Our latest “Document of the Week”, chosen by our Editor, Nishah Malik, is an extract from the testimony of General Reginald Dyer, presented in the Report of the Commissioners Appointed by the Punjab Sub-Committee of the Indian National Congress (1919). Dyer’s testimony offers a harrowing insight into one of the darkest chapters of British colonial rule in India—the “Amritsar Massacre” (also referred to as the “Jallianwala Bagh Massacre”) on 13 April 1919.
With pro-independence movements gaining momentum, in March 1919 the British colonial government passed the Rowlatt Act. This gave authorities extensive powers to curb nationalist and revolutionary movements in India. Essentially, it gave the colonial government the power to arrest anyone suspected of terrorism and to hold them for up to two years without trial. It also restricted the freedom of the press. The Rowlatt Act was met with widespread opposition across India, with Mahatma Gandhi calling for a nationwide “hartal” (suspension of work) on 6 April 1919, along with other peaceful protests. However, these quickly turned violent after two prominent Indian leaders, Dr Saifuddin Kitchlew and Dr Satyapal Singh were arrested and banished to a secret location. In a bid to suppress any backlash, the British imposed martial law in Punjab on 13 April 1919. Under this legislation, public gatherings of more than four people were banned.
That very afternoon, thousands of people gathered in Jallianwala Bagh, a walled public garden in Amritsar, to protest peacefully against the arrests and to celebrate the Punjabi festival of Baisakhi. Many in the crowd were unaware that martial law had been imposed and that public gatherings had been banned. Some of the crowd were merely passing through the Bagh on their way home from worshipping at the nearby Golden Temple. Without issuing a warning or making any attempt to disperse the crowd peacefully, Dyer marched in with fifty soldiers, blocked the narrow exits, and ordered his men to open fire. What followed was ten minutes of continuous gunfire, during which 1,650 rounds of ammunition were discharged into the unarmed crowd. Civilians, including men, women, children, and elderly people were killed or severely injured. The official death toll was reported as 379, however, the actual number killed is believed to be much higher. Among the victims was a seven-month-old baby, one of the massacre’s youngest casualties.
In his testimony, Dyer admitted to taking the decision to fire almost immediately, proudly stating that it took a mere “30 seconds to make up” his mind. He justified his actions by insisting that he was carrying out his military duty and that if he did not act decisively, he “would fail in [his] duty”. He acknowledged that it did not occur to him that the crowd might not have known about the imposition of martial law just hours earlier. Dyer made no effort to consult local authorities or to issue a warning to the crowd. He believed that any sign of hesitation would have undermined British authority. He later claimed that “they would all have come back and laughed at him and he would have made a ‘fool of himself’”.
Dyer’s goal was not to warn or to control the crowd, he had simply “made up his mind to punish them for having assembled”. His complete lack of remorse was evident when he stated he would “have taken the armoured cars into the Bagh” and “opened fire with them” if the entrance had allowed. Dyer concluded, chillingly, that he only stopped “when he did because the ammunition had run out”.
Eyewitness accounts, recorded in the report, paint a picture of unimaginable horror. Lala Girdhari Lal, a resident who watched the massacre unfold from a rooftop, described how “hundreds of persons [were] killed on the spot” and how bullets “actually rained over the people” near the gates. The exits were targeted deliberately, trapping people inside the garden. “Even those who lay flat on the ground were shot”, Lal reported.
The “Amritsar Massacre” sparked outrage across India and abroad. It became a turning point in the Indian independence movement, hardening attitudes towards colonial rule. Dyer was never tried in a court of law, though he was relieved of his command and eventually retired. 106 years after the massacre, Britain has still not issued a formal apology.
This document stands as a powerful reminder of the brutality of British rule and the resilience of those who resisted it. Dyer’s cold and unapologetic attitude in his testimony speaks volumes, not only about his own intentions, but also about the wider mentality of colonial rule.
Where to find this document
This extract can be found in our collection, The British Raj: Resistance and Reform in India, 1879–1920. This consists of letters, diaries, and official reports. The records relate to two viceroys who acted as representatives of the British monarch in India: Lord Curzon and the fourth Earl of Minto. These sources allude to growing anti-British sentiment amongst the Indian population during the opening decade of the twentieth century and evidence how the viceroy responded. Visit the collection page to learn more.