“Bullet Holes in Walls, Loopholes in Conscience”(A haunting contrast between the blood-soaked walls of Jallianwala Bagh and the spineless silence of leaders who found excuses instead of justice.)

Author: Haripriya, Adv Balasaheb Apte college of law

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre, often referred to as the Amritsar massacre, remains one of the darkest episodes in the colonial history of India. On 13 April 1919, thousands of Indians, including men, women, and children, assembled at Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar, Punjab, to mark the festival of Baisakhi and peacefully oppose the draconian Rowlatt Act. The gathering also sought the release of national leaders Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew and Dr. Satyapal, who had been arrested. Without warning the crowd to disperse, Brigadier-General R.E.H. Dyer entered the enclosed space with armed troops and ordered an indiscriminate firing. With the only exit blocked and the Bagh surrounded by high walls, panic ensued. The troops fired 1,650 rounds, ceasing only when they ran out of ammunition. The casualties are still debated—official figures cite 379 dead, while other sources suggest over 1,000 fatalities and more than 1,200 injured. Although the British government has never issued a formal apology, it expressed “deep regret” in 2019.

The Road to the Massacre: Seeds of Discontent
The legislative spark that ignited this tragedy was the Rowlatt Act of March 1919, which empowered colonial authorities to imprison any individual suspected of sedition without trial. This law provoked widespread unrest and was dubbed the “Black Act” for its authoritarian nature. Mahatma Gandhi responded with a call for Satyagraha—non-violent resistance—and published an article titled Satyagrahi on April 7, advising Indians on peaceful ways to oppose the Act.

Meanwhile, colonial officials sought to suppress dissent. Sir Michael O’Dwyer, the Lieutenant Governor of Punjab, proposed Gandhi’s deportation to Burma, though some British officials feared such a move would spark mass outrage. Instead, the focus turned to Punjab’s local leaders. On April 9, while the Hindu festival of Ram Navami was being celebrated, O’Dwyer directed the Deputy Commissioner of Amritsar, Mr. Irving, to summon and detain Dr. Kitchlew and Dr. Satyapal under false pretenses. They were invited to Irving’s residence under the guise of dialogue but were quietly whisked away under police custody.

The deceit angered the public. On April 10, thousands marched to the Deputy Commissioner’s residence demanding their leaders’ release. The authorities opened fire on the unarmed crowd, resulting in deaths and injuries. The violence spiraled further when protestors retaliated with stones and sticks, targeting European symbols of power. One tragic incident involved Miss Sherwood, a missionary school superintendent, who was beaten unconscious by a mob. Conflicting accounts later emerged—Bombay’s Lokasangraha suggested her injuries were minor, contrary to British claims of a brutal assault.

April 13, 1919 – The Carnage Unfolds
Despite prohibitions on public gatherings under Section 144, a large number of Amritsar’s residents assembled in Jallianwala Bagh on April 13. Many came for the traditional Baisakhi celebration, while others attended to discuss resolutions condemning the April 10 shootings and calling for the release of imprisoned leaders.

On learning of the assembly, Brigadier-General Dyer marched to the Bagh with 90 troops, armed with rifles and machine guns. Without issuing a warning, he ordered his soldiers to open fire on the unsuspecting crowd. People rushed toward the only narrow exit, but Dyer deliberately targeted that route, intensifying the chaos and carnage. The shooting lasted approximately 10 minutes, resulting in hundreds of deaths. Dyer later admitted he had come “not to disperse the meeting, but to punish them.” A report by Madan Mohan Malaviya estimated that over 500 people were killed—significantly more than the official count.

Aftermath: Martial Law and Moral Reckoning
Two days later, martial law was declared across five districts in Punjab—Amritsar, Lahore, Gujranwala, Gujarat, and Lyallpur. This granted the colonial administration sweeping powers to try suspected “revolutionaries” through military tribunals. The news of the massacre sent shockwaves throughout India. Poet Rabindranath Tagore renounced his knighthood in protest, stating that he could not accept an honor from a government that permitted such atrocities.

Among the few Indian voices within the colonial machinery who publicly opposed the massacre was Sir Chettur Sankaran Nair, a distinguished jurist and then the sole Indian member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council. Deeply disturbed by the events in Amritsar, Nair resigned in protest. His bold step embarrassed the British establishment and hastened the lifting of martial law.

In 1922, Nair published Gandhi and Anarchy, where he denounced O’Dwyer’s governance and held him partly responsible for the massacre. O’Dwyer sued him for defamation in a British court, triggering what came to be known as The Case That Shook the Empire.

Legal Resistance: The Libel Case of O’Dwyer v. Nair
The libel suit brought by Michael O’Dwyer against Sir Sankaran Nair was tried in London’s High Court in 1924. It spanned five weeks—one of the longest civil trials of the time. Nair’s defense team presented excerpts from the Hunter Commission Report and multiple eyewitness accounts. They contended that O’Dwyer had not only supported but encouraged the culture of impunity that enabled Dyer’s actions.

O’Dwyer’s side, meanwhile, attempted to justify the massacre as a preventive measure, calling several British officials to testify in defense of the colonial administration. The case ended in a split verdict. Although O’Dwyer was awarded nominal damages of £500, the divided jury reflected changing opinions in Britain regarding the morality of empire. Indian press hailed the courage of Nair, and the trial significantly amplified awareness about colonial repression.

The Hunter Commission: A Toothless Censure
In October 1919, the British Government formed the Hunter Commission to investigate the disturbances. Though the Commission summoned General Dyer and Mr. Irving for testimony, its mandate was limited. Dyer showed no remorse. When asked whether he made any arrangements for the injured, he bluntly replied that it was not his responsibility.

The Commission, while censuring Dyer and calling his actions unjustified, stopped short of criminal punishment. He was relieved of command and barred from future postings in India. Yet the decision sparked outrage—while Indians viewed the censure as a minimal response, some British politicians treated Dyer as a national hero, even raising funds for his retirement.

A Final Blow: O’Dwyer’s Assassination
The lingering resentment over the massacre culminated in a dramatic act of retribution decades later. On March 13, 1940, Udham Singh, an Indian revolutionary who had witnessed the horrors at Jallianwala Bagh, assassinated Michael O’Dwyer at Caxton Hall, London. The killing stunned the British establishment.

Mahatma Gandhi, however, condemned the act, calling it a “mad” decision and reiterating that India’s struggle was against a system, not individuals. Still, Udham Singh became a martyr for many Indians, symbolizing the unresolved anger from 1919.

Conclusion: A Wound That Shaped the Nation
The Jallianwala Bagh massacre was not an isolated incident of colonial cruelty, but a turning point in India’s freedom struggle. It exposed the brutal nature of imperial governance and united Indians across communities in resistance. The courage of individuals like Sankaran Nair, who fought the empire through constitutional means, remains an enduring lesson in the power of dissent. Today, Jallianwala Bagh stands not only as a memorial to the innocent lives lost but as a reminder that truth, when voiced with conviction, can challenge even the mightiest empires.








FAQS
1. When and where did the massacre occur?
It took place on 13 April 1919 at Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar, Punjab.

2. Who ordered the firing and why?
General Reginald Dyer ordered it to punish a peaceful crowd protesting the Rowlatt Act.

3. Were the people warned before firing?
No, there was no warning; Dyer blocked the exits and opened fire for 10 minutes.

4. How many people were killed?
Official British count: 379 dead; Indian estimates: over 1,000 dead and many injured.

5. What was the aftermath of the incident?
The massacre triggered nationwide outrage, Tagore gave up his knighthood, and it radicalised the Indian freedom movement.