CHAPTER-II

HOME RULE MOVEMENT AND

The Home Rule League Movement, led by Lokamanya Tilak and Annie

Besant, was a serious challenge to the British Raj. Annie Besant, was inspired by

the Irish rebellion, started the Home Rule Movement in India, in September 1916.

The Movement spread rapidly in Tamil Nadu and branches of the Home Rule

League were established all over India. Bal Gangadhar Tilak wholeheartedly

supported this Movement. Rejoined force with Annie Besant, he persuaded the

Muslim League to support this Movement.

The Madras Mail, appealed to every European to acquaint the public in

England through his friends. In fact, the Home Rule Movement in India was

demanded only by the Brahmans and if it was granted, it would mean the suffering

of the major portion of the population of this country. The Desabhaktan, of the

26th January 1915, observed that “the Europeans have to do their work and act

upon the suggestion of the Mail. Some ‘loyal Indians’ also joined them. All the

same, we must have to do our duty. It was to contain will prove injurious to others.

The Brahmans did form the minority. But we did not see how this means that

Home Rule would be a rule by the Brahmans. Then, the Englishmen stayed in

India, of which they did not know anything, for some time and return to England

soon after they earned sufficient money”.

86
 “What interest has they in India and how can they have an idea of the true

condition of the people here? Under Home Rule, will there be a separate

compartment fir the Anglo - Indians in railway trains as is the case now? Will the

Brahmans then be paid a higher salary than other classes in Government

appointments, as the Europeans drew higher rates of pay than the Indians? Will

the rule, in force, that it was only Anglo - Indians and not others that could carry

arms continue then? We can surely say that all these things will not exist then.

Then again, the Mail remarks that there were a very few educated men in India

and that therefore the majority of the people had no idea of politics. How many

educated men were there in England when a democracy was established there and

how many are there now? It seems there was a woman in England who does not

know that a war was going on”.

How many were educated in Philippines when they came under the sway

of America? Is not the Mail aware of their having acquired Home Rule after

twenty years? We can quote numerous other instances. Sufficient has been the

drain of the blood of Mother India. She was very weak and emaciated and her

children too have woken up. Let the Anglo - Indians throw any number of

obstacles. There is the Almighty to help us”1. Referring to the efforts of the

Madras Mail, against the grant of Home Rule to India, Prapanchamitran, of the

29th January, observes; “We need not be afraid of the mischievous attempts of the

Mail. The British Government has promised to grant us Home Rule and we are

determined to have it. We shall not be afraid of the vain threats of the few British

1
Desabhaktan, Madras, 26th January 1918.

87
merchants and editors, who have grown fat over Indian money. Why have not the

Europeans here realized that our British Government entered into the War only to

safeguard the interests of Belgium? The Mail says that steps should be taken in

England to prevent any political reforms being granted to us, and we say that

Indians should not purchase anything, sold in European shops2.”

“Every Indian who has mentioned this subject to me has asked why the

Government does not state the grounds of its action, and to the plain man, it is

inexplicable why we should keep silent if we had a decently good care to put

forward. In the absence of any statement from the Government, Annie Besant was

able to make as believe that our action is directed against the Home Rule

Movement whereas it was nothing of the sort but was directed against her

systematic attempt to stir up racial feeling and animosity to the British

Government in India.”

“It is the belief, of fear, that we are attempting to stifle free political

discussion that is bringing to Annie Besant side thoroughly well-meaning and

moderate men such as Kesava Pillai and others. If it were announced that our

action is directed against Annie Besant’s violence of language and her systematic

attempt to stir up bad blood between the Government and the people on racial

grounds, she believed that might here abstain from supporting her.

“Wish that the attempt to convey information to the public, through the

Madras Mail had not been made, and cannot but record a very district opinion that

2
Prapanchamitran, Madras, 26thJanuary 1918.

88
it should not have been made except with the knowledge of all members of the

Government. The policy of silence has its grave defects grave defeat that it leaves

our friends, or possible friends, absolutely in the dark as to why we have acted,

and they are therefore a natural prey to every lie Mrs. Besant circulates75. She wills

no doubt, but at least we shall have even the intelligent section of the public a

chance of knowing our attitude, and believe that a good many would understand

and reject Annie Besant casuistries3.”

Annie Besant deposited the security of Rs. 5000, imposed by the

Government on the Vasanta Press, in the court of the District Magistrate at

Saidapet under protest, on 4th September 1916 and filed a petition on 6th September

in the High Court of Madras, against the order of the Government, declaring her

deposit forfeited. The Chief Justice had constituted special bench of three judges

and appointed 27th September 1916 for the hearing of the said application. The

Government requested the Advocate General, S. Srinivas Iyengar, to oppose

Annie Besant’s appeal in the High Court and make it clear to the Court that the

action of the Government against Besant, entirely based on her hostile campaign

against the British Government in India, through the Press and not against her free

discussion of political questions like the grant of Home for India. The details of

the petition of Annie Besant as well as the instructions of government to the

Advocate- General are given below.

3
H.F.M. Home Rule Movement files No. 7 (b). Vol. 64, 1914 – 1920, p. 117.

89
 The Home Rule Movement surges swept in the Madras Presidency. The

prominent politicians such as Subramaniya Iyer, T.V. Seshagiri Iyer, C.A. Natesan

and V.S. Srinivasa Sastri were the most enthusiastic advocates of the movement

in the Tamil speaking districts. The institutions such as the young Men’s India

Association, the Ramakrishna Mission and the Madras Mahajana Sabha had

served well in popularizing the Home Rule doctrines4. The student community

also supported the movement. Home Rule League branches were formed in

Adayar, Madras, Kumbakonam and some other places.5 The campaign for Home

Rule expanded into most of the Tamil speaking districts of the Presidency6.

In early 1915, Annie Besant launched a campaign through her two papers,

New India and Commonweal, and organized public meetings and conferences to

demand that India be granted self-government on the lines of the White colonies

after the War. From April 1915, her tone became more peremptory and her stance

more aggressive. Meanwhile, Lokamanya began his political activities, but not yet

saving gained admittance into the Congress, was careful that he did not in any way

alarm the Moderates or appear to be By- passing the Congress. This is clear from

the fact that at the meeting of his followers convened at Poona in May 1915, it

was decided that their initial Phase of action would be to set up an agency ‘to

enlighten the villagers regarding the objects and work of the Congress. The local

associations that were set up in many Maharashtra towns in August and September

4
Government Order No. 599 Home (Education) Department, Madras, 1st May 1917.
5
K. Sankari, History of Indian National Movement, India Publishers Distributors, Delhi, 2008,
p. 67.
6
Report of the Government of Madras, Fortnightly Report, 10th June 1916, TNA.

90
of that year also concentrated more on emphasizing the need for unity in the

Congress than on the steeping up of political activity. While sometimes resorting

to threats to pressurize the more conservative among the Moderates, Tilak still

hoped to persuade the majority to accept him because of his reasonableness and

caution.

His efforts and those of Annie Besant were soon to meet with success, and

at the annual session of the Congress in December 1915, it was decided that the

Extremists be allowed to rejoin the Congress. The opposition from the Bombay

Group had been greatly weakened by the death of Pherozeshah Mehta. But Annie

Besant did not succeed, in getting the Congress and the Muslim League, to support

her decision set up Home Rule Leagues.

Annie Besant did manage, however, to persuade the Congress to commit

itself to a programme of educative propaganda and to a revival of the local level

Congress Committees. Knowing that the Congress, as constituted at the time, was

unlikely to implement this, she had inserted a condition by which, if the Congress

did not start this activity by September 1916, she would be free to set up her own

League. Tilak, not bound by any such commitment, and having gained the right

of readmission, now took the lead and set up the Home Rule League at the Bombay

Provincial Conference held at. Belgaum in April 1916. Annie Besant’s impatient

followers, unhappy with her decision to wait till September, secured her

permission to start Home Rule groups. Jamnad Dwarkadas, Shankerlal Banker and

Indulal Yagnik set up a Bombay paper, Young India and launched an All India

Propaganda Fund, to publish pamphlets in regional languages and in English. In

91
September 1916, as there were no signs of any Congress activity, Annie Besant

announced the formation of her Home Rule League, with George Arundale, her

Theosophical follower, as the Organizing Secretary. The two Leagues avoided any

friction by demarcating their area of activity; Tilak’s League was to work in

Maharashtra, (Excluding Bombay City), Karnataka, the Central Provinces and

Berar, and Annie Besant’s League was given charge of the rest of India. The

reason the two Leagues did not merge was because, in Annie Besant’s words,

“some of his followers disliked me and some of mine disliked him. We, however,

had no quarrel with each other.7”

Annie Besant petition cutting from the Madras Mail:

Annie Besant filed a petition, in the original side of the High Court, against

the order of the Governor - in – Council, declaring the security of Rest. 2,000

deposited by her in respect of the New India printing works as forfeited. The

petitioner argued that the Chief of Madras Presidency Magistrate, having

dispensed with the deposit of any security, when the declaration with regard to

New India was made in the first instance, had exhausted his powers under Section

3(1) of the Press Act, that he could not cancel or vary the order, and that the order

dated the 22nd May, was illegal and unauthorized, as the Magistrate had no

jurisdiction to impose the security on the press wherein the paper was being

printed, as it was an old press8, which had been in existence as such prior 1910

and so no notice was served on the petitioner to show cause why a security should

7
H.F.M. Home Rule Movement files No. 7 (e) Vol.5, 1914-1920, p. 197.
8
Ibid, p. 198.

92
not be demanded, nor had the Magistrate brought his judicial mind to bear on the

question involved. No issue of new India contained any words, signs of visible

representation of the nature described in Section 4(1) or Section 3(2) of the Indian

Press Act, and the order of the Governor - in - Council, passed on the 25th August

was illegal, inasmuch as the said order purported to forfeit not only a particular

article or article complained or but also all issues of New India past and future.

The petition was we supported by an affidavit by Annie Besant, in the course of

which she set out the history of the printing press, and the orders served upon her,

and stated that no grounds existed, either for the forfeiture there of by the

Governor - in - Council9.

The credit for broadcasting, for the first time, the seeds of nationalism

belonged to Annie Besant. Within a year of the declaration of the War, she started

in Madras, as the Government themselves had put it, a red hot agitation for Home

Rule, which soon began to spread like wild fire, from District to District. She

commenced her campaign in March - April 1915, in a series of articles on Home

Rule, published in her Newspaper, the New India. India, she declared and asked

to be governed by her own men, freely elected by her, to make and break ministers

at will, to have her own army and navy to levy her own taxes, to frame her own

budget, to educate her own people in her own way. In short within her own borders

become a sovereign nation owing only allegiance to the Imperial Crown. And so

long as this was not attained, all her problems like the poverty of the masses,

9
Ibid, p. 199.

93
unemployment, the decay of industries and so forth, would remain unsolved, In

order to attain Swaraj.

Annie Besant organized a Home Rule League and preached everywhere

about Swadeshi, boycott of foreign goods, temperance, nation’s education, labor

welfare and responsible Government ideals, similar in essence to those

propounded by the Indian National Congress since 1885. In vain the Government

sent a friendly remonstrance to her to dissuade her from her course. In vain also

the Government proposed to the Government of India that drastic steps should be

taken to check her activities which were fraught with danger to the public peace.

In vain too, she was compelled to deposit security of her press, and shortly

afterwards, subjected to the penalty of forfeiting this security.

She continued her agitation with unabated vigor, attacked the Press Act,

appealed to the High Court, and thereby gained an immense popularity because,

though the court decided against her, it adjudged at the same time that, out of the

14 extracts of her articles which had been considered as seditious by the

Government, only two were really seditious. She then, with the help of G.S.

Arundale, the Organizing Secretary of the Home Rule League, began to motivate

the students and enlists their aid and sympathy. She condemned the existing

educational system as being backward, reactionary and unpatriotic, hailed the

students as the rising hope on India, who were destined to secure for the country

94
freedom from foreign yoke, instituted Home Rule classes for them, formed Boy

Scouts for them and took up their cause on every occasion.10

She turned the Theosophical Society, of which she was the President, into

a political organization, believing as she did that “all great national movements in

India are rooted in religion” and that the Home Rule Movement could not,

therefore, be an exception to this. Home Rule League, which looked upon itself as

an auxiliary to the Indian National Congress, now began to carry on an extensive

political propaganda.

Everywhere, both in the city and in the districts, speeches were delivered,

pamphlets were issued, and student strikes and demonstrations were staged and

all of which greatly disconcerted the Government and speedily led to the

internment of Besant and her associates, Arundale and Wadia, in the Nilgiris (June

1917). This did not, however, abate the ardor of the Movement contrary on their

increased its ardor.

A wave of resentment, against the Government, swept over the whole State

of Tamil Nadu. Protest meetings were held in every district, and leaflets in Indian

languages as well as picture post cards on Home Rule were widely distributed.

“The Olcott Lodge at Ootacamund, in which she fixed up her residence, became

a centre of pilgrimage for all sorts of intellectual and political workers. Thither

went continually, for instruction and inspiration men like S. Subramania Aiyer,

10
B.S. Baliga, Studies in Madras Administration, Vol. 1, Government of Madras, Madras, 1960,
p. 6.

95
C.P. Ramaswami Aiyer and Pattabhi Sitaramayya. Then came her release and the

release of her associates (September 1917) but these events failed to dampen the

Home Rule activities. Home Rule meetings continued to be held in the City and

in the Districts. Home Rule volunteers continued to carry on propaganda in towns

as well as villages and the Home Rule Monster Petition was signed by thousands

of people from all walks of life.11

The resolution, about Indian Home Rule, at the labour conference at

Nottingham, was withdrawn. Under those conditions, it was rather hard for Home

Rulers to say whether they approved the labour schemes or not. Home Rulers

could only say, like a distinguished military commander in days gone by, that if

the labour scheme contained the proposals of the Congress League Scheme, then

it was superfluous, but if it did not contain the details of the Congress League

scheme, then it is pernicious. In either case, they decided to oppose it.12

Everybody knew that the chief reason for the opposition to the cause of

Home Rule was the fear on the part of the Anglo - Indian merchants that their

profits and influence would be affected. The proceedings of the indo - British

Association and the writings of the Madras Mail confirmed this. The editor of the

Modern Review and Indians like R.C. Dutt proved the illusion of the Anglo -

Indian capital. “If there should be any such capital, it was laid out with a selfish

11
Ibid, p. 7.
12
Justice, Madras, 6th February 1918.

96
end. The Anglo - Indians are selfishly obstructing the Home Rule Movement. If

the Indians are resolute, such obstructions will certainly disappear. 13”

Home rule meeting at Ambasamudram

The proceedings of a public meeting, held at Ambasamudram in

Tirunelveli District, under the auspices of the local Home Rule League, contained

a resolution, condemning the statement, said to have been made by T. Nagar, at

the South Indian Non - Brahman Confederation, held on the 29th December 1917.

The agitators were carrying on their agitation at the instigation of Germany, as a

deliberate lie and a basely aspersion cast upon the patriots who were rendering

unselfish services to the country.14

Among the many reasons, pressed into service, by reactionary Anglo -

Indian journals in their selfish agitation against the extension of the political

privileges of the Indians, the most outstanding one was their anxiety that under a

Home Rule administration, the special consideration to their vested interests

would be a thing of the past. The Madras Mail remarked that Home Rule was a

menace to the prosperity of the British merchants. Indians were to be denied

forever the righty if managing their country’s affairs, under the benevolent

supervision of Great Britain because under a self - governing India, the British

merchants could not enjoy that favored treatment, which they were looking

forward all along as their special prerogative. The confession as to Home Rule

being a menace to the prosperity of the British merchants ought to make it clear

13
Andhrapatrika, Madras, 29th January 1918.
14
Swadesamithran, Madras, 10th January 1918.

97
to the British democracy that the agitation headed by Lord Sydenham, was based

on pure, unadulterated selfishness.15

To secure the stability of the British Government in India, the Home Rulers

wanted a government, responsible to the people, and the demand of the Home

Rulers was made, only with a view to helping the British Government of the day.16

Adverting to a statement, said to have been published in the Madras Mail,

that the Indian Home Rule resolution, brought before the Labour Conference at

Nottingham was thrown out through the efforts of Lord Sydenham, and to a

telegram recently received, giving the lie to the Madras Mail and confirming the

statement of New India which contradicted the Mail, the Desabhaktan, remarked

that the Madras Mail, which was conducted by an Anglo - Indian, ‘insults the well

- wishers of this country and extols those illiterate people who side the Anglo -

Indians. Their greatness consisted only in poisoning the minds of the British public

in England against the Indians’ The Desabhaktan and made the following

observations in the course of its address to the Home Rulers, anti - Home Rulers

and the Mail. ‘Oh Home Rulers! Spread the news everywhere that the Labour

Conference has accepted out tenet and is determined to carry it out. Beat the drum

of victory. Strive with perseverance. Do not forget that we can count upon God’s

help’. OH opponents of Home Rule! Have you not yet realized the truth? Will you

not give up your dogmatic views? You need not do well to the country. It is enough

if you refrain from throwing obstacles in the way of those doing well. This is the

15
United India and Native States, Madras, 14th February1918.
16
Desabhaktan, Madras, 1st February 1919.

98
only thing you have to do. Oh Madras Mail! What mischief you are doing! You

are thriving in India and yet you do harm to her. You spoke low of Montagu and

on behalf of all Musalman’s, the editor congratulates the Nawab, and hopes that

this royal appreciation of merit will prove to be the forerunner of higher honours

to come.17’

‘The presence of Sankaran Nayar in the Executive Council of the

Government of India is an eyesore to the Madras Mail, which abuses him always

under some pretext. It says that there is in the Government an enemy and that

everyone knows by what channel, the Home Rulers get information and advice. It

has not ventured to mention the name of the person whom it vilifies. Will not the

Press Act apply to it?18’ Subrahmaniya Aiyar, in his capacity as the President of

Indian Home Rule League, Madras, wrote a letter to the President of the United

States, which was sent on 24 June 1947, through Hotchner. That letter formed the

subject of an interpellation in the House of Commons. The reply of Montagu,

Secretary of State for India, was that he Government of India had informed

Subrahmaniya Aiyar that they viewed his action with surprise and regret. In view

of his great age, failing health and past judicial services, they did not propose to

take any further action. Subrahmaniya Aiyar would be warned that any repetition

of such conduct would not be condoned in future. Montagu himself referred to the

letter as “disgraceful”. As a protest, Subrahmaniya Aiyar renounced his titles of

17
Desabhaktan, Madras, 7th February 1918.
18
Andhrapatrika, Madras, 5th January 1918.

99
K.C.I.E. and Diwan Bahadur. The Letter of Subramaniya Aiyar was given great

publicity in the American press.

An India Home Rule League was established in New York, to support the

Home Rule Movement in India and to further friendly relations between the two

countries. The India Home Rule League had its headquarters at 1465 Broadway,

New York and it published a monthly journal, Young India, whose first issue

appeared in July 1918. The main object of the League was to place before the

outside world a true picture of the Indian situation which had hitherto been derived

from either British source or Christian19 missionaries. The Government of India

was carrying on propaganda against the people of India in the American press and

the Young India counteracted that propaganda.

A Home Rule League was established in London. It worked in cooperation

with the British Committee of the India National Congress and the British and the

India Association United India Society. The representatives of these bodies

appointed a Consultation Committee for the purpose of taking action in the

advocacy of the India demand for home rule. Annie Besant sent a message to the

British laborers in England. “We are demanding Home Rule as our birth right and

help us to become a free Commonwealth under the British Crown and we will

bring right our manpower to secure the world peace. Our people have died in your

war for freedom. Will you consent that the children of our dead shall remain a

subject race?” The result of the activities of the Home Rule Leagues was that

19
Vidya Dhar Mahajan, The Nationalist Movement in India, Sterling Publication, Delhi, 1979,
p. 216.

100
eminent Americans and Englishman wrote and spoke for self- government in

India.

A Committee of Members of Parliament was formed in London, for the

purpose of pressing forward the claims of India for self-government. In 1918, the

Labor Party Conference at Nottingham unanimously passed a resolution in favor

of Home Rule for India.20 In July 1917, Mrs. Besant was arrested in Madras. The

Home Rulers of the District felt angry over it and their indignation against the

British rose up. They continued their protest with much vigor.

The protest was more intense in towns like Cuddalore, Chidambaram and

Tindivanam and some villages like Omandur and Puduchathiram near Cuddalore.

At this stage, the Movement had gained a mass base and the Home Rule surge

inspired many minds in the District.21 By 1917, the Home Rulers held twenty third

Madras Provincial Political Conference in Cuddalore22. Besant herself came to

South Arcot District to attend the Conference which has held in Cuddalore on 9

May 1917 and also carried on effective propaganda for Home Rule23.

Meanwhile, in England, Lord Pentland had ridiculed the idea of Home Rule

in a public speech. Tilak took it up as a challenge and advised the Congress all

over India, not only to make vigorous protest but also to prepare for a monster

20
Ibid, p. 217.
21
Swadesamitran, 1st August 1917.
22
Report of the Government of Madras, Fortnightly Report, 31st May 1917. (TNA).
23
B.S. Baliga, Madras District Gazetteers - South Arcot District, Government of Madras,
Madras, 1962, p. 96.

101
petition urging upon the Secretary of State to grant Home Rule to India 24. As a

result, the local Home Rulers started an intensive drive to collect signatures for

the petition. A large number of Besant’s supporters, all over the District, signed

in the petition in a casual way. This proved the people’s awareness of Home Rule

and the surge for political freedom.25

In August 1917, the British Government made its historic announcement

that a responsible Government for India was its goal. There can be hardly any

doubt that it was the direct result of the Home Rule Movement. At this juncture

Annie Besant dropped her Movement automatically.26 The people of South Arcot

District gave up their active political protest. However, they continued their link

with regional politics. For instance, in December, when the annual conference of

the Madras Presidency Association was held in Madras, C.N. Dhandapani Pillai

attended the Conference as the representative delegate from South Arcot District.

The Conference discussed the political problems of the day and passed a

resolution, exhorting the people to render their cooperation for the general uplift

of India. This resolution was proposed by Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, seconded by B.P.

Wadia and supported by C.N. Dhandapani Pillai. It must be mentioned here that

C.N. Dhandapani Pillai had associated himself with Thiru V. Kalyanasundara

Mudaliar, Sarojini Naidu, and B.P. Wadia, M. Singaravelu Chettiar,

24
R.C. Majumdar (Ed.), Struggle for Freedom the History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol.
XI, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1978, p. 253.
25
Report of the Government of Madras, Fortnightly Report, 2nd November 1917.
26
R.C. Majumdar, op. cit., p. 256.

102
C.Rajagopalachari and other prominent politicians. The people of South Arcot

continued to have link with political events in 191827.

In November 1918, the British arrested Bharathi when he was about to

escape from Pondicherry, and imprisoned him at Cuddalore jail. There was wide

spread protest in the District against the arrest of Bharathi. The prominent

Congressmen and famous lawyers of the District such as Sadagopalachariyar and

Nataraja Iyar even petitioned the district magistrate of Cuddalore for the

immediate release of Bharathi. 28The Home Rule Movement came to an end, the

impression which the Movement left, on the local congress leaders like

O.P.Ramasamy, V.Srinivasachari and C.N.Dhandapani Pillai was ever alive with

them. They observed the Home Rule Anniversary every year. The anniversary

celebration, which was held in September 1920 at Vengandur, a village in

Tindivanam Taluk deserves special mention because ThiruV.Kaliyanasundara

Mudaliar took the chair and delivered a speech meant to provoke national feeling

among the attendants of the meeting29.

No home rule necessary for India

A correspondent of the Dravidan, of the 2nd August (1917) presented

arguments to prove that considering the numerous benefits the people of India

have derived after the advent of the British Rule, there is no necessity whatever

for the grant of Home Rule. Our British Government should keep quiet so that

27
G.O. No. 273, Public (Ordinary) Department, 18th December 1918, TNA.
28
G.O. No. 1131, Public (Confidential) Department, 18th December 1918, TNA.
29
Desabhaktan, 12th March 1920.

103
those who demand Home Rule may continue their vain, cry and give it up. If on

the other land, Home Rule is granted, woe unto the country30.

The Swadesamitran and the Hindu Nesan, of the 10th August, published in

Tamil, the Proceedings of public meeting, held in the Gokhale Hall, under the

auspices of the Madras Home Rule League, on the 9th idem, to welcome Sivakami

Ammal and Messrs. Deobhanker and Shiva Rao who have come to Madras to

work for Home Rule31.

The activities of the home rulers

A correspondent of the Tamilan, of the 15th August, contributed an article

in which he referred to the internment of Mrs. Besant and others, under the

Defense of India Act and the fear entertained by men like Sir S.Subramaniya

Ayyar and Tikak that they would also be interned According to this article the best

policy for the Government will be to put down every one, whoever he may be,

that causes intense excitement in the country. It is necessary that our Government

of India and the Local Government should take prompt steps in the matter. It is

owing to their delay that even the old men in village are being taught to claim

Home Rule. It is only 10 percent of the people that are educated in India, and so

the majority have no idea whatever of politics. Some seditionists spoil their minds

by sweet words. These people, instead of speaking the truth, find fault with the

30
Histories of Freedom Movement File.H.F.M, 61, B, Vol., II, 1917. (TNA).
31
Ibid.

104
Government and poison the minds of the villagers. I hope the Government will

move swiftly in interning all these under the Defense of India Act32’.

The turning point in the Movement came, with the decision of the

Government of Madras in June 1917 to place Mrs. Besant and her associates, B.P.

Wadia and George Arundale, under arrest. Their internment became the occasion

for nationwide protest. In a dramatic gesture, Sir S. Subramania Ayyar renounced

his knighthood. Those who had stayed away, including many Moderate leaders

like Madan Mohan Malaviya, Surendranath Banerjee and M.A. Jinnah, now

enlisted themselves as members of the Home Rule Leagues, to record their

solidarity with the internees and their condemnation of the Government’s action.

At a meeting of the AICC on 28 July, 1917, Tilak advocated the use of the weapon

of passive resistance or civil disobedience if the Government refused to release

the internees. The proposal for adopting passive resistance was sent, for comment,

to all the Provincial Congress Committees, and while Berar and Madras were

willing to adopt it immediately, most of the others were in favour of waiting for

more time before taking a decision. At Gandhiji’s instance, Shankerlal Banker and

Jamnadas Dwarkadas collected signatures of one thousand men willing to defy the

internment orders and march to Besant’s place of detention. They also began to

collect signatures of a million peasants and workers, on a petition for Home Rule.

They made regular visits to Gujarat towns and villages and helped found branches

of the League. In short, repression only served to harden the attitude of the

agitators and strengthen their resolve to resist the Government. Montague, writing

32
The Tamilan, 15th August 1917.

105
in his Diary, commented: “Shiva cut his wife into fifty two pieces only to discover

that he had fifty two wives. This is really what happens to the Government of India

when it interns Mrs. Besant.”33

The Swadesamitran, of the 24th August, publishes from the pen of a

correspondent, the proceedings of a meeting held at Kumbakonam, on the 21st

idem, under the auspices of this league, when Mr. Tiruvengadath Iyengar is

reported to have observed that by Home Rule the people were only urging for the

grant of more powers to their representatives and for the consultation by the

government of the opinion of the people prior to the enactment of any legislation

undertaken by them.34

The Swadesamitran, of the 28th August, also published the proceedings of

a public meeting held, under the auspices of this League at Mannargudi, when

Mr.Sri Ram was reported to have addressed the audience, and in the course of his

observation, he was reported to have stated that Home Rule was the ideal of the

Indian people and the first duty of the Indians was to regain the freedom of speech

and the liberty of the press.35

The Swadesamitran, of the 4th September, published an abstract of the

proceedings of a meeting held under the auspices of the Swarajya Samajam at

Trichinopoly, in which Mr. Chandrasekhara Ayyar, a member of the Madura

District Congress Committee, and M.S. Manteswara Sharma, a member of the

33
B.S. Baliga, Studies in Madras Administration, Vol. 1, op. cit, p. 7.
34
The Swadesamitran, 24th August 1917.
35
The Swadesamitran, 28th August 1917.

106
Provincial Congress Committee, Madras, were reported to have addressed the

audience on “Students and Motherland” and “Our duty to the Motherland at the

Present Juncture,” respectively. In the course of his speech, the latter was said to

have condemned the contemporary policy of the Government, and advocated the

taking of the Swadeshi Vow, the boycott of foreign articles and the adoption of

the method of passive resistance, as the means of reforming this policy36.

The Swadesamitran, of the 4th September, published, from the pen of its

own correspondent, the proceedings of a public meeting held at Tiruvarur on the

2nd idem, under the auspices of this League, in which Rao Bahadur

K.S.Venkatarama Ayyar, the president of the meeting, was reported to have, in

his introductory remarks, explained to the audience the objects of Home Rule

Leagues, while the other speakers were said to have addressed them on the present

political situation, the reforms suggested by the Congress and the Muslim League

and the necessity for the grant of Home Rule to India. In the course of his

concluding speech, the President was reported to have stated that ‘the time has

come for the grant of powers they have been enjoying, that the objects of the Home

Rule Leagues are not objectionable, that it is not the intention of these Leagues

that the British Government should quit this country and that by the adoption of

the policy of passive resistance, it is not their intention to do anything prejudicial

to the interests of the Government’.

36
The Swadesamitran, 4th September 1917.

107
 The Hindu Nesan, of the 5th September, published the proceedings of a

public meeting, held at Tiruvarur on the 2nd September, 1917, under the presidency

of Rao Bahadur K.S. Venakatarama Ayyar.37

The Swadesamitran, of the 7th September, published in Tamil, the

proceedings of a public meeting, held at Kulithalai on the 4th September 1917,

under the auspices of this League, when the Hon’ble Rao Bahadur V.K. Ramanuja

Achariyar was reported to have addressed the audience, in Tamil, on Home Rule38.

The Dravidan, of the 11th September, published the proceedings of

the public meeting, held at Coimbatore, on the 8th idem under the auspices of the

local Home Role League, in which Dwarakadas, the editor of the Young India of

Bombay, was reported to have addressed the audience, on the contemporary

situation, in the course of which he was said to have spoken of the internments

and the adoption of the policy of passive resistance if the persons interned were

not released soon. Many students were reported to have been present at this

meeting39.

Referring to the hoisting of Home Rule flags, at the premises of Home Rule

Leagues in several places, the Swadesamitran of the 5th September, reported:

‘Hoisting of flags is a practice which has been observed in all countries and at all

times. A flag is hoisted to signify the faith of a particular party. When an idol is

taken in procession, with a standard, bearing the representation of the figure of

37
Ibid & The Hindu Nesan, 4th September 1917.
38
The Swadesamitran, 7th September 1917.
39
The Dravidan, 11th September 1917.

108
Nandi carried in front of it that standard, signifies only the Saivite faith but does

not signify any hatred towards the Vaishnavite faith. Similarly, the Home Rule

flag represents only the tenets of the Home Rule League but no hatred towards the

British Rule. Just as the flag carried by a party, going to the battlefield, reminds

every individual therein of the object of his party and inspired in him an

enthusiasm for work and just as these men will not allow themselves to be

dispossessed of it so long as they live, the Home Rule. Flag also reminds the

members of the Home Rule League of their desire to acquire Home Rule flag also

reminds the members of the Home Rule League if their desire to acquire Home

Rule and infuses in them an enthusiasm to work for its attainment. In the

procession, on the 16th August 1917 in Kumbakonam, the Home Rule flag was

carried with the Union Jack just above it, and this shows clearly that the object of

the Home Rule League is the attainment of the Home Rule under the British

Rule40. Gobichettipalayam Dr.Varadarajulu Naidu’s speech, according to the local

correspondent of the paper, was calculated to create hatred towards the

Government and wound the feelings of the sympathizers of the Dravidians. 20th

September 1917, Dr. Subramania Ayyar’s speech at the meeting in Gokhale Hall,

was vehement. He condemned the internment decision of the Government 41.

Home Rule Meetings

The Swadesamitran, of the 27th November, published the proceedings of a

public meeting, held at Trichinopoly, on the 24th idem, under the auspices of the

40
The Swadesamitran, 5th September 1917.
41
The Dravidan, 9th September 1917.

109
local District Congress Committee, when Dewan Bahadur Desika Achariyar, the

president of the meeting was stated to have remarked that the Government did not

pay heed to the legitimate demands of the people during the last 35 years.

Resolutions were passed at this meeting, welcoming Mr. Montagu, supporting the

Congress League Scheme of reforms and condemning the agitation of the Anglo

- Indians against the Home Rule Movement42.

The home rule movement and union

The Desabhaktan, of the 11thDecember, reported: the desire for Home

Rule, which has long been almost concealed in the heart of mother India, is

becoming patent now and is growing actively day by day. Whether India acquires

Home Rule soon or late, the active desire for it will newer disappear and it will go

on increasing until Home Rule is obtained. If we sincerely represent to

government our true opinions, they have no reason whatever to be provoked by it.

It is only if we do not do this; there is the possibility of the government believing

the falsehood carried to them by a few selfish persons and getting disgusted with

the people. It is when the rulers and the ruled do not understand each other

correctly, that the peace of the country is disturbed and an anarchist spirit crops

up. So we are bound to remain loyal and devoted to our Government and, pointing

out our grievances to them by peaceful means, co - operate with them in rooting

out anarchism. The majority of our English brethren are, of course, aware, by their

long association with us, that we will never do anything to disturb peace of the

country’.

42
The Swadesamitran, 27th September 1917.

110
 ‘Some Englishmen, who are even intent on doing injury to India, sent false

information to England that the Indians were always quarrelling with our union,

that they would even go to the extent of committing murders and that those who

come to India for holding high appointments, could hardly expect to return home.

But their object has not been completely fulfilled. The people in England have

been convinced of the sincere loyalty of the Indians, from the sacrifices made by

the latter in the present War. They are also aware of the assurance of the Indians

that if the Government would give up their suspicion and distrust of the Indians

and act impartially, without treating the Indians differently from the Englishman,

they would all of them fight for England and gain a victory. So what we want is

that we should acquire Home Rule under the British authority, by peaceful means

and by the co - operation of the rulers and the ruled43’.

A home rule meeting

The Swadesamitran, of the 29th December, published the proceedings of a

public meeting, held in the Tanjore District, under the auspices of the local Home

Rule League in which the Tamil rendering of Mrs. Besant’s presidential address,

was read out and resolutions were passed, among other things, supporting the

Congress League Scheme of reforms, expressing the opinion of those assembled

that the grant of anything less than that would not satisfy the people, condemning

the repressive policies followed by the Government in connection with

43
The Desabhaktan, 11th December 1917.

111
constitutional political agitation in this country and praying for the prompt release

of Messrs. Muhammad Ali, Shaukat Ali and others44.

What is home rule?

The Desabhaktan, of the 2nd January, reported: some people give a curious

interpretation to Home Rule and declare it to mean the driving away of the

Englishmen, our present rulers, and governing the country ourselves. Our Home

Rule agitation is not conducted with that idea. No one can deny that the Indians

are the most loyal people and therefore nothing can be farther from the truth than

the statement that they have now risen against the Government. The allegation

that the Home Rule agitation was started only two or three years back and that the

Indians were sleeping before that, is again an unfounded one. The idea that India

should one day attain her freedom, has been expressed by more than one statesman

till now and that they all admit that the aim of the English rule in India is to grant

self-government to her, the main duties of a Government are the protection of the

country from foreign invasion, having the required army always ready, the

maintenance of internal peace of the country, the levy of reasonable taxes and

spending the same for the comforts of the people, encouraging trade, industries

and agriculture and thereby improving the condition of the country, providing the

necessary facilities of trading with foreign countries, etc. if a question is asked,

whether all these things are not being done by the British Government, or cannot

be done by them, we will say that they cannot be done. By this, we should not be

taken to find fault with the British Government’.

44
The Swadesamitran, 29th December 1917.

112
 ‘When a country is ruled by foreigners, though the rulers may conduct the

Government well, without wounding the feelings of the ruled, they cannot

sacrifice themselves for the country over which they rule. It is quite natural that

they should side with their motherland. Thus if a foreign race does not govern a

country well, it is not their fault but the fault of nature. Coming to the practical

question as to what benefits the British Government are not conferring on India

now and in what ways they are injuring it, the following may by mentioned among

the reforms which they have failed to introduce. India has no navy of her own, nor

have the Government evinced an interest in the matter of improving the ship -

building industry. It is said to have begun to decline only after the advent of British

rule. They have not yet given the higher appointments in the army to the Indians.

Equal rights have been given to Europeans and Indians alike in accordance with

the proclamation of Queen Victoria issued in the year 1858. The amount collected

as taxes in India is not spent solely for the benefit of this country’45.

The home rule movement and the methods of the government

The Swadesamitran, of the 27th June recapitulated ‘the different acts of

repression of the Provincial Governments against the popular leaders, which

indicate, in the opinion of this paper, nothing but the fact that the authorities are

not in favour of the Home Rule Movement and repeats that, whatever may be the

view of the authorities, it is not compatible with statesmanship, to subject the

patriots, now engaged throughout the country in the agitation for Home Rule, to

45
The Desabhaktan, 2nd January 1918.

113
repressive measures and that such action will not be conducive to the benefits of

the country’46.

The home rule movement and Zamindars

The Dravidan of the 2nd July issue, welcomed the manifesto, issued by

some Zamindars, denying the approval by the Zamindars as a class, of the Home

Rule agitation now conducted and stated that Messrs. K.V.Rangaswamy

Ayyangar and K.R.V. Krishna Rao, who were identifying themselves with the

Home Rule Movement, should not be taken to voice forth the views of this

community they claimed to represent, in the imperial and provincial legislative

councils47.

Adverting to the manifesto, issued by certain Zamindars, dissociating

themselves from the Home Rule Movement, some Zamindars did not deny that

India should have Home Rule and that proper efforts should be made, to have it

in course of time. It is to be noted that Zamindars, with very few exceptions, were

all along keeping aloof from the agitation carried on by the Congress and the

Muslim League, throughout the country, for the advancement of the Indians.

Hence this opinion, expressed unanimously by a number of Zamindars that India

should be granted Home Rule in course of time doubtless provided satisfaction to

the nationalists. There may be attained. Therefore, it was quite natural that the

Zamindars, whose conduct was always characterized by caution while expressing

their opinion, in writing, about a high political ideal, which was likely to affect

46
The Swadesamitran, 27th June 1917.
47
The Dravidan, 2nd July 1917.

114
the position of the Government of India, had stated that this ideal could be attained

only gradually, in course of time Nevertheless, nationalists. Appreciated the action

of the Zamindar community for the first time, entered into the political arena and

advocated the ideal of Home Rule. Zamindars also had expressed the opinion that

the political reforms, necessary for the gradual attainment by the Indians of Home

Rule, should be introduced, When the grant of political reforms, after the War was

demanded by the Congress and the Muslim League, till now, the bureaucrats were

adducing the argument that no one else but the educated classes wished for such

reforms and allowed time to pass by. There was no longer any room for such

excuse. Why should the Government of India now raise any objection to publish

that the grant of Home Rule, to the Indians was the aim of their administration and

that they would, without delay, grant certain executive privileges in view of the

accomplishment of this aim48.

During 1918, however, various factors combined to diffuse the energies

that were concentrated in the agitation for Home Rule. The Movement, instead of

going forward after the great advance in 1917, gradually dissolved. For one, the

Moderates, who had joined the Movement after Besant’s arrest, were pacified by

the promise of reforms and by Besant’s release. They were also put off by the talk

of Civil Disobedience and did not attend the Congress from September 1918

onwards. The publication of the scheme of Government Reforms, in July 1918,

further divided the nationalist ranks. Some wanted to accept it outright and others,

to reject it outright, while many felt that though inadequate, they should be given

48
The Swadesamitran, 4th July 1917.

115
a trial. Annie Besant herself indulged in a lot of vacillation on this question as well

as on the question of passive resistance. At times, she would disavow passive

resistance, and at other times, under pressure from her younger followers, would

advocate it. Similarly, she initially, along with Tilak, considered the reforms

unworthy of Britain to offer and India to accept, but later argued in favour of

acceptance. Tilak was more consistent in his approach, but given Besant’s

vacillations, and the change in the Moderate stance, there was little that he could

do to sustain the Movement on his own. Also, towards the end of the year, he

decided to go to England, to pursue the libel case that he had filed against

Valentine Chirol, the author of Indian Unrest, and was away for many critical

months. With Annie Besant unable to give a firm lead, and Tilak away in England,

the Movement was left leaderless. The tremendous achievement of the Home Rule

Movement and its legacy was that it created a generation of ardent nationalists

who formed the backbone of the national movement in the coming years when,

under the leadership of the Mahatma, it entered its truly mass phase. The Home

Rule Leagues also created organizational links between town and country, which

were to prove invaluable in later years. And further, by popularizing the idea of

Home Rule of self - government, and making it a commonplace thing, it generated

a widespread pro-nationalist atmosphere in the country. By the end of the First

World War, in 1918, the new generations of nationalists, aroused to political

awareness and impatient with the pace of change, were looking for a means of

expressing themselves through effective political action. The leaders of the Home

Rule League, who themselves were responsible for bringing them to this point,

were unable to show the way forward.

116
 The stage was thus set for the entry of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, a

man who had already made a name for himself, with his leadership in the struggle

of Indians in South Africa and by leading the struggles of Indian peasants and

workers in Champaran, Ahmedabad and Kheda. And in March 1919, when he has

a call for a Satyagraha, to protest against the obnoxious ‘Rowlatt’ Act, he was the

rallying point for almost all those, who had been awakened to politics, by the

Home Rule Movement.

The Tamil press and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre

The role of press and journals had much significance in bringing the

information relating to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre to the public. The writings

on the same in the form of articles, poems, cartoons. Touched the people, moved

their mind, and created a new situation in the political development in India.

The event that tuned the course of history of India and created a great

change in the minds of Indians and remained a source of spirit for the National

Movement was the Jalianwala Bagh Tragedy. Gandhi, the cooperator to the British

government during the First World War, became non-co-operator. The shape of

the Rowlatt Satyagraha of Gandhi was radically changed overnight by the

turbulent event held at Jallianwala Bagh at Amritsar in Punjab and the historical

event thus proved to be a turning point in the course of Indian National

Movement49.

49
V. Venkatraman, Towards Independence, Rajapalayam, 2004, p. 48.

117
 Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, involved the killing of hundreds of unarmed,

defenseless Indians by a senior British military officer, took place on 13 April

1919 in the heart of Amritsar, the holiest city of the Sikhs, on a day sacred to them

as the birth anniversary of the khalsa, founded by guru go bind Singh in 1699 was

destined to be another historic day in 1919. From time immemorial Baisakhi has

been celebrated in north-western India with great enthusiasm, in Amritsar, the city

being a sacred place for Sikhs and Hindus alike. On this day thousands of men,

women and children come to Amritsar from far wide, take a dip in the Tank of

Nectar and after having darshan of Har Mandir (Golden Temple), return to their

homes. The practice of holding a Horse Fair on the eve of Baisakhi had also come

to stay. Jallianwala, a garden belonging to the Jalla, derives name from that of the

owners of this piece of land in Sikh times. It was then the property the family of

Sardar Himmat Singh a noble in the court of Maharaja Ranjit Singh who originally

came from the village of Jalla, now in Fatehgarh Sahib District of the Punjab. The

families were collectively known as Jallhevale or simply Jallhe or Jalle, although

their principal seat later became Alavarpur in Jalandhar district. The site, once a

garden or garden house, was in 1919 an uneven and unoccupied space, an irregular

quadrangle, indifferently walled, approximately 225x180 meters which was used

more as a dumping ground. Long before 1919, house was built all around the

Bagh with their back walls towards it. Only on southern side, for a small length,

there was no house, and instead there was a small stretch of low boundary wall,

about five feet high. There were only four or five narrow lanes leading in to the

Bagh-each hardly there or four feet wide. The Bagh contained one small ‘Samadh’

towards the southern side and an open well of quite a big circumference towards

118
its eastern boundary50. It is also a noteworthy point about the Bagh of those days

that the level of its land was not even.

The Swadesamitran, of the 28th April, 1919, points to the spread of unrest

in the Punjab, while it has subsided in Ahmedabad and the extension of martial

law to several new districts and referring to the question raised by the leader

whether it is due to the system of administration followed by Sir Michael O’Dwyer

for the last six years, asks if the government of India will ascertain by means of

an impartial committee the true reason of the excitement of the people of that

province51.

The Swadeshamitran, of the 7th May, refers to the statement in the preamble

to the emergency law promulgated by the Government on the 15th April last, that

the governor- General in council is satisfied that there exists a state of open

rebellion contravening the authority of the Government and observes:-it is the duty

of the British Cabinet and the parliament to appoint the commission to enquire

into and report, to the satisfaction of the public, whether there was a state of

rebellion in the Punjab as to necessitate the introduction of martial law, and hope

they will discharge this duty promptly52.

The Desabhaktan, of the 13th May, refers to the refusal of the permission

sought by the editors of six Indian newspapers to send Mr. Andrews to the Punjab

as their representative to ascertain the things for himself and says;-there is a loud

50
Raja Ram, The Jalianwala Bagh Massacre, Chandigarh, Second Edition, 1978, p. 86.
51
The Swadesamitran, Madras, 28th April 1919.
52
The Swadesamitran, Madras, 7th May 1919.

119
complaint throughout the country that the actions of sir Michael O’ Dwyer and

military authorities in the Punjab are indeed awful. It appears the people there are

suffering indescribable hardships. The refusal, therefore, of permission by the

authorities to grant the above request of the Indian editors at such a juncture, will

not create great dissatisfaction in the country but also a feeling of anxiety about

the condition of the people there. It is necessary that the viceroy should interfere

in this matter and do justice. If he would be mediating on the heights of Shimla

leaving the Punjab in the hands of Sir Michael O’ Dwyer and the military

authorities in the Punjab are in consonance with justice and equity, and are such

as cannot be found fault with by any impartial man, why should not Mr. Andrews

be permitted to see with his own eyes this is the every reason why we have to

doubt the justice obtaining in the Punjab and our doubts will only become stronger

hereafter. According to the martial law now prevailing in the Punjab we think no

one from another province can step into it we need not dilate upon the equity of

this rule.

The Desabhaktan criticized that the Government refused permission of

Indian newspapers to allow Mr. Andrews to the Punjab. It also requested the

viceroy to interfere in the Punjab tragedy53.

The Desabhaktan, of the 26th May, remarks that Sir Michael O’ Dwyer is

solely responsible for the present condition of the Punjab and that Indians in

general and the people of Punjab in particular will never forget his name and

53
The Desabhaktan, Madras, 13th May 1919.

120
observes;-we hope that hereafter at least God will save us from such ‘strong’ men

becoming governors of provinces in India it is only those that establish British

justice ad equity and move with the Indians with the feeling of live that deserve to

become governors54.

Swadesamitran

The article entitled “the condition of Punjab” was published on 25thApril

1919 Swadesamitran the paper raised the query. “Does the law permit innocent

people being killed like this?”55 The paper condemned the military action in which

many people were killed. The Government regarded this publication as

objectionable, demanded a Security of Rs.2000 from the publisher of the paper

under section 4(1) of the Indian Press Act, 191056.

The Swadesamitran, the nationalist paper, cautioned the government that

the repression would not go together with the introduction of Mont ford reform;

in its issue dated 2nd may 191957. It also published in its issue of 8 May 1919; an

article entitled “the agony of Punjab” which brought the official atrocities in the

Punjab. It condemned the action of Dyer and Michel O’ Dwyer on the ground that

they sought to crush the struggle of freedom.”58 Government of madras demanded

a security of Rs. 2000 from its publisher and printer under section 4 (1) of Indian

54
The Desabhaktan, Madras, 26th May 1919.
55
Public G.O. No. 119, (Confidential), 17th February 1919.
56
Public G.O. No. 318, 2nd June 1919.
57
R. Parthasarathi, Hundred Years of the Hindu, Madras, 1986, p. 25.
58
The Hindu, Madras, 8th May 1919.

121
Press Act of 191059 an article published in the Desabaktan, Madras in its issue of

6th May 1921, under title Repression referring to government policy. It

commented that the government was pending 60 cores of rupees for saving one

wretched Dyer, a useless man, who killed thousands of young bold in Punjab. The

government of Madras initiated action under section 124 A of I.P. against T.V.

Kalyanasundara Mudaliar, the editor of the paper Desabakhtan in respect of the

article published on 6th May 192160.

Right from the split of the Indian National congress, extremism and

militant nationalism raised their head. The criticism on the government and the

demand of self-Government made the government to take firm measures against

the political leaders. Action was taken against agitators under the Defense India

Act of March 1915. The activities of the Home Rule League were curtailed under

the Indian press Act of 1910. Tilak was prosecuted on the charge of delivering the

seditious speeches. Tilak and Annie Besant were prevented from entering the

Punjab as the Lt. Governor Michael O’ Dwyer regarded the programmes of the

home rule movement as revolutionary in their character and also they were

subversive of the existing constitution. After the Montague Declaration, 1917 the

Home Rule Movement lost its influence.

In this situation the Rowlatt Satyagraha under the leadership of Gandhi was

thereat to the British government and it decided to take stern measures. Gandhi

protested against the Rowlatt Act and started the Satyagraha movement. It was

59
Fortnightly Report, Second Half of May 1919.
60
Public G.O. No. 489 (Confidential), 2nd August 1921.

122
based on Ahimsa. But the government decided to crush the resultant mass

awakening by adopting the terrorist methods”.61Dyer had never visited the Bagh

before. The meetings were going on in the Jallianwala Bagh. He saw a vast crowd

there. Dr. Kitchlew was presiding over the meeting. Captain Briggs estimated the

crowd to be five thousands. But, about 20000persons were present it the Bagh at

that time. Dyer did not give any warning to the people. He at once deployed

General then instantly ordered them to open fire. The bullets began to take toll of

lives.

The Jallianwala Bagh event changed the mind of even the well sympathy

on the grieved and on the other had that created doubt on the fairness of the British

rule. The repression went to unprecedented extent. This gave an impetus to the

national movement and quickened the pace of the Indian struggle towards the

independence. No other event had done before as what the Jallianwala Bagh

tragedy did. The true colour of the British Government was exposed to the people.

The Government took much precaution by not allowing the political leader

and journalists to Amritsar or to visit the Jallianwala Bagh spot. As contemporary

press and journals were absent over the tragedy prove the fact that there would

have been a great threat to the press and the journalists to publish the tragedy.

Most of the journals published the matters either relating to the Martial law or

other Government policies not on the massacre. Besides there were certain madras

based journals namely the Tamil Nadu, the Sudanthira Sangu, the Ooliyan, the

61
Raja Ram, op. cit, p. 113.

123
Swarajya, The Swadesamitran, the Congress, the Lokpakari, the Navasakthi,

Desabaktan condemned the atrocities committed in the Punjab by General Dyer.

Tamil Nadu had leaders like C. Rajagopalachari, Kasthuriranga lyengar

and Vijayaraghavachari. Gandhi visited Madras and only after the consultation

with C. Rajagopalachari he postponed the Satyagraha date from 30thApril to 6th

May 1919. After the Punjab massacre, the Regional congress Committee met in

madras under the president ship of Kasturiranga Iyengar, decided the proposals to

be placed in the all India National congress which was to be held in December,

1919 at Amritsar Hence, the leading and active role played by the leaders of

Madras Presidency was evident.

The British rule showed its might on the innocent people, who gathered at

the Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar on 13th April, 1919, by firing. But was a death-

knell to the British rule. Perhaps the event seemed to have a success to their rule.

But it was not the British might have elated that they had won by might but the

British was won be the right means of Non-violence and Satyagraha which

convinced the British to leave India without a grief but by love and affection,

continuing the friendly relations with India.

The site, Jallianwala Bagh became a national place of pilgrimage. Soon

after the tragic happenings of the Baisakhi day in 1919 a committee was formed

with Pandit Madanmohan Malaviya as president to raise a befitting memorial to

perpetuate the memory of the martyrs. The Bagh was acquired by the nation on 1

August 1920 at a cost of 5, 60, 472 rupees but the actual construction of the

124
memorial had to wait until after independence. The monument, befittingly named

the Flame of liberty, build at a cost of 9, 25, 000 rupees, was inaugurated by Dr

Rajendra Prasad, the first President of the Republic of India, on 13 April 1961.

The central 30-ft high pylon, a four-sided tapering stature of red stone standing in

the midst of a shallow tank, is built with 300 slabs with Asoka Chakra, the national

emblem, cursed on them. A stone lantern stands at each corner of the tank. On all

four sides of the pylon the words, “in memory of martyrs, 13 April 1919”, has

been inscribed in Hindi, Punjabi, Urdu and English. A semi-circular verandah

skirting a children’s swimming pool near the main entrance to the Bagh marks the

spot were General Dyer’s soldiers took position to fire at the gathering.

General Dyer’s report about the massacre

I arrived here on night of 11th April, and the same night went through the

city to bring the superintendent of Police in charge of the city to hear personally

what he had to say. After consultation with the Deputy-Commissioner and police

officials, I determined, with a view to show the inhabitants that I had a sufficient

military force, to force them to law and order and also to arrest certain ringleaders.

This was carried out between 12 hours and 15 hours on12 April.

I was aware that the inhabitants had been warned that they were not to hold

meetings of followings and that if they did so they would be fired on. To further

enforce my wishes, a Proclamation was proclaimed on morning of the 13th April

by beat of drum in many of the main streets of the city, warning the inhabitants

that unlawful act would be prevented by military force. On my way back from the

city I was informed that the disaffected characters in the city had ordered a meeting

125
in the Jallianwala Bagh at 16.30 hours. I did not think this meeting would take

place in the face of what I had done. At 16 hours I received a report from the police

that a gathering was beginning in the place mentioned above. I immediately sent

piquet’s to hold various gates of the city (to prevent a renewal of the attack of the

10th on the British quarter) and marched with 25 Rifles 9th Gurkhas, and 25 Rifles

from detachments of 54th Sikhs F.F. and 59th Rifles F.F., making a total of 50

Rifles, and also 40 Gurkhas armed with Kukris. I entered the Jallianwala Bagh by

very narrow lane which Necessitated leaving my armored car behind. On entering

I saw a dense crowd, estimated at about 5,000 a man on a raised platform

addressing the audience and making gesticulations with his hands.

I realized that my force was small and to hesitate might induce attack. I

immediately opened fire and dispersed the mob. I estimate that between 200 300

of the crowd were killed. My party fired 1650 rounds. I returned to my

headquarters about 18 hours. At 22 hours, accompanied by a force, I visited all

my piquet’s and marched through the city in order to make sure that my order as

to inhabitants not being out of their homes after 20 hours had been obeyed. The

city was absolutely quiet and not a soul to be seen. I returned to headquarters at

midnight. The inhabitants have asked permission to bury the dead in accordance

with my order. This I am allowing.62

62
Michael O’Dwyer, India as Iknewit (1885-1925), Delhi, 1988, pp. 284-285.

126