 Friends and members of this Ahmed organization, ladies and gentlemen, I feel it to be a very great honor to have been asked to speak on such an event as the Jallianwal Aba and the related Raulat Satyagra. I would like to begin by saying that if we look back at our national movement, then after the rebellion of 1857, there was a near of repression throughout the country. And when the Indian National Congress was formed in 1885 in a rather modest session at Bombay, there was hardly anything in the speeches to justify the high sounding name given to it Indian National Congress as if India was a nation. And the Congress organization was the central parliament of this country like the US Congress. But in time, the Congress expanded and along with the voices of the so-called moderates, the extremists began to be heard also. But it remained a very middle class movement and communal divisions started after the similar deputation of it in 1905. The partition itself was given a communal color post facto. And then by the more lamento reforms in 1909, some electoral principle was introduced, although no real power was transferred to the Indians. One could say that up till now there was no really mass movement in our national movement. What began to change subsequently was in two spheres. One was growth of radicalism and the other was the pattern of master. In radicalism, it is particularly significant when you find that Jalyanwala Bab occurred in Amritsar in Punjab that it was a Punjab which took the lead. I'm not talking of revolutionary violence or as at that time it was called revolutionary terror, but a really mass radical organization. I don't want to go into reasons why it was in Punjab that this developed because that would be another theme. But Punjabi settled in Western Canada and Western United States, especially in California, formed a famous Ghadar organization to liberate India. And the name Ghadar related them to 1857. In 1915 came two important documents, Al-An-E-Jang in Urdu, declaration of war, and Ghadar-Dighun in Punjabi, the thunder of rebellion. Now, very few people in India know that as many as 8000 Punjabi peasants, Sikh, Hindu and Muslim, returned from Canada and United States to India, leaving prosperity behind to oppose the British government. After the outbreak of World War I, there was the mutiny of fifth light infantry in Singapore, which 44 Indian soldiers were shot dead publicly by the British army. This was the first soldier mutiny anywhere in the world against World War I. This was a Punjabi, almost entirely Muslim contingent. Then there was attempt to create mutinies in India by the returned Ghadar agitators. Unfortunately, they were unsuccessful. But just as 44 soldiers were shot dead, were shot after the failure of the Singapore mutiny, over 50 Ghadarites were hanged for their activities in India. It is sandal remembered. Two of them were hanged despite pleas of clemency from the two Indian members of the Vashroya's executive council. Kartar Singh from Punjab and Pingle from Maharashtra and even persons like Hafiz Abdullah who had simply donated money to the Ghadar movement were hanged. The Punjab thus gave the largest number of martyrs for the national movement at that time, 1914 and 15. This should always be borne in mind when we come to the events in the Punjab in 1919. The second important development took place not in India but in South Africa, a mass campaign of civil disobedience. India never saw it. But in 1913-14, a man who was already becoming famous in India for leading Indian communities, struggled for rights in South Africa, Mohandas Gandhi led a real mass campaign which he called passive resistance and then later Satyagraha. In this campaign, 2,000 workers with their families including 50 women crossed from Natal into Transvaal. They were miners. In this campaign, women caught imprisonment by crossing illegally the provincial frontiers. 8,000 Indian miners went on strike. The cruel measures of suppression were so intense that even Lord Hastings, the Indian vice-roy was compelled to write to the Union government of South Africa, the white government, that they should behave in a manner in which civilized governments behave. Nevertheless, nobody had seen in South Africa or in India a movement of this extent, not in the Indian national movement either. And therefore, success ultimately came. I am not concerned with South Africa but I want only to point out that our national movement was well behind what had been happening in South Africa. We could not produce a mass movement of this kind in which poor people in such an immense scale participated. The man who was enabled to do it was Gandhiji and he arrived in India, as we know by England in 1915. It is not my intention to produce anything about Gandhiji's biography but I think it is best to know that before the Raul attack Satyagraha, he had tried his hand at three local struggles, the Champaran Satyagraha of 1917, in which 8,000 peasants were approached to write, to give a statement of their grievances against indigo planters and ultimately much was gained by the peasants through Gandhiji's Satyagraha, Champaran Satyagraha. And then Dhyamadabad workers' strike which was against Indian capitalists and the Khaira Satyagraha, which was against the British government on issues of revenues in which both peasants and small landlords were involved. In other words, classes were brought into the national movement which had so far been out of it. And I think this was a very important major achievement of Gandhiji. What brought matters to a head ultimately was not any economic measure of the British government, but a measure of political control, the Raul attacks. When the World War I was, when World War I broke out, the British government had come with two laws completely limiting civil liberties in India, the Ingress Ordinance of September 1914 and the Defence of India Act of March 1915. You could be arrested, you could be put in prison without trial, you could be tried with no appeal and so on. Now as war was nearing its end in India, the British government got worried that popular unrest might arise for the suppression of which now no tools were available, legal tools. So they appointed a committee known as Raul Act, Raul Act committee. Raul Act was a British judge, a Satiraya Raul Act. And this was appointed in 1918 and then early in 1919, it came out with this report in which it said that India was endangered by all kinds of revolutionary and terrorist activities and so far and therefore it needed very strong laws which ultimately took shape as revolutionary and anarchic crimes act of March 1919. Now as the Raul Act bills were introduced in the Central Legislative Council, all Indian non-official members in the first display of a national solidarity voting against it, but of course they did not constitute majority so that vote was useless. Gandhiji even before the Raul Act became law began to organize an opposition against it. This was important because by the very nature this was not a local mass movement like the Champaran Satyagraha or Khera peasant struggle or Ahmedabad workers' strike, but an all India master. From that point of view it was a very ambitious enterprise and Gandhi was later on to describe it as a Himalayan blunder, Himalayan miscalculation, both terms he used. Anyway he toured India, the length and breadth of India he was already already travelling throughout India in a third class compartment which was seen much at that time because third class compartments didn't even contain a toilet at that time. Anyway he did it again, visiting Delhi, Calcutta, Madras and of course Bombay and Ahmedabad and particularly visited many towns of Tamil Nadu and therefore created the basis for an all India struggle. There was a Satyagraha pledge which was taken and despite the fact that nearly every established leader opposed the Raul attacks at Satyagraha, Mrs. Annie Besant, the moderates, many even of the extremists, Gandhiji still began it and 6th April was ultimately fixed as the date of the all India Hurtal. This was the first all India Hurtal ever attempted in our national movement. But before that date for some by some misunderstanding on 30 March there was a strike in Delhi in which firing took place at the Delhi Railway Station, not the new Delhi Railway Station but the old Delhi Railway Station in which many Indians lost their lives. It was asserted on the Indian side that the firing was unprovoked. Only the crowd was trying to stop the trains when the army, when the police and army fired. The strike was actually had been called for 6th April. It was extremely successful in most Indian cities, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras. Madras has a meeting of a size unknown in India before an attendance of 1 lakh was claimed and the success of this strike actually shook the British government for the first time. And they began to make preparations which of course in their hands in their eyes meant first arresting and detaining people. So on 9th April as Gandhiji was trying to go to Punjab where the Hurtal had been very successful. He was offloaded from the train near Delhi and taken back to Bombay. On 10th April Safuddin Kichlu and Dr Satya Baal, two major leaders of the movement in Punjab were assisted in Amritsar and taken away from the town. It was against this arrest that the agitation in Amritsar began. On 10th April there was a large procession which tried to cross the railway bridge. Here the army fired and 10 people were reported killed. As the crowd enraged at the firing retreated they killed five Europeans on whom they could lay hands. This act was almost unprecedented since the mutiny. However one may say that those five Europeans were innocent. The fact remained that the European community in India was assigned a status far above that of the natives. And therefore what we should remember was that from now on in European eyes it became a European offensive, question of European offensive against Indians. And a military man called Jayaj and General Dyer took over Amritsar immediately. The left-in-and-governor at that time of most provinces, the governors were called left-in-and-governor of Punjab, Michael O. Dyer, was particularly known for his dictatorial methods, his forced recruitment for the army in the Punjab. Punjab was made to provide one-third of soldiers for the Indian army that fought for British imperialism in World War I. And he also was free with his power of arrest and detention whenever suited his purpose. In other words he was extremely unpopular and he added to his unpopularity by the kind of measures that he now took. Immediately that Dyer came to Amritsar, he cut off electricity and water supply for all Indians. He began arresting Indians right and left, particularly middle-class Indians. This was not an unexpected feature of British vengeance that they would try to arrest people who were regarded as respectable people among Indians. He forbade, although it is not clear how he forbade it, whether he issued an order, he printed no such order, he forbade all assemblies and meetings. But in the meantime, by the beating of tin cans, this was the usual method at that time of holding a general meeting. A meeting was announced for 13th afternoon and evening in Jalyanwala Bagh, Amritsar. In protest against what had been done in Amritsar. In Jalyanwala Bagh was sunken ground, it was not really a garden but had been a garden once. There were houses all around and there was also a broken wall which prevented escape from the garden if escape became necessary. Well, it became necessary because general Dyer came with Indian troops, troops of the Indian army. And without making any announcement, he, as the Hunter Committee of Inquiry also agreed and as he confessed himself, he made no such announcement. He simply asked his soldiers to open fire. His soldiers performed their duty very well. In all 1650 rounds were fired and the firing went on until the gunpowder was exhausted. When the gunpowder was exhausted and large numbers of people lay dead or crying and injured, Dyer and his troops withdrew without caring for the dead or the dying. Much later, the British government issued a count or enumeration of those who died and that was less than 400. Something like a figure of 370 being given. But it is clear that more than 1,000 were killed and more than 3,000 wounded. As Churchill, no friend of India, an inviter, an imperialist was even forced to confess, even with the figure of 400 before him, that it was an extraordinary event, a monstrous event. These are the words he used for this unprecedented in the history of British Empire as he put it in his speech in the House of Commons. Now, this was not the only thing done in Amritsar. One British woman, Miss Sherwood, had been attacked in Elaine. She was protected by certain Indians who lived there and taken to safety. But the fact that a European woman should be attacked by Indians was such a monstrous event in the eyes of General Dyer and other Europeans that on 19th April the order went forward that every Indian who passed that lane must do it crawling and police and army was posted there to see that they crawled on their belly all along the lane even if they lived there. Every Indian was bound to salute every European. And if he did not do it, the soldiers and policemen were there to make them do it or arrest them. Arrests were extremely numerous. With more people arrested, probably more on the ground that they were gentry rather than on the ground that they had taken part in any event and they were put in the utmost miserable conditions that human ingenuity could discover. Before I return to Jalyanwala-Bagh, I would briefly mention what took place in other towns. In Lahore there was again firing. Maharshal law proclaimed on 15th April under Colonel Johnson. All kinds of punishments were prescribed for Indians. A poster against the agitation put up by the British government was removed from one of the college walls and teachers and students of this college were taken five miles out on foot in burning sun of the afternoon and then made to walk back. Similarly, a large number of people were put in prison. In Khasur, a town in Lahore district, two British soldiers were killed when the news of Jalyanwala-Bagh reached there and there were continuous firings afterwards in this town. Similarly, in Gujaranwala and it might be noticed that these are towns where Muslims were in a majority. In Gujaranwala there was firing on 14th April leading to many deaths. Maharshal law proclaimed on 16th April and aeroplanes used to bomb villages in the vicinity. They were used for the first time the use of air power against a subject population by the British. There was no system of justice. 18 persons were hanged on mere suspicion until I had the permission of Lord Chemsford the viceroy. But when it was conveyed to the Secretary of State for India, liberal Montagu, then Montagu forbade further hangings of this kind. This was the only human action that Manduk Montagu performed in the whole episode. Very briefly, violence took place at Ahmedabad also on 11th April on the news of Gandhi's arrest. Maharshal law was proclaimed when a large number of buildings were burnt down at Ahmedabad by protesting bombs. And so on 18th April when news of violence reached Gandhi, he suspended the agitation on 16th April. Before I return to Jalyanwala-Bagh, I want to complete the narrative. Though Gandhi suspended the agitation and his further attempts to revive it failed, what he did tells us also about firm leadership. He did not give up the task. On 8th June, at his instance, the All India Congress Committee formed an inquiry committee of its own. Gandhi, Siyar Das, Fazlul Haq, who withdrew from it later, Abbas Tayyabji and Amar Jayakar. I say Abbas Tayyabji would service some difficulty because he was my grandfather. But he also was one of the signatories of the report. Amar Jayakar later on became Hindu Masabaid but as far as this agitation was concerned, his conduct was exemplary. They took evidence, they began taking evidence, going to these places, defying the government. And that was a very important act on their part. This meant that the government was forced to appoint its own committee. On 14th October they appointed the Hunter Committee of seven members taking care that the majority was European. And there were three Indians expected to be very loyal to the government. Lord Hunter was not William, Sir William Hunter, the Indian civil servant who wrote the First Imperial Gazetteer and District Gazetteers of Bengal, a very scholarly man. One must clear this misunderstanding. Lord Hunter was a British lawyer. And this committee whitewashed everything, although they could not fully whitewash Jalyanwala. Punjab wrongs and the writing of Punjab wrongs, the punishment of General Dyer and Michael O'Dire, the Lieutenant Governor, Colonel Johnson, the Marshal Law Enforcer in Lahore and Lord Champsford, the Vice-Roy who permitted all these criminal acts on the part of the administration, was the major demand that the Congress were not wrong. These were called Punjab wrongs. Nothing came out of this. The only thing that the British government did was that they did not keep General Dyer in military service. When the Army Council with Churchill at the head decided not to give him any post but to put him on retired list, they so annoyed the conservatives and the European community in India that resolutions were moved in the House of Commons and House of Lords in England to reject the decision. In the House of Commons as many as 129 members voted in favour of General Dyer against the majority of 230. In House of Lords on the other hand, which was of course more conservative, 128 supported General Dyer as against 86. Europeans in India organised pro-dyer associations and sent many large sums of money to the Dyer fund. As a footnote, it must be said that in 1940 Michael O'Dowyer, the Lieutenant Governor of Punjab at this time, was shot dead by Uddhamsingh in London and Uddhamsingh had made his life's mission to murder, to kill O'Dowyer because of the Punjab atrocities. He paid of course with his life for this action. Now here I must return to Jalyanwala Ba and the agitation. Obviously, and that has been my point, the Rowlett Act agitation was the first real mass movement in India. And as mass movements go, it was very difficult to control. Once masses are moved, violence was resorted to as soon as the army and the police resorted to violence. These were natural aspects of the event, although this greatly hurt Gandhiji who was wedded to Ahimsa and non-violence. But as far as Jalyanwala Ba is concerned, I have something to say which may not be very popular. Perhaps not in this meeting but elsewhere. Who shot the 1,000 people there? Not general Dyer, Indian soldiers, Indians in uniform, the great Indian army. India is one of the few countries in the world which celebrates the past of an army which was kept for subjugating the country. There may be other countries but I can't actually count one. We are the only ones who glorify an army who kept us under subjection. The Indian army doesn't celebrate Singapore mutiny. It doesn't celebrate Garhwali soldiers who refused to fire in 1930. It does not celebrate the Indian National Army. What it celebrates? We learned last year that the Indian army was celebrating the centenary of its action in Haifa, now in Israel at that time in Palestine. It liberated Haifa, the army command told us. From whom? From Arabs and Turks and to pass into the hands of whom? British imperialism. Our Javans fought Haifa not for India, not for the Arabs, not for the Turks. They fought them and killed them but they fought for the British Empire, which seized Palestine and made it into Jiu Shon. And today the Haifa that our army supposed to have liberated was then full of Arabs. Now the Arabs have been expelled and the Jews are there. So Israel to our shame joined our celebration. Well as we know an Indian officer put an Indian citizen and tied him to that front of the military vehicle and went around the city of Srinagar on that. He received no punishment but an honorary award. Perhaps because the Indian citizen concerned had the wrong religion. So why don't they celebrate Jalyan Wala Ba'am? Surely if the Haifa has to be celebrated then they should celebrate Jalyan Wala Ba'am. It is a matter of shame for the Indian army that they killed the Indians or any human beings in the world as they killed Jalyan Wala Ba'am. The English did not kill them. It was soldiers of the Indian army whom they glorify and applaud for their actions under the British. It is therefore a commentary and also on us in India today are we fit to commemorate Jalyan Wala Ba'am. And that is why I think the Jalyan Wala Ba'am sends a message to us that humanity is much wider than nationhood. And that narrow nationalism so-called nationalism should have no place in a civilized society. So we should listen to Jalyan Wala Ba'am but we should listen to that story by finding out who really killed whom at that place. Dyer didn't fire. Indian soldiers fired on fellow countrymen. Thank you.