The Massacre at Jallianwala Bagh

As the month of March draws to a close, residents of Amritsar, in northern India, prepare to commemorate a solemn anniversary. Almost one hundred years ago, on April 13, 1919, soldiers under the command of British General Reginald Dyer perpetrated a massacre on unarmed civilians.

The context of the massacre is significant, not only because it lends understanding of how such a thing came to pass but also because it highlights the importance the event had in India’s independence movement.

Throughout the years, British rule in India had been marked by a number of uprisings. The most influential of these insurgencies occurred in 1857.  Known by many in India as the First War of Independence, the rebellion is often characterized in England as the Sepoy Mutiny.  A direct result of this event was the end of the East India Company’s governance of India and the beginning of what came to be called the Raj: direct Crown rule over the colony.

After the rebellion of 1857, reforms were attempted in an effort to placate the Crown’s subjects. These measures, however, did not dampen India’s growing desire for self-rule. In the early 20th century, the campaign for independence gained powerful allies.  Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah were notable among these.

By 1919 Gandhi’s Satyagraha movement had captured the imagination of the world. Non-violent civil disobedience was not only disruptive to British rule but also became a powerful public relations weapon.  The British government’s reaction to the popularity of Gandhi’s philosophy was to double down on efforts to quell disturbances. Severe restrictions were imposed. These restrictions fueled public resentment.

Shortly before the Massacre a number of precipitating events laid the groundwork for the tragedy. One of these was the arrest of two Satyagraha leaders, Satya Pal and Saifuddin Kitchlew.  Another was a brutal attack on a British school teacher. Although Gandhi preached non-violence, many in India did not heed his message.

A third element in the historic tragedy was that Reginald Dyer was in charge. He had displayed a brutal and racist temperament in earlier actions.  An example of his inclination was demonstrated by his response to the attack on the British school teacher. The woman had been assaulted savagely by a mob. Dyer was outraged, as were many British in India and England.

Dyer decided upon a punishment he felt was appropriate. He instituted what came to be known as the  ‘crawl rule’.   The street where the violence had taken place was cordoned off.  Access to and from that street by any Indian man could only be accomplished if that man crawled, with his face down, the entire length of the street. Dyer explained his rationale:Some Indians crawl face downwards in front of their gods. I wanted them to know that a British woman is as sacred as a Hindu god and therefore they have to crawl in front of her, too.

The final fateful element in the Jallianwala Massacre was the coincidence of a Sikh festival–Baisaki– and a peaceful march designed to protest the arrest of Pal and Kitchlew.  The deadly combination of all these elements came together with tragic effect in Jallianwala Bagh.

On the afternoon of April 13, 1919 General Dyer led a contingent of soldiers into Jallianwala Bagh.  He told his men to take high ground and aim. Fifty rifles with approximately 1600 rounds of ammunition were trained on the religious celebrants and peaceful protestors. Dyer’s order was that the men shoot to kill. As the panicked crowd rushed to the exit, Dyer ordered his men to kill those who tried to get out.

After the Massacre, Dyer explained that the shooting stopped only because he ran out of ammunition. Had he been able to bring machine guns into the area, he would have been able to kill many more.

The toll from the massacre is hard to accurately assess. Official British body count was 379 killed and 1000 wounded. The Indian National Congress put the number of dead at 1,000.

Dyer was hailed as a hero at first in England but was eventually asked to retire when the repercussions from the Massacre became evident. The effect of the Massacre on the Indian self-rule movement was electric. Many  who had previously declined to campaign actively for independence now believed the British had to go. Rabindranath Tagore was one of these people.

In 1920 Tagore wrote a letter to the Crown representative in which he renounced the knighthood that had been bestowed upon him by George V.  Tagore declared that he was going to stand by his countrymen who were , “liable to suffer degradation not fit for human beings“.

Today Jallianwala Bagh has been turned into a memorial. While the whole site commemorates the fallen, one particularly moving monument is called ‘The Martyrs’ Well’.  It is said that 120 bodies were recovered from the well after the Massacre was over.

Martyr's Well
The Martyrs’ Well stands as a memorial to those who perished on April 13, 1919 in the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre.

The essay was adapted from two books published by Rhythm Prism: Rabindranath Tagore and The Modern British Empire, A Brief History.  Both books have a question and answer section appropriate for students.  Each however, is written on a level that would be also of interest to adults.  The language used in this essay is a bit more challenging than that  used in the books.

The Great Famine of 1876, India


British rule in India dated from 1757, when the British East India Company, under Lord Clive, defeated the Nawab of Bengal at the Battle of Plassey.  British rule did not end until the Indian Independence Act of 1947 was passed.  In the almost two hundred years between Plassey and the Independence Act, India suffered a series of devastating famines.  While perspectives on the causes of the famines vary, there is little doubt by historians that colonial policy contributed to the enormous loss of life.

India was once called the Jewel in the Crown of the British Empire.  Great riches were extracted from the colony.  Many landed estates were financed by wealth gained from the subcontinent.  Millions of lives may have been the price India paid to produce this profit.

The Famine   

The Famine of 1876  was not the first or last suffered by the Indian people.  Also called the Madras Famine, it occurred essentially in southern and southwestern Indian states.  Most historians blame British colonial policy for contributing to the suffering.  While some observers suggest that famine would have occurred in any event because of natural conditions, there is little doubt that British actions turned the famine into a greater catastrophe than it might otherwise have been.

This picture is cropped from a larger photo taken by Willoughby Wallace Hooper in 1876. The larger photo was not used here because it was even more graphic.

The images of emaciated people in the photo above were recorded during the famine, which lasted approximately from 1876 – 1878.  It is not known whether any of the people in the photo survived.  The 1876 Famine is distinguished from some that came before in that there is an extensive photographic record of the events.


Estimating the total death toll of the famine is difficult.  Some historians say five million perished; others put the number of deceased closer to ten million.  In addition to those who died, millions suffered severe malnourishment, the effects of which likely lingered for the rest of their lives.


It is believed that long-term and short-term policies of British rule helped to precipitate the famine and to exacerbate its drastic effects.  Grains that could have fed the people were routinely sent out of the country.  Lands that might have grown food for the people locally were converted to plantations dedicated to cash crops.  These crops were sent abroad.


The Viceroy of India at the time of the famine, Lord Edward Lytton, did little to alleviate suffering.  It is overwhelmingly the judgment of history that Lytton’s actions caused the death of millions.  Lytton declined to institute an aggressive relief program.  Not only did he not distribute sufficient foodstuffs to the starving, he also continued to export grains that could have fed them.  At the height of the famine, a record amount of wheat (6.4m hundredweight) was exported to England.


It is certain that Lytton was motivated by a desire to see that India continued to yield a profit for the Crown; however, there was likely a secondary motivation, perhaps as strong.  Lytton was being true to a philosophy called Social Darwinism, which held that in a natural order, the strongest survive and the weakest are winnowed out.  It is this winnowing, Social Darwinists believed,  which is nature’s way of strengthening the population as a whole.  By allowing millions to starve, therefore, Lytton was accommodating a natural process that in the end would be of benefit to society.


After his service in India, Lord Lytton enjoyed a distinguished diplomatic career.  He became Earl of Lytton and Viscount Knebworth.  Among his contemporaries he also enjoyed a solid reputation as a poet.  Upon his death in Paris (1891) he was granted the extraordinary  honor of a state funeral.

grain on the port of Madras
The lithograph by William Digby is based on a photograph by Willoughby Hooper. Digby wrote about the Great Famine in his book, The Famine Campaign in Southern India, 1878. This picture shows grain piling up on a Madras beach as it is readied for export to England.

The material in this essay was modified to match the reading skills of an adult audience. The original essay was written with vocabulary and sentence structure that were less challenging.

Another blog on this site that was adapted from The Modern British Empire: The Massacre at Jallianwala Bagh



While it is true that Britain once was the greatest sea  power on earth and had an empire that stretched across the world, other European nations also had colonies.  In each case, there was evidence of indifference to life and the cultures of indigenous peoples.   The British, for a time, were more successful at conquering and colonizing, but no more brutal.  Italy, for example interned thousands in a Libyan concentration camp and has been charged with using poison gas in its attempt to secure African colonies.  France routinely used conscripted labor in their various colonial enterprises.

The stories of indigenous peoples under European colonialism could fill many books.  A. G. Moore has attempted to tell some of those stories in richly illustrated book (172 pages), Exploration and Conquest: Stories of Indigenous Peoples.   This book can only touch the surface of a complex and tragic history, but it does provide readers with a true impression of the European colonial era and the toll it took on indigenous people around the world.