The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre: On A Very Crowded Field, Possibly The British Empire's Darkest Day
- dthholland
- Apr 13, 2023
- 7 min read
Updated: Apr 15
On the afternoon of Sunday 13 April 1919, British officer General Reginald Dyer entered the city of Amritsar in Punjab, northern India, with 90 colonial troops and two armoured vehicles. He’d been sent in after two Indian nationalist leaders had been arrested and expelled just days earlier. Protests erupted, some of which turned violent. Indian civilians were gunned down, and in retaliation, angry mobs killed five Europeans.
Later that day, Dyer made a decision that would become one of the most infamous moments in British colonial history. Without warning, he ordered his troops to open fire on a large, unarmed crowd—men, women, and children—gathered in a walled enclosure known as Jallianwala Bagh. The garden had limited exits, effectively trapping everyone inside. At least 379 people were killed and over 1,500 injured, though some estimates put the death toll much higher.
This horrific event, known as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, didn’t happen in isolation. It was part of wider unrest across Punjab and other parts of India in April 1919. British rule was beginning to lose its grip. On 11 April, British control over Amritsar faltered, prompting the Governor of Bengal to send Dyer to re-establish authority. Dyer believed he had done just that with his show of force, insisting it was necessary to stop further violence. Yet the public outcry and subsequent inquiry into the massacre led to his dismissal from the army. The event became a key turning point in India’s push for independence.
Setting the Scene: British Rule in India
To understand the context of the massacre, we need to look at how British rule had developed. The British Crown officially took over from the East India Company in 1858, following the brutal suppression of the 1857–8 Sepoy Rebellion. That conflict left a deep psychological scar on the British establishment. Many officials remained convinced that another uprising could happen at any moment.
India itself was never a single unified entity under British rule. It was a diverse and complex mix of princely states, religions, castes, and regions. Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs made up the major religious groups, and the caste system and regional disparities only added to the divisions. Yet many Indians also worked within the colonial structure—as soldiers, civil servants, and more. The British Raj had to walk a fine line, extracting wealth and resources from India without provoking open rebellion. Holding this complex system together was no easy feat.
As the 20th century dawned, signs of organised resistance began to emerge. The Indian National Congress was founded in 1885, followed by the All-India Muslim League in 1906. The controversial partition of Bengal in 1905 ignited nationalist fury, prompting its reversal in 1911. Momentum gathered further with the Lucknow Pact of 1916, a rare agreement between Congress and the Muslim League calling for constitutional reforms towards Indian self-governance.
The First World War brought things to a head. Indian troops fought for the British across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, and the subcontinent contributed significant material resources. But the rewards were few. Returning soldiers found limited job prospects, and the gap between British promises and reality widened. Tensions were especially high in Punjab, where political activism was strong, and movements like the Ghadar Party openly called for British withdrawal.
The Rowlatt Acts and Rising Tensions
In March 1919, the British passed the Rowlatt Acts, which extended wartime powers into peacetime. These laws allowed detention without trial and strict curbs on freedom. Indians could be arrested without cause, denied jury trials, and subjected to degrading treatment. Unsurprisingly, outrage followed.
On 8 April, Mahatma Gandhi responded by calling for a national day of peaceful protest. While many followed his advice for civil disobedience, not all protests remained non-violent. Riots erupted in Amritsar on 10 April after two nationalist leaders were detained. Five British men were killed, and unrest spread to other cities like Delhi and Ahmedabad. Gandhi, arrested soon after, urged calm—but events were already spiralling.
Public gatherings were now banned in Punjab. Into this volatile atmosphere stepped General Dyer.
Who Was General Dyer?
Brigadier-General Reginald Edward Harry Dyer was born in India to Irish parents and had spent his career in the British Army, including a stint in Persia. By 1919, he was 55 and nearing retirement. His military record was mixed—he’d previously expanded British territory in Persia without orders and narrowly avoided dismissal due to ill health.
Now back in India, he commanded the 45th Brigade based in Jalandhar. He answered to Sir Michael O’Dwyer, the Governor of Punjab, who had already sanctioned air strikes on rioters. Both men feared another large-scale uprising akin to the 1857 rebellion and were convinced they needed to act decisively. Paranoia was rife, with rumours swirling that Soviet Russia was encouraging Indian revolutionaries. Dyer was dispatched to Amritsar to deal with what the authorities viewed as a developing crisis.
13 April: A Deadly Day in Amritsar
Dyer arrived in Amritsar on 12 April and brought with him 400 men and two armoured cars with mounted machine guns. His soldiers marched through the city to display authority. The next day, he issued orders banning public meetings and imposing a curfew. Notices were posted across the city, but many civilians didn’t see them—especially those arriving from outside to celebrate the Sikh Baisakhi festival.
Later that day, an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 people gathered at Jallianwala Bagh. Some were there to celebrate the festival, others to protest peacefully, and many more simply passed through the area on their way to the nearby Golden Temple. The garden, a dusty, walled enclosure with only a few narrow exits, offered one of the city’s only open public spaces.
At 5pm, Dyer arrived with his troops. The entrance they used was too narrow for the armoured cars, so only infantry entered. Without any warning, Dyer ordered them to open fire. There were no warning shots, no announcement—just sustained gunfire into the crowd. The shooting lasted ten minutes, with soldiers reloading and deliberately targeting people fleeing toward the exits or trying to climb the walls. In total, 1,650 rounds were fired. When it was over, Dyer ordered a retreat, leaving the wounded behind.
Official reports stated that 379 people died and over 1,500 were injured. But the real toll was almost certainly higher.
Aftermath and Brutality
Following the massacre, Dyer imposed further humiliations. He ordered public floggings and forced Indian men in one street—where a British doctor had been assaulted—to crawl on their stomachs. Martial law was declared across Punjab. In Gujranwala, O’Dwyer authorised bombing by aircraft. Over the coming months, 1,200 people were killed, 3,600 wounded, and 258 publicly flogged.
Many in British India’s ruling elite felt Dyer had done the right thing. The Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, and others praised him for averting a wider rebellion. But that initial support started to crumble as the press blackout ended and news of the massacre spread.
In November 1920, the British government launched an inquiry known as the Hunter Committee. It consisted of four British and three Indian members, chaired by Lord Hunter. Dyer appeared before the committee in Lahore and admitted that he would have used his machine-gun-equipped armoured cars if he could have gotten them into the garden. He showed no remorse, insisting that his actions were necessary to send a clear message that rebellion would not be tolerated. As he put it, he had to produce “the necessary moral and widespread effect.”
The committee concluded that Dyer had overstepped his authority and may have been influenced by personal prejudice or even mental illness. But they stopped short of recommending serious punishment. Both Dyer and O’Dwyer were merely reprimanded. This perceived whitewash only intensified Indian outrage.
How India Responded
For many Indians, the massacre confirmed what they already suspected—that the British colonial system was inherently violent and unjust. The Indian nationalist movement now had a vivid and irrefutable example of British brutality. Figures like Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi used it to galvanise wider public support. Gandhi’s non-cooperation movement gained momentum, uniting Indians across class and religious lines in their demand for home rule.
Nobel Prize-winning author Rabindranath Tagore returned his knighthood in protest. Even Indian rulers who had previously supported British rule, such as the Raja of Nabha, expressed disgust. It was no longer possible to portray Dyer as a lone, rogue officer—the establishment’s response made clear that this was systemic.
Nehru later recalled:
“I realised then, more vividly than I had ever done before, how brutal and immoral imperialism was and how it had eaten into the souls of the British upper classes.”
Britain’s Reaction to Dyer
Back in Britain, public opinion was split. The government forced Dyer to resign and strongly urged him to retire. While many in Westminster were appalled by his behaviour, others—particularly in the press—rallied to his defence. The Morning Post, a conservative newspaper, raised a public fund for Dyer that brought in £26,000 (over £1 million today), with donors ranging from Northumberland farmers to the author Rudyard Kipling.
Supporters claimed Dyer had protected the empire. Critics argued that he had irreparably damaged Britain’s reputation in India. The House of Lords even passed a motion praising him. However, the establishment knew it couldn’t fully stand by him without further damaging Britain’s global image. Dyer faded into retirement but remained a controversial figure to the end.
In stark contrast, the British government gave just £37 to the family of each victim—a token amount that only deepened Indian resentment.
The Long-Term Impact
The Jallianwala Bagh massacre left a lasting scar on India and marked a key turning point in the country’s journey towards independence. It brought international attention to the harsh realities of British rule. It also shifted Indian nationalism from reform-based demands to a more widespread call for complete independence.
From 1920 onwards, Gandhi’s non-cooperation campaign gained traction, challenging the British with peaceful resistance and civil disobedience. Though independence would not come until 1947, the massacre in Amritsar remained a powerful symbol of the costs of colonial rule.
As a pivotal moment in British and Indian history, the events of 13 April 1919 are still remembered today as a stark reminder of what unchecked power can lead to—and how a single act of violence can reshape an entire nation's path.
