Explained | What happened to General Dyer – the butcher of Jallianwala Bagh?

On the morning of July 8, 1920, the British newspaper ‘Morning Post’ greeted its readers with an article titled "For General Dyer. The Man Who Saved India". The article was published days after the British authorities had removed General Reginald Dyer from his post after the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, which even today on its 104th anniversary remains etched as one of the deadliest bloodbaths in the history of India's independence struggle.

The article was published to appeal for funds to support Dyer's defence costs. In the first 12 hours, the newspaper had managed to collect £584 ($725), eventually raising the hefty sum of £26,000 ($32,308). What followed was a flood of gifts and letters in support of Dyer in the office of the newspaper. Among the many who contributed to the funds, one of the most renowned names was Nobel laureate Rudyard Kipling. 

Supporting Dyer's horrific action, the paper said that he “did his duty, regardless of consequences”.

“On General Dyer’s judgment, and his judgment alone, the future of Punjab, and it may well be of India, was placed, and fearlessly he did his duty. His worst enemies cannot say that the result of his action was a revolution; on the contrary, revolution gaining ground on every side was crushed,” the article read.

ALSO READ | Indian-origin mathematician CR Rao honoured with math ‘Nobel Prize’

The fateful evening

People in huge numbers had gathered in Jallianwala Bagh on April 13, 1919, which was also the day when people celebrated Baisakhi (the harvest festival of Punjab), for a public meeting to silently protest against the ban imposed on public assemblies. After some time, the silent meeting turned into gory bloodshed after General Dyer ordered the British troops to fire incessantly for around 10 minutes on the unarmed crowd without giving them any warning.

With only one exit and high walls, it became impossible for people to run for their lives. As the troops kept firing, dead bodies kept piling up. Panic-stricken people tried to cross the boundaries and some even jumped inside a well, which was present in the centre of the ground, with hopes of surviving the massacre. After the ceasefire, Dyer, along with his troops, marched back to the base leaving the dead and wounded on the ground. Officially 379 people were killed in the massacre, however, the count is believed to be much higher.

After the killing at Jallianwala Bagh, Punjab was placed under martial law by the government. Weeks later, a British missionary woman was assaulted after which General Dyer gave the "crawling order" on a street, making it compulsory for people to crawl on their four legs if they wished to pass by.

Hunter Commission and Dyer's fear 

Six months after the massacre, on October 14, 1919, a committee was constituted by Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu to investigate the incident. The Disorders Inquiry Committee was established accordingly with former Solicitor General of Scotland Lord William Hunter as the president.

The report prepared by the committee noted the incidents that took place in Amritsar before April 13, 1919. It pointed out how Dyer entered Jallianwala Bagh, accompanied by 25 Gorkha soldiers, 40 Gorkhas armed with only khukris, 25 Baluchis armed with rifles and two armoured cars.

“Without giving the crowd any warning to disperse, which he considered unnecessary as they were in breach of his proclamation, he ordered his troops to fire and the firing continued for about ten minutes,” the report stated.

The minority report of the committee brought out the evidence given by Dyer in great detail. He testified that his mind had already been made up to order the firing when he reached the Bagh.

“I had made up my mind. I was only wondering whether I should do it or not….The situation was very, very serious. I had made up my mind that I would shoot all men to death if they were going to continue the meeting,” he said.

The most shocking was the comments made by Dyer in the investigation. Dyer had testified that he was changing the directions of firing time and again and was directing the armed soldiers to fire where the crowds were the thickest.

He had also accepted that he would have allowed armoured cars to enter and fire using machine guns inside the walled compound if the entrance was not narrow.

“They had come to fight... if they defied me I was going to give them a lesson…I was going to punish them. My idea from the military point of view was to make a wide impression,” Dyer had said.

He had also accepted that there was a possibility that the crowd would have dispersed without firing. Dyer said, “Yes, I think it quite possible that I could have dispersed them perhaps even without firing….I could disperse them for some time then they would all come back and laugh at me, and I considered I would be making myself a fool”.

WATCH | India-China Tensions: China bars two Indian journalists from returning to Beijing

How did the British government react to the report?

Montagu, while accepting that Dyer used disproportionate force, opined, “Brig Gen Dyer displayed honesty of purpose and unflinching adherence to his conception of his duty that cannot for a moment be questioned”.

Disappointingly, Viceroy Lord Chelmsford called the actions of Gen Dyer as ‘bona fide’ and ‘dictated by a stern sense of duty’.

The case that should have ended in a recognition of crime against humanity was simply closed with Gen Dyer's resignation as Brigade Commander and no further employment in India.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE