After the massacre, Dyer wasn't done. He ordered a curfew so that the injured couldn't be treated & the dead left unattended. Many injured piteously wailed for water throughout the night before dying. Simultaneously, Dyer ordered all shops to open, and threatened to shoot and take revenge on the children. https://twitter.com/TrueIndology/status/852403221935017984 Colonel Smith, the civil surgeon of Amritsar refused to take patients & turned them away, asking them to go to Gandhi. His subordinate Dr. Bal Mokand was forced to the railway dispensary to ensure that the victims didn't get specialist care.
In 2013, PM of Britain, David Cameron, while expressing remorse, didn't apologize for the massacre. Historian Andrew Roberts defended Cameron & whitewashed Dyer saying that he saved thousands of lives. https://twitter.com/TrueIndology/status/852403621471830016 In 2019, British PM Theresa May expressed regret. The UK is yet to formally apologize. https://twitter.com/The_Newsmakers/status/1116948875380703232
It was Dyer who ordered the firing. However, it was Indian Sepoys who fired each and every bullet. Indian Sepoys were used to subjugate the natives in Hong Kong. https://www.myindiamyglory.com/2019/04/15/jallianwala-bagh-massacre-why-indians-fired-on-indians/ The British fought the two world wars using Indian Sepoys and money. The Indian share of the world's GDP sunk from 24.4% to 4.2%, while the British economy's share soared from its depths.
In World War I, 1.2 million Indian soldiers fought for the British, losing 75,000 soldiers. There is one India Gate memorial in Delhi for them. In World War II, India sent (and lost) the largest number of soldiers to fight. When a British commander confidently said that the Allies would win the war, he was questioned by a skeptic. He replied: "We'll fight the Germans to the last Indian". https://youtu.be/oliGZiMUpvo There is no memorial for the Indian soldiers who fought in World War II. In World War I, Gandhi said that Indians would fight as a duty to the British empire rulers. In World War II, Gandhi said that India would fight, but Britain should pay India. At the end of World War II, Britain owed India an enormous amount of money. When granting India independence, in a last act of colonial loot, Britain simply wrote off the debt and left.
Not just Sepoys & wealth, the British also used the Indians for slave labor in plantations. Indian Tamils were taken to work in plantations in the Caribbean islands, Fiji, Singapore & Malaysia. An interesting historical question: why the Tamils?
Strangely, many Sikhs honored Dyer after the massacre. Dyer was honored with a Sikh turban by the Akal Takth Jathedar (high priest) of the Golden temple, Sardar Arur Singh. Other Jathedars dedicated a shrine to Dyer Gurudwara Sat Sultani(satlani) Sahib. Arur Singh invited Dyer to become a Sikh. He was granted the privilege without needing to cut his hair & for giving up tobacco at the rate of one cigar per year. https://twitter.com/TrueIndology/status/852373308616069120 For historical context, when Guru Gobind, the last Sikh Guru created the Khaalsa Panth, a requirement was to not cut hair (as a symbol of India's holy Sadhus, Sants, Yogis) & giving up tobacco.
Who was Arur Singh? The Golden temple of the Sikhs is called the Harmandir Sahib. It used to called Hari Mandir. It had a vigraha/murti of Hari. This Vigraha was removed by Arur Singh. The Sanatani Sikhs & Hindus objected to its removal. https://www.facebook.com/vedicsikhism/photos/a.162454571274054/381597152693127/?type=3&theater Arur Singh's grandson, Simranjit Singh Mann is a Khalistani, fighting to carve out a separate country for Sikhs from India. Since Pakistan supports the Khalistani movement, Khalistanis has conveniently left out Pakistani territories from their demands. The basis is that since Sikhs form over 50% of the Punjab population vs the over 40% Hindus, they deserve a separate country. By their same logic, if India has a 74% Hindu population, should it be a Hindu Rashtra?
Why was a Hari Vigraha in the Hari Mandir of the Sikhs? The reason goes to the origin of the Sikh tradition. Ramanuja had established his Vishishta-Advaita doctrine strongly steeped in Bhakthi (devotional love). Ramananda had studied these tradition & was instrumental in spreading the Bhakthi movement in North India. He had disciples across classes & religions, such as Kabir & Ravidas. Kabir mentions once that Naanak was his sishya. Guru Naanak was the founder of the Sikh tradition. His teachings are very similar to Kabir's teachings. The Guru Granth Sahib, the holy book of the Sikhs has a reference to a Krishna Vigraha drinking milk offered with Bhakthi by Namdev https://twitter.com/RajSharma1857/status/1111377674411229184 , and other references to Vishnu & Krishna https://twitter.com/MrKalia303/status/1111515189223006208. The banners of Guru Gobind Singh, Ranjith Singh & Hari Singh Nalwa had Hanuman & Bhairava. Gobind has composed Slokas (hymn) to Chandi called Chandi di Vaar & on Sharadha devi https://twitter.com/TrueIndology/status/898496085672419328 . Ranjith Singh had wished to donate the Kohinoor to Puri Jagannatha.
The uncut hair & turban customs originated only after Gobind, who modeled this based off the appearance of the holy Hindu Sants & Sadhus of India. It is only after Arur Singh removed the Hari Vigraha from the Hari Mandir (Har Mandir Sahib/Golden Temple) that Sikhism was rebranded as a separate religion. Pictures of the original Sikh Gurus did not have the turban & uncut hair initiated by Gobind as part of the Khaalsa Panth. The rebranding added such imagery to them. After a few decades of controlling the narrative, the Sikh separatism movement was born. This show how historical narratives are important, and it is possible to conceal the truth & mislead people.
Why did some Sikhs get so chummy with the British? Initially, the Sikhs & British fought each other in the Anglo-Sikh wars. In the 1857 Sepoy rebellion, the rebels chose to fight under the Mughal banner. However, Sikhs had painful memories of the brutal torture & execution of their Gurus. Jehangir had executed Guru Arjan. Aurangzeb beheaded Guru Tegh Bahadur for opposing forced conversions & refusing to converted, and tortured his disciples to death. The Sikhs simply refused to fight to re-establish Mughal rule & ended up fighting on the side of the British against the rebels. However, there is a hole in this narrative.
In the 1857 Sepoy rebellion, one of the British killed was John Nicholson. He had stated that he enjoyed the flaying, impalement, burning & torture of Indians. He once forced a Pathan lick his spittle & forcibly shaved an Imam. He believed that God had called upon the British to civilize India. Such a person was made into a honorary Sikh called Nikal Seyn. When Dyer was made into a honorary Sikh, Arur Singh had referred to Nikal Seyn. Why were some Sikhs supportive of the British even before the rebellion?
In the 1857 rebellion, the Scindias of Gwalior (Jayajirao Scindia) sided with the British against Rani Lakshmibai (Manikarnika). Scindia descendants held/hold coveted positions of power in the government, such as Madhav Rao Scindia, Jyotiraditya Scindia, Vasundhara Raje Scindia, Yashodhara Raje Scindia & Vijaya Raje Scindia. https://www.asian-voice.com/Opinion/Columnists/The-Scindia-of-Gwalior-in-the-Mutiny-of-1857 In contrast, we know nothing about the descendants of the rebels like Lakshmibai. The Gaekwads of Baroda & the Wodeyars of Mysore also sided with the British. Karam Singh sided with the British against the Khaalsa Darbar in the first Anglo Sikh war. His descendant, Bhupinder Singh was a friend of Michael O'Dwyer, the Lt.Governor of Punjab who issued the massacre orders & cheerfully met him after the massacre. His grandson, Amarinder Singh, went on to hold high political offices. Sunder Singh Majithia who provided a lavish dinner to Dyer after the massacre & was rewarded in 1926 with a knighthood. His descendant, Prakash Singh Badal & relatives went on to hold high political offices. Talab Faiz Khan was granted the Jagir of Pataudi for helping the British in war. His son, Akbar Ali Khan fought on the side of the British against the 1857 rebels. His descendants ended up doing well in Indian society. https://twitter.com/Chandrapida1/status/1080139574561583105 Indian merchants who helped the British also did well for themselves. https://www.myind.net/Home/viewArticle/indic-mercantile-collaboration-abrahamic-invaders
It looks like helping the British did yield good dividends. Maybe self-interest was a reason?
Were Indians the only people who acted in favor of their oppressors? When Jewish psychiatrist Viktor Frankl was in a Nazi concentration camp, he noted in his book, Man's search for meaning, that the Kapos, Jewish prisoners appointed to supervise other Jewish prisoners, acted brutally. Whereas some Nazi officers did the best they could to take care of the prisoners within their limits. Historian Bryan Mark Rigg notes that 150,000 Jews served in Hitler's Nazi army, and five of them rose to the rank of Major General. Clearly, there is some weird human psychology at work here. Our mind can always do mental gymnastics and justify everything, depending on what it is attached to.
After the massacre, O'Dwyer imposed martial law. In Amritsar, many men were simply rounded up, flogged & sentenced to death. People were simply shot dead in multiple cities. Gujranwala was bombed, the first city in the world to be aerially bombarded in peacetime. Dyer also enforced the infamous crawling order where in one street, every Indian, including the old, sick & blind, was forced to crawl, while being beaten & kicked. In Kasur, people were flogged & had to rub their noses in the ground. From each school, the biggest six boys were chosen for flogging. All cars of Indians were taken over.
Decades later, Dwyer was assassinated by Udham Singh, who took the name Ram Mohammed Singh Azad, as a symbol of the combined resistance to the British rule by Hindus, Muslims & Sikhs. Why did he not have a Christian name as well? Were they simply too less in number? Were there other things going on?
Initially, the British ignored the massacre. The news was blacked out through silence in the major newspapers. Six months later, after a persistently strong outcry by Indians, the British instituted the Hunter commission. Dyer was recalled to Britain. He was presented with a gift of £26,000 sterling, the equivalent of over a million dollars today. He was called the "Savior of Punjab" and presented with a silver sword. In contrast, the victims' families, after having to fight for compensation, received Rs.500. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Dyer#Exile_to_Britain
In the aftermath of the massacre, Dyer's actions were supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Bishop Henry Whitehead, Rev Canon Guildford, Marcela Sherwood of the Church of England Zenana missionary society, the Christian Missionary review, the Young Men of India missionary publication & other missionaries. The Harvest Field, a missionary journal, noted that Indian Christians were loyal to the British. What was the root-cause of this loyalty? Was it religion?
What was the root-cause of all these happenings? Historians agree that it was the draconian Rowlatt Act: "no Dalil, no Vakil, no appeal" authored by Sir Sidney Rowlatt. His grandson, Justin Rowlatt, the former BBC South Asia correspondent, wrote a moving account on his visit to Jalianwalla Bagh. Rowlatt's grandson has come to terms with the massacre. While descendants are not responsible for the actions of their ancestors, have all of us really come to terms with what happened? Have we gained an understanding of the reasons and have we learned from it?
Of all the strange things in the world, the strangest thing in our own mind. We should work on understanding our own self, while educating ourselves. Hopefully, we'll learn from history and avoid repeating historical mistakes.
References:
https://www.thefridaytimes.com/amritsar-massacre-the-past-present-and-future-of-colonial-violence/
https://twitter.com/TrueIndology/status/852377874375954433
The Butcher of Amritsar by Nigel Collett
Talks with friends interested in history
PS:
(From a friend)
"...According to SavarKar and Subhadrakumari Chauhan, Jayajirao just ran away from the battlefield when Tatya Tope and Lakshmibai attacked. He didn’t attack them with British troops...":
रानी बढ़ी कालपी आई, कर सौ मील निरंतर पार,
घोड़ा थक कर गिरा भूमि पर गया स्वर्ग तत्काल सिधार,
यमुना तट पर अंग्रेज़ों ने फिर खाई रानी से हार,
विजयी रानी आगे चल दी, किया ग्वालियर पर अधिकार।
अंग्रेज़ों के मित्र सिंधिया ने छोड़ी रजधानी थी
"
"After the first Anglo-Maratha was that the Marathas won, the British signed the treaty of Cambay with the Gaekwads and guaranteed the Gaekwads local autonomy in return for recognizing British sovereignty. So they fought with the British after that.
The British + Nizam + Marathas defeated Tipu and returned the kingdom to the Wodeyars, so the Wodeyars fought with the British after that."
"Plaque at the Lucknow Residency commemorating soldiers form Gujarat, Mysore and Punjab for fighting on the behalf of the EIC"
Why did some Sikhs get so chummy with the British? Initially, the Sikhs & British fought each other in the Anglo-Sikh wars. In the 1857 Sepoy rebellion, the rebels chose to fight under the Mughal banner. However, Sikhs had painful memories of the brutal torture & execution of their Gurus. Jehangir had executed Guru Arjan. Aurangzeb beheaded Guru Tegh Bahadur for opposing forced conversions & refusing to converted, and tortured his disciples to death. The Sikhs simply refused to fight to re-establish Mughal rule & ended up fighting on the side of the British against the rebels. However, there is a hole in this narrative.
In the 1857 Sepoy rebellion, one of the British killed was John Nicholson. He had stated that he enjoyed the flaying, impalement, burning & torture of Indians. He once forced a Pathan lick his spittle & forcibly shaved an Imam. He believed that God had called upon the British to civilize India. Such a person was made into a honorary Sikh called Nikal Seyn. When Dyer was made into a honorary Sikh, Arur Singh had referred to Nikal Seyn. Why were some Sikhs supportive of the British even before the rebellion?
In the 1857 rebellion, the Scindias of Gwalior (Jayajirao Scindia) sided with the British against Rani Lakshmibai (Manikarnika). Scindia descendants held/hold coveted positions of power in the government, such as Madhav Rao Scindia, Jyotiraditya Scindia, Vasundhara Raje Scindia, Yashodhara Raje Scindia & Vijaya Raje Scindia. https://www.asian-voice.com/Opinion/Columnists/The-Scindia-of-Gwalior-in-the-Mutiny-of-1857 In contrast, we know nothing about the descendants of the rebels like Lakshmibai. The Gaekwads of Baroda & the Wodeyars of Mysore also sided with the British. Karam Singh sided with the British against the Khaalsa Darbar in the first Anglo Sikh war. His descendant, Bhupinder Singh was a friend of Michael O'Dwyer, the Lt.Governor of Punjab who issued the massacre orders & cheerfully met him after the massacre. His grandson, Amarinder Singh, went on to hold high political offices. Sunder Singh Majithia who provided a lavish dinner to Dyer after the massacre & was rewarded in 1926 with a knighthood. His descendant, Prakash Singh Badal & relatives went on to hold high political offices. Talab Faiz Khan was granted the Jagir of Pataudi for helping the British in war. His son, Akbar Ali Khan fought on the side of the British against the 1857 rebels. His descendants ended up doing well in Indian society. https://twitter.com/Chandrapida1/status/1080139574561583105 Indian merchants who helped the British also did well for themselves. https://www.myind.net/Home/viewArticle/indic-mercantile-collaboration-abrahamic-invaders
It looks like helping the British did yield good dividends. Maybe self-interest was a reason?
Were Indians the only people who acted in favor of their oppressors? When Jewish psychiatrist Viktor Frankl was in a Nazi concentration camp, he noted in his book, Man's search for meaning, that the Kapos, Jewish prisoners appointed to supervise other Jewish prisoners, acted brutally. Whereas some Nazi officers did the best they could to take care of the prisoners within their limits. Historian Bryan Mark Rigg notes that 150,000 Jews served in Hitler's Nazi army, and five of them rose to the rank of Major General. Clearly, there is some weird human psychology at work here. Our mind can always do mental gymnastics and justify everything, depending on what it is attached to.
After the massacre, O'Dwyer imposed martial law. In Amritsar, many men were simply rounded up, flogged & sentenced to death. People were simply shot dead in multiple cities. Gujranwala was bombed, the first city in the world to be aerially bombarded in peacetime. Dyer also enforced the infamous crawling order where in one street, every Indian, including the old, sick & blind, was forced to crawl, while being beaten & kicked. In Kasur, people were flogged & had to rub their noses in the ground. From each school, the biggest six boys were chosen for flogging. All cars of Indians were taken over.
Decades later, Dwyer was assassinated by Udham Singh, who took the name Ram Mohammed Singh Azad, as a symbol of the combined resistance to the British rule by Hindus, Muslims & Sikhs. Why did he not have a Christian name as well? Were they simply too less in number? Were there other things going on?
Initially, the British ignored the massacre. The news was blacked out through silence in the major newspapers. Six months later, after a persistently strong outcry by Indians, the British instituted the Hunter commission. Dyer was recalled to Britain. He was presented with a gift of £26,000 sterling, the equivalent of over a million dollars today. He was called the "Savior of Punjab" and presented with a silver sword. In contrast, the victims' families, after having to fight for compensation, received Rs.500. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Dyer#Exile_to_Britain
In the aftermath of the massacre, Dyer's actions were supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Bishop Henry Whitehead, Rev Canon Guildford, Marcela Sherwood of the Church of England Zenana missionary society, the Christian Missionary review, the Young Men of India missionary publication & other missionaries. The Harvest Field, a missionary journal, noted that Indian Christians were loyal to the British. What was the root-cause of this loyalty? Was it religion?
What was the root-cause of all these happenings? Historians agree that it was the draconian Rowlatt Act: "no Dalil, no Vakil, no appeal" authored by Sir Sidney Rowlatt. His grandson, Justin Rowlatt, the former BBC South Asia correspondent, wrote a moving account on his visit to Jalianwalla Bagh. Rowlatt's grandson has come to terms with the massacre. While descendants are not responsible for the actions of their ancestors, have all of us really come to terms with what happened? Have we gained an understanding of the reasons and have we learned from it?
Of all the strange things in the world, the strangest thing in our own mind. We should work on understanding our own self, while educating ourselves. Hopefully, we'll learn from history and avoid repeating historical mistakes.
References:
https://www.thefridaytimes.com/amritsar-massacre-the-past-present-and-future-of-colonial-violence/
https://twitter.com/TrueIndology/status/852377874375954433
The Butcher of Amritsar by Nigel Collett
Talks with friends interested in history
PS:
(From a friend)
"...According to SavarKar and Subhadrakumari Chauhan, Jayajirao just ran away from the battlefield when Tatya Tope and Lakshmibai attacked. He didn’t attack them with British troops...":
रानी बढ़ी कालपी आई, कर सौ मील निरंतर पार,
घोड़ा थक कर गिरा भूमि पर गया स्वर्ग तत्काल सिधार,
यमुना तट पर अंग्रेज़ों ने फिर खाई रानी से हार,
विजयी रानी आगे चल दी, किया ग्वालियर पर अधिकार।
अंग्रेज़ों के मित्र सिंधिया ने छोड़ी रजधानी थी
"
"After the first Anglo-Maratha was that the Marathas won, the British signed the treaty of Cambay with the Gaekwads and guaranteed the Gaekwads local autonomy in return for recognizing British sovereignty. So they fought with the British after that.
The British + Nizam + Marathas defeated Tipu and returned the kingdom to the Wodeyars, so the Wodeyars fought with the British after that."
No comments:
Post a Comment