Jonah Patel
The Hunter Committee, officially known as the Disorders Inquiry Committee, was constituted on 14 October 1919, by the Government of India, following orders from the Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu, to investigate the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Amritsar. The committee was tasked with examining the causes and consequences of the disturbances in Bombay, Delhi, and Punjab, which resulted in the deaths of at least a thousand people, including women and children, and injured 1500 more.
Explore related products
![The Somerset diocese, Bath and Wells. By William Hunt. Published under the direction of the Tract committee. 1885 [Leather Bound]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81nNKsF6dYL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
![By Thomas M. Hunt Drug Games: The International Olympic Committee and the Politics of Doping, 1960-2008 (Terry and Jan [Paperback]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51uMNR9YsEL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
What You'll Learn
To investigate the Jallianwala Bagh massacre
On 13 April 1919, Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer opened fire on a crowd of unarmed people inside Jallianwala Bagh, killing at least 1,000 people, including women and children, and injuring 1,500 more. This became known as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, or the Amritsar Massacre of 1919.
The massacre shocked both Indians and the British. Following the incident, the Legislative Council of the Government of India constituted the Hunter Commission, also known as the Disorders Inquiry Committee, to investigate the tragedy. The committee was appointed on 14 October 1919, following orders from the Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu. It was chaired by Lord William Hunter, a former Solicitor-General for Scotland and Senator of the Scottish College of Justice.
The commission included three Indian members: Sir Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad, Vice-Chancellor of Bombay University and advocate of the Bombay High Court; Pandit Jagat Narayan, a lawyer and Member of the Legislative Council of the United Provinces; and Sardar Sahibzada Sultan Ahmad Khan, a lawyer from Gwalior State. The committee convened in Delhi on 29 October, taking statements from witnesses in Delhi, Ahmedabad, Bombay, and Lahore.
General Dyer appeared before the committee on 19 November. He stated that he had planned to fire at the crowd to instil terror throughout Punjab, thereby lowering the moral standing of the 'rebels'. He added that he had not intended to disperse the crowd but to create a moral impact to prevent a mutiny.
The committee's final report, released in March 1920, unanimously condemned Dyer. However, no punitive action was taken, upheld by the Army Council. The report concluded that the gathering was not the result of an Indian conspiracy, and the declaration of martial law in Punjab was justified. While Dyer's firing at the mob was deemed justified, the commission recommended that he should have issued a warning beforehand and reduced the duration of the firing.
Queen's Fury: The Bayonet Constitution's Legacy
You may want to see also
To examine the role of General Dyer
The Hunter Committee was constituted in 1919 to investigate the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, which took place on 13 April 1919. The massacre was carried out by Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer, who was in command of the British troops in Amritsar, Punjab, India.
General Dyer's actions during the massacre were the primary focus of the committee's investigation. Dyer was accused of ordering his troops to open fire on a crowd of unarmed Indians, resulting in a large number of casualties. The exact number of casualties is disputed, with various estimates placing the death toll between 379 and 1,800, and the number of wounded between 1,100 and 1,500. The majority of the victims were peaceful protesters, including women, children, and the elderly.
During his testimony before the committee on 19 November 1919, General Dyer defended his actions by stating that he intended to instil a moral impact and prevent a mutiny. He argued that he had given the crowd a chance to disperse and that his use of force was necessary to "produce a sufficient moral effect". However, the committee criticised Dyer's decision to continue firing for an extended period, stating that it was a grave error. The committee's report, released on 8 March 1920, unanimously condemned Dyer's actions and found him responsible for the high number of casualties.
The Hunter Committee's investigation had significant repercussions for General Dyer's military career. As a result of the committee's findings, Dyer was relieved of active service. However, his actions found support among certain sections of colonial India, and a fund was raised on his behalf by The Morning Post, a conservative, pro-imperialist newspaper. Dyer also received the support of the House of Lords, which passed a resolution criticising the treatment of Dyer as "unjust". Despite these defences, the Hunter Committee's investigation played a crucial role in examining General Dyer's role in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre and holding him accountable for his actions.
Benjamin Franklin's Constitution: His Vision and Legacy
You may want to see also
To investigate disturbances in Bombay, Delhi and Punjab
The Hunter Committee, also known as the Disorders Inquiry Committee, was formed to investigate the events surrounding the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Amritsar. The committee was tasked with examining the causes and consequences of disturbances in Bombay, Delhi, and Punjab. The Jallianwala Bagh massacre, also known as the Amritsar Massacre, took place on 13 April 1919 when Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer of the British Indian Army ordered his troops to open fire on a crowd of unarmed people, including women, children, and the elderly. The exact death toll is unknown, but it is estimated that at least a thousand people were killed and another 1500 were injured.
The Hunter Committee was announced on 14 October 1919 and was chaired by Lord William Hunter, a former Solicitor-General for Scotland and Senator of the Scottish College of Justice. The committee included both British and Indian officials, with three Indian members: Sir Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad, Vice-Chancellor of Bombay University and advocate of the Bombay High Court; Pandit Jagat Narayan, a lawyer and Member of the Legislative Council of the United Provinces; and Sardar Sahibzada Sultan Ahmad Khan, a lawyer from Gwalior State.
The committee convened in Delhi on 29 October and took statements from witnesses in Delhi, Ahmedabad, Bombay, and Lahore. In November, the committee travelled to Lahore to question key witnesses, including Dyer. Dyer defended his actions, stating that it was his duty to instill terror in Punjab and lower the moral standing of the 'rebels'. He also stated that he had planned to fire at the crowd to create a moral impact and prevent a mutiny.
The Hunter Committee's final report, released in March 1920, unanimously condemned Dyer's actions. The report found that Dyer's failure to issue a warning before opening fire and the prolonged duration of the firing were serious errors. The report also concluded that the gathering at Jallianwala Bagh was not the result of an Indian conspiracy and that the declaration of martial law in Punjab was justified. However, no punitive action was taken against Dyer, as the Army Council upheld the decision.
Constitution's Civil War Setup: Understanding the Conflict's Roots
You may want to see also
Explore related products
To assess the justification of martial law in Punjab
On 13 April 1919, Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer ordered troops to open fire on a crowd of unarmed people, including women, children, and the elderly, inside Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar, Punjab. At least a thousand people were killed, and another 1,500 were injured. This became known as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, also referred to as the Amritsar Massacre.
Following the massacre, the Legislative Council of the Government of India constituted the Hunter Commission, also known as the Disorders Inquiry Committee, to investigate the incident. The committee was formed on 29 October 1919 and was led by Lord William Hunter, a former Solicitor-General for Scotland and Senator of the Scottish College of Justice. The commission included both British and Indian officials and took testimony from witnesses over a period of 46 days.
The Hunter Commission concluded that the gathering at Jallianwala Bagh was not the result of an Indian conspiracy and that the declaration of martial law in Punjab was justified. However, it also concluded that Dyer's actions were unjustified, as he had not issued a warning before opening fire and the duration of the firing was excessive. The commission's Indian members submitted a minority report, questioning the necessity of martial law and disputing the severity of the disturbances.
The findings of the Hunter Commission were published in May 1920 and unanimously condemned Dyer's actions. Dyer was found guilty of misunderstanding his duty, relieved of his command, and sent back to England. However, no punitive action was taken against him, as the government had passed an Indemnity Act to protect its officers.
In conclusion, the Hunter Commission of 1919 was instrumental in investigating the Jallianwala Bagh massacre and assessing the justification of martial law in Punjab. The commission's findings led to some accountability for Dyer's actions, but the lack of punitive measures highlighted the limitations of its impact.
Hawaiian Constitution: A Need for Change
You may want to see also
To evaluate the impact on Indians and British observers
The Hunter Committee, also known as the Disorders Inquiry Committee, was formed in 1919 to investigate the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, in which British troops fired upon a peaceful crowd, killing at least a thousand people, including women and children, and injuring 1500. The massacre had a profound impact on both Indians and British observers, prompting the Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu, to initiate an inquiry.
The committee was led by Lord William Hunter, a former Solicitor-General, and included both Indian and British members. It took testimony over a period of 46 days, with General Dyer appearing before the committee on November 19th. Dyer defended his actions, stating that he had planned to fire at the crowd to instil a moral impact and prevent a mutiny. He also expressed his readiness to use machine guns and armoured vehicles if given the opportunity.
The Hunter Committee's report, submitted on May 26, 1920, criticised Dyer for a misplaced sense of duty and condemned his motive of creating a moral effect. The lack of warning to disperse before opening fire was deemed a grave mistake. The committee concluded that the Indian gathering was not a pre-planned conspiracy but had evolved from rioting to rebellion. While the declaration of martial law was deemed justifiable, Dyer's firing at the mob was considered justified only if a warning had been given and the duration of firing reduced.
The impact of the Hunter Committee's findings on Indians and British observers was mixed. The majority of the committee denounced Dyer's conduct, and the report criticised his sense of obligation and motive for his actions. However, no punitive action was taken against Dyer, and the Army Council upheld this decision. The committee's conclusion that there was no Indian conspiracy behind the gathering may have had some reconciliatory impact, but the overall effectiveness of the committee is debated. The second Hunter Committee, formed after the first, was considered to have little lasting impact as it was merely recommendatory.
Understanding Full-Time Employment in New York
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Hunter Committee, officially known as the Disorders Inquiry Committee, was formed to investigate the events surrounding the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Amritsar, in which British Indian Army troops opened fire on a crowd of unarmed people, killing and injuring thousands.
The committee was chaired by Lord William Hunter, a former Solicitor-General for Scotland and Senator of the Scottish College of Justice.
The committee unanimously condemned General Dyer's actions, stating that he should have issued a warning before opening fire and that the duration of the firing was too long. It also concluded that the gathering was not the result of an Indian conspiracy and that the declaration of martial law in Punjab was justified.
