Hunter Committee and Colonial Repression

The British administration appointed the Disorders Inquiry Committee, popularly known as the Hunter Committee, on October 14, 1919. It aimed to investigate the violent events, civil unrest, and official response across Punjab, Delhi, and Bombay following the passage of the Rowlatt Act in early 1919. The committee evaluated the actions of colonial officials, including Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer during the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre on April 13, 1919.

Background and Purpose of the Inquiry

Public anger over the Rowlatt Act led to widespread strikes, protests, and violent clashes in April 1919. Following the arrest of Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew and Dr. Satyapal in Amritsar, civilian protests escalated, prompting the imposition of martial law across several districts of Punjab. General Dyer’s unannounced firing on a peaceful gathering at Jallianwala Bagh resulted in hundreds of deaths, causing severe public condemnation. Under pressure from Indian political leaders, the British Indian press, and members of the British Parliament, Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State for India, ordered a formal inquiry. Lord William Hunter, a former Solicitor-General for Scotland and Senator of the College of Justice in Scotland, chaired the committee.

Composition of the Hunter Committee

The committee consisted of eight members, including five British officials and three prominent Indian public figures.

• Lord William Hunter: Chairman of the Committee.
• Mr. Justice George C. Rankin: Judge of the Calcutta High Court.
• Major-General Sir George Barrow: General Officer Commanding the Peshawar Division.
• Mr. W.F. Rice: Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Home Department.
• Mr. Thomas Smith: Member of the Legislative Council of the United Provinces and representative of the Kanpur trade sector.
• Sir Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad: Vice-Chancellor of Bombay University and prominent advocate.
• Pandit Jagat Narayan: Advocate of the High Court of Allahabad and Member of the Legislative Council of the United Provinces.
• Sardar Sahibzada Sultan Ahmad Khan: Member for Law, Gwalior State.

Key Testimony and Proceedings

The committee commenced its hearings in Delhi in November 1919, taking evidence in Lahore, Ahmedabad, and Bombay over several months.

General Dyer’s Testimony

Appearing before the committee in Lahore, General Dyer defended his actions at Jallianwala Bagh. He admitted that he ordered his troops to fire without issuing a prior warning to the crowd. Dyer stated that he could have dispersed the assembly without firing, but chose to open fire to produce a moral effect across Punjab and prevent a general insurrection. He acknowledged that he continued firing until his ammunition ran out and refused to offer medical aid to the wounded, stating it was not his job.

Testimony of Colonial Authorities

Sir Michael O’Dwyer, the Lieutenant-Governor of Punjab, defended the imposition of martial law and supported Dyer’s actions. He argued that Punjab faced a planned rebellion linked to foreign conspiracies.

Recommendations and Division in the Report

The committee submitted its final report on March 8, 1920. The findings highlighted a clear division between the British and Indian members, leading to two separate reports: the Majority Report and the Minority Report.

Findings of the Majority Report

• The British members concluded that the crowd at Jallianwala Bagh was not part of a pre-planned conspiracy to overthrow the government.
• The report criticized General Dyer for staying at the site longer than necessary and continuing to fire after the crowd began dispersing.
• It characterized Dyer’s action as a grave error of judgment rather than a deliberate criminal act.
• The report upheld the imposition of martial law in Punjab as necessary to restore public order.

Findings of the Minority Report

• The three Indian members authored a separate Minority Report rejecting the justifications offered by colonial authorities.
• It declared that General Dyer’s actions were inhuman, un-British, and aimed at terrorizing the civilian population.
• The report condemned the imposition of martial law in Punjab as unjustified, noting that ordinary legal machinery could have handled the situation.
• It criticized the imposition of punitive measures, such as the crawling order, public floggings, and cutting off electricity and water supplies in Amritsar.

Official Actions and Aftermath

The British Cabinet reviewed the Hunter Committee report and relieved General Dyer of his command in early 1920, ordering his recall to England. However, he faced no formal court-martial, criminal prosecution, or official penalty.

British Support for Dyer

While leaders like Winston Churchill criticized Dyer’s actions in the House of Commons, the House of Lords passed a resolution supporting Dyer. The conservative British publication The Morning Post launched a public fundraising campaign for Dyer, collecting over £26,000 alongside a jeweled sword inscribed “Defender of the Empire.”

Congress Punjab Inquiry Committee

Dissatisfied with the official inquiry, the Indian National Congress formed its own non-official inquiry committee in late 1919. The committee comprised Mahatma Gandhi, Motilal Nehru, Chittaranjan Das, Abbas Tyabji, and M.R. Jayakar. The Congress report condemned the military administration, demanded the prosecution of General Dyer and Sir Michael O’Dwyer, and requested financial compensation for the families of the victims.

Key Facts and Colonial Repression Details

The British Indian Army used armored cars equipped with machine guns at Jallianwala Bagh, but could not drive them through the narrow entrance passage. The emergency military laws enforced across Punjab included the infamous Crawling Order, which forced Indian citizens passing through Kucha Kurrichhan street in Amritsar to crawl on their bellies. In response to the Jallianwala Bagh atrocities and the Hunter Committee’s lenient treatment of General Dyer, Rabindranath Tagore renounced his British Knighthood in May 1919. Mahatma Gandhi returned his Kaisar-i-Hind Gold Medal in August 1920, citing the official whitewashing of the Punjab atrocities as a primary reason for launching the Non-Cooperation Movement. The Repressive Laws Committee, established under the chairmanship of Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru in 1921, evaluated the emergency legislation enforced during WWI and recommended the repeal of the Rowlatt Act in March 1922.