How did britishers protest against satyagrahis in jallian wala bagh incident?
Answers
Answered by
0
The Jallianwala Bagh massacre, also known as the Amritsar massacre, took place on 13 April 1919 when troops of the British Indian Army under the command of Colonel Reginald Dyer fired rifles into a crowd of Indians, who had gathered in Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar, Punjab. The civilians had assembled to condemn the arrest and deportation of two national leaders, Satya Pal and Saifuddin Kitchlew. There has been much debate over whether the crowd knew of the proclamation Dyer had made banning meetings, in its supposed inefficacy, however, Raja Ram has argued that the crowd formed in deliberate defiance, being the beginning of Indian nationalism.[2]
The Jallianwalla Bagh is a public garden of 6 to 7 acres (28,000 m2), walled on all sides, with five entrances.[3] To enter, troops first blocked the entry by a tank and locked the exit. On Dyer's orders, his troops fired on the crowd for ten minutes, directing their bullets largely towards the few open gates through which people were trying to flee. Official British Indian sources gave a figure of 379 identified dead,[4] with approximately 1,100 wounded. The casualty number estimated by the Indian National Congress was more than 1,500 injured, with approximately 1,000 dead.[5] This "brutality stunned the entire nation",[6] resulting in a "wrenching loss of faith" of the general public in the intentions of the UK.[7] The ineffective inquiry and the initial accolades for Dyer by the House of Lords fuelled widespread anger, leading to the Non-cooperation Movement of 1920–22.[8]
On Sunday, 13 April 1919, Dyer was convinced of a major insurrection and he banned all meetings; however this notice was not widely disseminated. That was the day of Baisakhi, the main Sikh festival, and many villagers had gathered in the Bagh. On hearing that a meeting had assembled at Jallianwala Bagh, Dyer went with Sikh, Gurkha, Baluchi, Rajput troops from 2-9th Gurkhas, the 54th Sikhs and the 59th Sind Rifles[9] to a raised bank and ordered them to shoot at the crowd. Dyer continued the firing for about ten minutes, until the ammunition supply was almost exhausted. Dyer stated that 1,650 rounds had been fired, a number apparently derived by counting empty cartridge cases picked up by the troops.[10]
Dyer was initially lauded by conservative forces in the empire, but in July 1920 he was censured and forced to retire by the House of Commons.[11] He became a celebrated hero in the UK among most of the people connected to the British Raj,[12] for example, the House of Lords,[13] but unpopular in the House of Commons, which voted against Dyer as a Colonel. He was disciplined by being removed from his appointment, was passed over for promotion and was prohibited from further employment in India.[14][15] Upon his death Rudyard Kipling declared that Dyer 'did his duty as he saw it'.[16] The massacre some historians have argued caused a re-evaluation of the army's role, in which the new policy became minimum force, however, later British actions during the Mau Mau insurgencies have led Huw Bennett to question this school of thought.[17] The army was retrained and developed less violent tactics for crowd control.[18] Some historians consider the episode a decisive step towards the end of British rule in India.[19]
The Jallianwalla Bagh is a public garden of 6 to 7 acres (28,000 m2), walled on all sides, with five entrances.[3] To enter, troops first blocked the entry by a tank and locked the exit. On Dyer's orders, his troops fired on the crowd for ten minutes, directing their bullets largely towards the few open gates through which people were trying to flee. Official British Indian sources gave a figure of 379 identified dead,[4] with approximately 1,100 wounded. The casualty number estimated by the Indian National Congress was more than 1,500 injured, with approximately 1,000 dead.[5] This "brutality stunned the entire nation",[6] resulting in a "wrenching loss of faith" of the general public in the intentions of the UK.[7] The ineffective inquiry and the initial accolades for Dyer by the House of Lords fuelled widespread anger, leading to the Non-cooperation Movement of 1920–22.[8]
On Sunday, 13 April 1919, Dyer was convinced of a major insurrection and he banned all meetings; however this notice was not widely disseminated. That was the day of Baisakhi, the main Sikh festival, and many villagers had gathered in the Bagh. On hearing that a meeting had assembled at Jallianwala Bagh, Dyer went with Sikh, Gurkha, Baluchi, Rajput troops from 2-9th Gurkhas, the 54th Sikhs and the 59th Sind Rifles[9] to a raised bank and ordered them to shoot at the crowd. Dyer continued the firing for about ten minutes, until the ammunition supply was almost exhausted. Dyer stated that 1,650 rounds had been fired, a number apparently derived by counting empty cartridge cases picked up by the troops.[10]
Dyer was initially lauded by conservative forces in the empire, but in July 1920 he was censured and forced to retire by the House of Commons.[11] He became a celebrated hero in the UK among most of the people connected to the British Raj,[12] for example, the House of Lords,[13] but unpopular in the House of Commons, which voted against Dyer as a Colonel. He was disciplined by being removed from his appointment, was passed over for promotion and was prohibited from further employment in India.[14][15] Upon his death Rudyard Kipling declared that Dyer 'did his duty as he saw it'.[16] The massacre some historians have argued caused a re-evaluation of the army's role, in which the new policy became minimum force, however, later British actions during the Mau Mau insurgencies have led Huw Bennett to question this school of thought.[17] The army was retrained and developed less violent tactics for crowd control.[18] Some historians consider the episode a decisive step towards the end of British rule in India.[19]
Similar questions