The Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act of 1919, popularly known as the Rowlatt Act, was a law that applied in British India. It was a legislative council act passed by the Imperial Legislative Council in Delhi on 18 March 1919, indefinitely extending the emergency measures of preventive indefinite detention, imprisonment without trial and judicial review enacted in the Defence of India Act 1915 during the First World War. It was enacted in the light of a perceived threat from revolutionary nationalists of re-engaging in similar conspiracies as had occurred during the war which the Government felt the lapse of the Defence of India Act would enable.[1][2][3][4][5]
rowlatt act 1919 pdf 35
The unpopular legislation provided for stricter control of the press[a] arrests without warrant,[b] indefinite detention without trial, and juryless in camera trials for proscribed political acts[c] The accused were denied the right to know the accusers[d] and the evidence used in the trial.[e][11] Those convicted were required to deposit securities upon release, and were prohibited from taking part in any political, educational, or religious activities.[11]On the report of the committee, headed by Justice Rowlatt, two bills were introduced in the Central Legislature on 6 February 1919.[12] These bills came to be known as "Black Bills". They gave enormous powers to the police to search a place[f] and arrest any person they disapproved of without warrant. Despite much opposition, the Rowlatt Act was passed on 18 March 1919. The purpose of the act was to curb the growing nationalist upsurge in the country. Under the Rowlatt act 1919, the chief justice was empowered to decide on the immediate custody of the accused between the trial and release on bail for smooth implementation of the act. The act also provides a penalty for disobedience of any order promulgated under sections 22 and 27 of the act, which is imprisonment for a maximum of six months or a fine of Rs. 500 or both.
Early in 1919 he was very ill. He had barely recovered from it when the Rowlatt Bill agitation filled the country. He also joined his voice to the universal outcry. But this voice was somehow different from others. It was quiet and low, and yet it could be heard above the shouting of the multitude; it was soft and gentle , and yet there seemed to be steel hidden away somewhere in it; it was courteous and full of appeal, and yet there was something grim and frightening in it; every word used was full of meaning and seemed to carry a deadly earnestness. Behind the language of peace and friendship there was power and quivering shadow of action and a determination not to submit to a wrong...This was something very different from our daily politics of condemnation and nothing else, long speeches always ending in the same futile and ineffective resolutions of protest which nobody took very seriously. This was the politics of action, not of talk.[19][excessive quote]
The Rowlatt Act came into effect on 21 March 1919. In Punjab the protest movement was very strong, and on 10 April two leaders of the congress, Dr. Satyapal and Saifuddin Kitchlew, were arrested and taken secretly to Dharamsala.[23][24]
The army was called into Punjab, and on 13 April people from neighbouring villages gathered for Baisakhi Day celebrations and to protest against deportation of two important Indian leaders in Amritsar, which resulted in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 1919.[25][26]
Rowlatt Acts: 1919. Named after the High Court Judge, the Act gave the police wide powers to decide which offences amounted to a conspiracy against the Government. It also provided for speedy trials, not by a jury, but by special tribunals. Those suspected were denied representation by a lawyer; there was no right of appeal.
Amritsar Massacre: 1919. A peaceful, unarmed crowd of men, women and children, gathered for a protest meeting at Jalianwala Bagh were fired upon by the order of the military commander, General Dyer. 379 died and 1,200 were wounded. Ironically Amristar province had contributed the highest number of men for the First World War.
Late in the afternoon on 13 April 1919, the British officer Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer, with 90 native troops under his command, entered the enclosure known as the Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar in Northern India. A crowd of several thousand civilians were gathered in the public garden to protest against the imprisonment of two local nationalist leaders by the colonial authorities. Riots had broken out in several cities in the region and, following the murder of five British civilians in Amritsar, a curfew had been introduced and all political rallies banned. Without prior warning, Dyer ordered his men to open up a sustained fire on the crowd, which lasted for ten minutes, during which some 1650 rounds were spent. According to the official figures 379 people were killed and 1200 wounded, although the actual casualties were probably much greater.
Wagner repeatedly attacks me for not swimming with the tide, for having a different view than people like himself, for being out of step with the mainstream. Quite. It is not the duty of historians to consolidate and repeat the prejudices of a current generation, but to investigate the past objectively and honourably. That Wagner can only respond to challenging new research with insults and disparaging comments indicates how prejudiced and reactionary he is; part of an academic clique that is not committed to uncovering the truth about Indian history, only reinforcing a highly dubious orthodoxy. Wagner allies himself with those who have for 60 years legitimised and defended the power of the winning side, the Congress Party, in India, and demonised anyone who dissents from this. That Wagner has absolutely nothing to say about the violence directed against the Indian people by the successor state since 1947, including the massacre at the Golden Temple in 1984 and the introduction of a form of martial law far worse than anything seen in 1919, tells us everything about his political sympathies as well as his selective historical amnesia. Wagner is the reactionary defender of an out-of-date ideology, not me.
A related point in the use of language. Wagner criticises my failure to reference an article by Ranajit Guha, and also decries my use of allegedly Raj-era terms in my book. The reason why I did not reference Guha was very simple. Nothing that Guha has written has been of any use in addressing the questions my book seeks to answer: how and why crowds formed in 1919; how the British responded; and in what ways the Government restored control. No amount of post-colonial theory can answer these questions, only extensive research in the archival record. The point here is that, no matter what descriptions were used by the British (or by me), there were mobs and violent rioters in 1919. They burnt banks, ripped up telegraph poles, wrecked railway lines, and killed Europeans in racially-motivated murders. These agitators, those who urged crowds to violence or committed it themselves, were wholly responsible for the bloodshed that followed, not the British. To deny this, or to hide behind theoretical deconstructions of language, is both pointless and factually incorrect.
Report, headed by Sidney Rowlatt, whose recommendations, including the stringent control of the press, the summary trial of political offenders by judges without trial, and the internment of persons suspected of subversive aims, led to the Rowlatt Act of 1919.
The 13 April 1919 Jallianwala Bagh Massacre (aka Amritsar Massacre) was an infamous episode of brutality which saw General Dyer order his troops to open fire on an unarmed crowd of men, women, and children trapped in an abandoned walled garden during a Sikh festival. At least 379 people died, and over 1,500 were injured in the massacre.
The Jallianwala Bagh massacre took place in the context of violent riots in April 1919 in the Punjab and elsewhere. The British authorities had lost control of Amritsar on 11 April, and Dyer had been sent by the Governor of Bengal to restore order. Dyer was unrepentant of his actions, thinking he had displayed the necessary force to prevent a further escalation in the civil unrest that had included the murder of five Europeans. An inquiry after the terrible massacre resulted in Dyer's dismissal from the army. The massacre was one of the most infamous episodes, perhaps the most infamous in the entire history of British colonial rule in India.
Then came the March 1919 Rowlatt Acts. Essentially, these acts allowed the British administration to continue to use the powers of control and imprisonment, which had been employed to repress protests during the World War. Indians were subject to imprisonment without cause, trial without a jury, and a range of punishments expressly designed to humiliate. On 8 April, Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), the central figure in the Indian independence movement, called for Indians to suspend work in response to the Rowlatt Acts. Many Indians followed Gandhi's call for peaceful civil disobedience, but the British stood firm and refused to repeal the Acts. There were riots, arson attacks, lootings, and clashes with police, including in Amritsar, a city in the Punjab, where a mob killed five British men on 10 April. There were other notable episodes of riots in Delhi and Ahmadabad. Gandhi was arrested, but he called for his supporters to show restraint, a plea many ignored. As a consequence of the unrest, no public gatherings of any kind were permitted.
Brigadier-General Reginald Edward Harry Dyer (1864-1927) was an India-born career solider of Irish descent who had served in Persia and was now back on duty in India. He was 55 in 1919 and nearing the end of his career. Dyer's decision-making had already been called into question in Persia when he had acted without orders in expanding British territory there. Only ill health had saved Dyer from the ignominy of dismissal in Persia, and, transferred back to India, he was given command of the 45th Brigade of the British Indian Army at Jalandhar. 2ff7e9595c
Comments