

As that event marks completion of a century this Saturday, much water has flow down the Thames and many rivers across the world that went red with blood of the ‘natives’. But the present-day British are in no mood to apologize. British Prime Minister Theresa May did term the incident a “shameful scar” but stopped short of an apology.

The House of Lords that had exonerated Brigadier General Reginald Dyer, the “Butcher of Amritsar”, debated the tragedy this February; the House of Commons debated it on Tuesday (April 8). But worried about “potential financial implications”, Minister Mark Field, chose to be ‘conservative’ and expectedly, declined appeals by Members for an apology. 

Perhaps, an apology would have set a ‘bad’ precedence. Members of the “Mother Parliament” and governments of the day would be left with little else to do if they began apologizing to people around the world for much that happened during two centuries of colonization.

Allowing a related topic to creep in, the British, like other European ex-colonizers, will not return the artefacts they stole from Asia, Africa and Latin America. This is unlike what the United States, itself a colony once, is in the process of doing. So a million precious things that belong to other peoples’ heritage, shall remain where they are, or to be auctioned at Sotheby’s.

It’s a tad unfair, one might say, to expect only the Britons to atone for their sins when there were other, equally rapacious, colonizers.

It’s also unfair that the present generation be expected to atone for their ancestors’ sins. Besides expression of regrets by the Queen in 1997 and another by then Prime Minister David Cameroon in 2013, an FCO spokesman recalled Winston Churchill. As the Secretary of State for War when Jallianwala occurred, he had called it “a monstrous event.”

But records show Churchill’s attitude towards India and Indians only hardened thereafter. As Britain’s war-time prime minister during the World War II, he diverted food produced in India to the Allied forces, causing deaths of millions during the Great Bengal Famine.      

In the latest book on Jallianwala carnage, Kishwar Desai – (her husband Lord Meghnad Desai and Lord  Raj Loomba had moved the resolution in the House of Lords), reveals that Brigadier General Dyer alone was not responsible for the massacre and other atrocities. The blame must also fall on Lieutenant Governor Michael O’Dwyer, who blindly endorsed Dyer’s actions.

She writes of “a feigned state of war” declared by Miles Irving, Deputy Commissioner of Amritsar, which set the ground for General Dyer to take command of Amritsar on April 11, 1919, without a formal notification.

A study on Live History on Lifting The Veil says there was alarm at the show of Hindu-Muslim unity at the Ram Navami celebrations, four days earlier. The book reveals that “the army and the police came closer than ever with a dual purpose: to break the so-called rebellion and to smash Hindu-Muslim unity forever.”

This is yet another aspect of the British rule in India consequences of which are being felt even today.    

Desai says Dyer deliberately took only Indian soldiers, who “continued to fire on the defenceless gathering without any warning till they exhausted 1,650 rounds, killing and wounding nearly 2,000 people who had allegedly “defied Dyer’s authority” by assembling there. While many areas in Punjab had been placed under restriction, Jallianwala Bagh was not among them.

Salman Rushdie has dramatized the event in his Booker- winning 1981 novel, Midnight’s Children. In it, Dyer says after the massacre: “Good shooting. We have done jolly good work.”

Thanks to a lid on information, the Indian leaders’ reaction took a while to come and was muted. Rabindranath Tagore returned his British knighthood. Mahatma Gandhi condemned the system rather than any individual.

But Viceroy Chelmsford endorsed the action of the Punjab government without inquiry and said that it was “an error in judgement” on Dyer’s part, whose initial report of April 14 revealed “only 200-300 casualties.”

It was only four months after the massacre, on August 25, that Dyer wrote a detailed report of the events of April 13 and confirmed that he had fired without warning. This was the first time that the Government of India learnt about the actual circumstances. Subsequently, many of the official documents were suppressed, and official hearings were held in camera. Relevant documents were carted away to London when the British quit India.

Undoubtedly, Jallianwala Bagh was the turning point for India’s freedom movement. The world was to watch how Gandhi met British violence with non-violence. He had already launched Satyagraha at Champaran (1917) and Kheda (Kaira -1918). The one against the Rowlatt Act took place in Bombay (now Mumbai) on April 6, 1919, occurred just a week before Jalliawala Bagh happened.  

The carnage convinced Gandhi that the British needed to be countered with something they were unprepared for and, in the long run, could not endure.

But not everyone had Gandhi’s patience and vision. Udham Singh avenged Jallianwala by killing O’Dwyer on March 13, 1940, a good 21 years later. By that time, the Hindu-Muslim divide had been deep. Udham Singh is said to have given his name as Mohammed Singh Azad, which the London Police initially registered. Symbolically, it combined three different faiths.

There is no final count of how many people actually perished. Desai records that the authorities were totally insensitive to the sufferings of the hapless victims. Lt. Col. Smith, the government doctor, turned away the wounded, calling them “rabid dogs”, causing more deaths over the following days.

Jallianwala massacre has rankled people on both sides of the India-Pakistan border, despite the bitterness caused by India’s Partition and that of Punjab, and the perpetual state of mistrust between the two South Asian neighbours. This week, Pakistan’s Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry endorsed the demand that the British government apologise for the empire’s role in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre and the famine of Bengal in the run-up to the 100th anniversary of the massacre.

Having defended Dyer initially, the British have sought to demonize him. Most literature published in the UK around the massacre focuses on him, as if the British Indian Government or that ruling from Westminster had no role to play. Certainly, there is not an iota of guilt.

Sadly, this attitude appeared to influence ‘Gandhi’, the 1981 cinematic opus by Sir Richard Attenborough that, nevertheless, is the best tribute that could be paid to the Mahatma. It won a record eight Oscars at the 55th annual Academy Awards and reminded the world of Gandhi and his teachings.

Here, this writer may be allowed, for the sake of better expression, first-person reference to the press preview of the film held in New Delhi. Sir Richard, fair to history, events and to characters, by and large, did seem to guard Britain’s ‘sovereign’ interests.

In the film, Dyer wears no insignia depicting the British Crown on his cap. However, black-and-white photographs of Edward Fox, the actor who played Dyer, distributed at the media preview showed the Crown. When I pointed this out to Sir Richard, he initially denied it. But after Major Atul Dev, a retired Indian soldier-turned journalist, also insisted that it was so, the legendary had the grace to apologize. I have retained that photograph.

Does it really matter if Britain, a declining power today, apologizes? India, its economy galloping at a faster rate than the British, has found better ways — like buying over Tetley and Jaguar and in a manner of speaking, pouring cold ‘Cobra’ into the Thames.

Some fair-minded Britons have said that the Jallianwala Bagh massacre apology should have come in 1919 itself, when the issue was discussed in the British Parliament. Was that not an “error of judgement”, a la Dyer, but a collective one?  

An apology that comes a hundred years hence is mere tokenism. Britain has failed even in this belated act.  

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

]]>

Statues Come And Go, Ideas Survive

th century Maratha ruler Shivaji is planned for installation off Mumbai. A recent inclusion is Gandhi’s assassin, Nathuram Godse.   This also impacts India’s functioning as the world’s largest democracy. Its Parliament Complex alone has 14 statues. Eleven more dominate its courtyard. Another 20 are in the huge waiting hall and four are installed in parliament’s library. Between the government of the day and the parliamentary opposition, it is competitive commemoration at its best.   The Statue of Unity, 182 meter tall, is located near the Narmada dam in Gujarat. Costing an estimated Rupees 3,000 crores or USD 430 million, it was unveiled by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to commemorate Sardar Vallabhbhi Patel who united India, post-independence, from the British. Through this statue and more, the current ruling dispensation has sought to appropriate Patel’s legacy from the Congress culture spawned by Gandhi and his favoured protégé Jawaharlal Nehru. That Gandhi mentored both, that the two had sunk personal differences and worked together is glossed over. It remains a never-ending debate. As for Gandhi’s statue in distant Ghana, it was quietly removed in the night of December 11-12. Over 2,000 people, treating its presence as an ‘issue of self-respect’ had launched an online protest calling Gandhi a “racist against black Africans”. This one at a university in Accra was unveiled by then Indian President Pranab Mukherjee just 18 months back. Having hosted two African Summits in the recent years, India wants to reach out to the continent as part of its ‘soft’ diplomacy. Safety of the Gandhi statue may have worried the Ghanian authorities. Ghana uniquely treasures a head-less statue of its founding father Kwame Nkrumah. The statue’s head was knocked off by rebels who deposed Nkrumah. The head and the torso are now in Nkrumah’s memorial museum. One may recall that Africans launched similar protests against Cecil Rhodes. South Africa has removed Rhodes’ statues to safety. Oxford University that has the famous Rhodes scholarship, is resisting. This is another never-ending debate. Both, warfare and civilian conflicts target statues. Popular sentiment can get destructive, compelling safe-keeping and exclusion, like statues of erstwhile British rulers that dominated India Gate in New Delhi and in other Indian cities. Was Gandhi a racist? Records show that while fighting the South African rulers he had written about black Africans in unflattering terms.  Even Nelson Mandela whose statue, incidentally, is being planned at the United Nations, confirms this. While applauding Gandhi’s contribution to mankind, he wrote in his memoirs “Long March to Freedom” that Gandhi had not been supportive of the anti-apartheid movement.  On Gandhi’s 125th birthday, he commented: “Gandhi must be judged in the context of the time and the circumstances.” One has to grant that a person in public life, even Gandhi for that matter, needs to, and does, evolve with time. But records do not indicate if he changed his views on black Africans, once he got immersed in India’s freedom movement. Yet, Gandhi inspired African leaders including Kenya’s Jomo Kenyatta, Nigeria’s Azikiwe and South Africa’s Luthuli, besides Martin Luther King in the United States.  His role in the last century’s de-colonization across the world cannot be belittled by the statue’s removal. Gandhi was deified during his lifetime and deprecated proposals to install his statues. His grandson Gopalakrishna quotes from Harijan newspaper of  February 11, 1939:  “It will be a waste of good money to spend Rs 25,000 on erecting a clay or metallic statue of the figure of a man who is himself made of clay…”  This was ignored. Gandhi was never consulted when his statues were raised in his lifetime, across South Asia and in Europe. They have continued to come up in prodigal numbers, more after his assassination, right to our present times. The grandson (his maternal grandfather was C. Rajagopalachari)  writes that “Gandhi did not want and does not need statues” and urges that “India should see the removal (in Ghana) as the decision of a sovereign people having a say in the design of their political architecture and their public spaces.” The politics of statues, flags and memorials anywhere often carries its own ironies. The Gandhi in bronze in London’s Parliament Square in 2017, stands beside those of his two jailors — white South Africa’s Jan Smuts and the British Raj’s Winston Churchill. The Confederacy with its 700 monuments continues to be celebrated in the United States. Adolf Hitler’s bunker, where he killed himself, was sealed in the early 1990s, after Germany’s reunification. Today, it sits underneath a parking lot marked only with a small plaque. But in 2016, private investors paid to open a model bunker nearby for visitors as a historical exhibition, a controversial decision that upset the city’s historians and Jewish leaders. In Central European cities, one of them being Prague, statues of Lenin and Stalin were felled before cheering public after the demise of the Soviet Union. But the presence of Hitler is palpable and preserved for posterity, it remains a tourist attraction. Asked to explain this seeming contradiction, the learned guide told this writer: “We are too close to the history to make a value judgment. For now, the government of the day decides.” A statue of Karl Marx installed in his hometown Trier in Germany has raised public heckles, not because they want to disown Marx – they resent its being gifted by the Chinese. Almost every town in Maharashtra’s Vidarbha region has a statue of B R Ambedkar, leader of India’s oppressed and the man who piloted the drafting of the country’s Constitution. It is a symbol of their awakening and political assertion. When tiny Tripura in India’s northeastern region ended the Marxists’ rule after three decades, among the ‘casualties’ was a Lenin statue in a remote village. The state’s then governor applauded it. That, too, was symbol of assertion and the new rulers’ attempt at re-writing history. But ideas survive. Whether or not there are statues in their name, be it Lenin or Gandhi, their thought will continue to inspire the poor and the marginalized, wherever they are. (The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com )  ]]>