The Dhar Commission: A Legacy of Inquiry and Controversy
The Dhar Commission, formally known as the Commission of Inquiry into the Causes of the Punjab Disturbances of 1919, was established in 1919 by the British government in India to investigate the events leading to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre and the wider unrest in Punjab. The commission, chaired by Sir Reginald Edward Harry Dyer, was tasked with examining the causes of the disturbances, the role of the authorities, and the effectiveness of the measures taken to quell the unrest.
The commission’s findings and recommendations were highly controversial, sparking debate and criticism that continue to this day. This article will delve into the historical context of the commission, its findings, the criticisms it faced, and its lasting impact on the Indian independence movement.
The Context: A Nation on the Brink
The year 1919 witnessed a wave of unrest across India, fueled by a confluence of factors:
- The aftermath of World War I: The war had placed immense strain on India’s resources and economy, while the promise of increased self-governance after the war remained unfulfilled.
- The Rowlatt Act: This controversial legislation, passed in February 1919, allowed the British government to detain individuals without trial for suspected seditious activities. This was seen as a blatant attack on civil liberties and fueled widespread resentment.
- The Satyagraha Movement: Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent resistance movement, launched in 1919, was gaining momentum, challenging the British Raj’s authority.
- The Amritsar Massacre: On April 13, 1919, Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer ordered his troops to fire upon a peaceful gathering of unarmed civilians in Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar. This event, which resulted in hundreds of deaths, became a symbol of British brutality and ignited widespread outrage across India.
The Dhar Commission: A Controversial Inquiry
The Dhar Commission was established in the wake of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre to investigate the events leading to the unrest and the actions of the authorities. The commission, chaired by Sir Reginald Dyer, was composed of three members:
- Sir Reginald Edward Harry Dyer: The controversial figure who ordered the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
- Sir William Hunter: A retired judge of the Calcutta High Court.
- Sir Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad: A prominent Indian lawyer and member of the Imperial Legislative Council.
The commission’s terms of reference were broad, encompassing:
- The causes of the disturbances: This included examining the role of the Rowlatt Act, the Satyagraha movement, and the general political climate.
- The actions of the authorities: The commission was tasked with investigating the conduct of the police, military, and other officials in dealing with the unrest.
- The effectiveness of the measures taken: The commission was to assess the efficacy of the measures implemented by the British government to quell the disturbances.
The commission’s proceedings were marked by controversy from the outset. The choice of Sir Reginald Dyer as chairman was widely criticized, as he was the central figure in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. Critics argued that his presence would compromise the commission’s impartiality and credibility.
The Findings: A Justification of Brutal Force
The Dhar Commission’s report, published in 1920, concluded that the disturbances in Punjab were primarily caused by the activities of extremist leaders and the spread of misinformation. The report justified the use of force by the authorities, arguing that it was necessary to maintain order and prevent further unrest.
The commission’s findings regarding the Jallianwala Bagh massacre were particularly controversial. The report exonerated Dyer, stating that he had acted in good faith and that the firing was necessary to restore order. The report also criticized the protesters, claiming that they were “unruly” and “hostile” towards the authorities.
Table 1: Key Findings of the Dhar Commission
| Finding | Description |
|---|---|
| Causes of the disturbances: | The commission attributed the unrest to the activities of extremist leaders, the spread of misinformation, and the influence of the Satyagraha movement. |
| Role of the authorities: | The commission found that the authorities had acted in good faith and that the use of force was necessary to maintain order. |
| Jallianwala Bagh massacre: | The commission exonerated Dyer, stating that he had acted in good faith and that the firing was necessary to restore order. |
| Effectiveness of measures: | The commission concluded that the measures taken by the authorities were effective in quelling the unrest. |
The Criticism: A Voice of Dissent
The Dhar Commission’s findings were met with widespread criticism, both in India and abroad. Critics argued that the commission was biased in favor of the British government and that its findings were a whitewash of the authorities’ actions.
- Lack of impartiality: The choice of Sir Reginald Dyer as chairman was widely condemned, as his presence was seen as a conflict of interest. Critics argued that the commission was biased in favor of the authorities and that its findings could not be trusted.
- Ignoring the root causes: The commission’s focus on extremist leaders and misinformation was criticized for ignoring the underlying causes of the unrest, such as the Rowlatt Act, the war-time economic hardships, and the lack of political representation.
- Justification of brutality: The commission’s exoneration of Dyer and its justification of the use of force were seen as a condonation of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. Critics argued that the commission had failed to hold the authorities accountable for their actions.
Table 2: Key Criticisms of the Dhar Commission
| Criticism | Description |
|---|---|
| Lack of impartiality: | The choice of Sir Reginald Dyer as chairman was widely condemned, as his presence was seen as a conflict of interest. |
| Ignoring the root causes: | The commission’s focus on extremist leaders and misinformation was criticized for ignoring the underlying causes of the unrest. |
| Justification of brutality: | The commission’s exoneration of Dyer and its justification of the use of force were seen as a condonation of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. |
The Legacy: A Turning Point in the Independence Movement
The Dhar Commission’s report had a profound impact on the Indian independence movement. The report’s findings were widely condemned, further fueling the growing resentment towards British rule. The Jallianwala Bagh massacre, which the commission attempted to justify, became a symbol of British brutality and a rallying cry for the independence movement.
The commission’s findings also highlighted the deep divisions between the British government and the Indian people. The report’s attempt to exonerate Dyer and justify the use of force only served to further alienate the Indian population and strengthen the resolve of the independence movement.
The Dhar Commission’s legacy is one of controversy and debate. While the commission’s findings were widely criticized, it played a significant role in shaping the course of the Indian independence movement. The commission’s report, along with the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, served as a catalyst for the growing demand for self-governance and ultimately contributed to the eventual independence of India.
Conclusion: A Legacy of Inquiry and Controversy
The Dhar Commission was a controversial inquiry that attempted to investigate the causes of the Punjab disturbances of 1919. The commission’s findings, which exonerated the authorities and justified the use of force, were widely criticized for their bias and lack of impartiality. The commission’s report, along with the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, played a significant role in shaping the course of the Indian independence movement, highlighting the deep divisions between the British government and the Indian people.
The Dhar Commission’s legacy is one of inquiry and controversy, a reminder of the complex and often brutal history of British colonialism in India. The commission’s findings, while ultimately rejected by the Indian people, served as a catalyst for the growing demand for self-governance and ultimately contributed to the eventual independence of India.
Here are some frequently asked questions about the Dhar Commission:
1. What was the purpose of the Dhar Commission?
The Dhar Commission, formally known as the Commission of Inquiry into the Causes of the Punjab Disturbances of 1919, was established by the British government in India to investigate the events leading to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre and the wider unrest in Punjab in 1919. Its primary objectives were to:
- Examine the causes of the disturbances: This included analyzing the role of the Rowlatt Act, the Satyagraha movement, and the general political climate.
- Investigate the actions of the authorities: The commission was tasked with scrutinizing the conduct of the police, military, and other officials in dealing with the unrest.
- Assess the effectiveness of the measures taken: The commission was to evaluate the efficacy of the measures implemented by the British government to quell the disturbances.
2. Who were the members of the Dhar Commission?
The Dhar Commission was composed of three members:
- Sir Reginald Edward Harry Dyer: The controversial figure who ordered the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, serving as the chairman.
- Sir William Hunter: A retired judge of the Calcutta High Court.
- Sir Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad: A prominent Indian lawyer and member of the Imperial Legislative Council.
3. Why was the choice of Sir Reginald Dyer as chairman controversial?
The appointment of Sir Reginald Dyer as chairman was widely criticized due to his direct involvement in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. Critics argued that his presence would compromise the commission’s impartiality and credibility, as he was the central figure in the event being investigated.
4. What were the key findings of the Dhar Commission?
The Dhar Commission’s report concluded that the disturbances in Punjab were primarily caused by the activities of extremist leaders and the spread of misinformation. It justified the use of force by the authorities, arguing that it was necessary to maintain order and prevent further unrest. Regarding the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, the report exonerated Dyer, stating that he had acted in good faith and that the firing was necessary to restore order.
5. What were the main criticisms of the Dhar Commission?
The Dhar Commission’s findings faced widespread criticism for several reasons:
- Lack of impartiality: The choice of Sir Reginald Dyer as chairman was seen as a conflict of interest, undermining the commission’s objectivity.
- Ignoring the root causes: The commission’s focus on extremist leaders and misinformation was criticized for neglecting the underlying causes of the unrest, such as the Rowlatt Act, the war-time economic hardships, and the lack of political representation.
- Justification of brutality: The commission’s exoneration of Dyer and its justification of the use of force were seen as a condonation of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, failing to hold the authorities accountable for their actions.
6. What was the impact of the Dhar Commission on the Indian independence movement?
The Dhar Commission’s report had a profound impact on the Indian independence movement. The report’s findings were widely condemned, further fueling the growing resentment towards British rule. The Jallianwala Bagh massacre, which the commission attempted to justify, became a symbol of British brutality and a rallying cry for the independence movement. The commission’s findings also highlighted the deep divisions between the British government and the Indian people, strengthening the resolve of the independence movement.
7. What is the lasting legacy of the Dhar Commission?
The Dhar Commission’s legacy is one of controversy and debate. While the commission’s findings were widely criticized, it played a significant role in shaping the course of the Indian independence movement. The commission’s report, along with the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, served as a catalyst for the growing demand for self-governance and ultimately contributed to the eventual independence of India.
Here are a few multiple-choice questions about the Dhar Commission, with four options each:
1. What was the primary purpose of the Dhar Commission?
a) To investigate the causes of the 1919 Punjab disturbances and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
b) To assess the effectiveness of the Indian National Congress in promoting independence.
c) To determine the extent of German influence in the Indian independence movement.
d) To investigate the role of the British East India Company in the Indian Rebellion of 1857.
2. Who chaired the Dhar Commission?
a) Mahatma Gandhi
b) Lord Curzon
c) Sir Reginald Dyer
d) Sir William Hunter
3. Which of the following was NOT a member of the Dhar Commission?
a) Sir Reginald Dyer
b) Sir William Hunter
c) Sir Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad
d) Jawaharlal Nehru
4. What was the main criticism leveled against the Dhar Commission’s findings?
a) The commission failed to adequately investigate the role of the Indian National Congress.
b) The commission’s findings were biased in favor of the British government and exonerated the authorities.
c) The commission did not adequately consider the impact of the First World War on the Indian independence movement.
d) The commission’s report was poorly written and lacked clarity.
5. Which of the following events was a major catalyst for the establishment of the Dhar Commission?
a) The Salt Satyagraha
b) The Quit India Movement
c) The Jallianwala Bagh massacre
d) The Partition of India
Answers:
- a) To investigate the causes of the 1919 Punjab disturbances and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
- c) Sir Reginald Dyer
- d) Jawaharlal Nehru
- b) The commission’s findings were biased in favor of the British government and exonerated the authorities.
- c) The Jallianwala Bagh massacre