Amritsar has a place which, for a British citizen or perhaps that of any former colonial power, raises unsettling questions. Jallianwala Bagh is a beautiful park situated a stones throw from the Golden Temple. It was bought by public subscription, a monument to a moment as crucial to the Indian national story as Hastings is to the English or the storming of the Bastille to the French.
The etched signs pull few punches. They describe the abject slaughter of 379 unarmed and nonviolent protesters in the square in which the park is now located by British troops in 1919. The protest was against the Rowlatt Act which allowed arrest without trial of any civilian on the basis of only suspicion. Several agitators for independence had been arrested and moved to Dharmasala.
Mistaking a crowd movement for a charge, Reginald Dyer ordered the opening of fire on 20,000 civilians. Hundreds were shot dead and many crushed against the walls and in at the bottom of wells that many jumped into a deep well towards the back of the square. Winston Churchill, himself no friend of Indian political rights, described the occurrence as "a monstrous event, an event which stands in singular and sinister isolation".
This outrage was a spark which solidified the disparate and separated Independence movement behind Ghandi who went on to start the passive resistance and Quit India campaigns which ultimately, alongside post WWII bankruptcy and an anti-colonial Labour government, took Britain out of India 28 years later.
It is a legitimate question to ask why we should dwell on these moments of history now buried beneath time and . But this is not an issue of self flagellation, just an understanding of what we have inherited from the past. To me at least, the ignorance of our country's previous excesses is alarming as it encourages distortion and a sense of unwarrented superiority..
Most Britons who I have met moving across India have had the vague notion that the Empire was a benevolent and kindly influence - building railways, urban centres, legal systems and providing economic opportunities. This is certainly true for a relatively tiny Anglicised upper crust which acquired great wealth through trade and access to educational institutions. Nehru, the first Indian PM, attended both Eton and Cambridge - somewhat ironically if you consider his instrumental role in the independence movement. Yet for the vast undulating majority these opportunities were not offered. At the time of the massacre only 10% of Indians were entitled to vote for a legislature rigged to favour pro British interests and subservient to Westminister. Few public services were offered outside the major cities, and a feudal labour and taxation system that resembled pre Soviet Russia which British textbooks heartily look down upon was in force.
Perhaps the lack of awareness in travellers is explainable by the UK school curriculum. The story of Britain I was taught in history classes was a broadly glorious one, focusing on World War II, World War I, the Industrial Revolution and the development of the parliamentary system. All justifiable and worthy and should be taught. As a nod to our darker past the carving up of Africa was explored, and the horrendous nature of the slave trade, although guilt is mollified by the emphasis of Britain's outlaw of the slavery well before the US, Spain or Portugal. After being in India it seems utterly astonishing India is neglected entirely - a British Territory that contained a fifth of the world's population. Why? I don't know. Perhaps this has changed more recently? Perhaps it is because of shame?
It is true that India's current economic position today - where 400m live in poverty - has much to do with appallingly bad policy adopted in the decades since independence, as well as structural issues such as extremely poor infrastructure and unsustainable leaps in population which are hard to attribute blame for. However the role of Britain in both suppressing and neglecting India's people, and its encouragement of the entrenchment of great inequality which has persisted to this day is not to be forgotten.
There seems to me a perverse nostalgia in some sections of Britain for the days of Victoriana, perhaps built on the image that rises from history books of fighting the good fight for democracy in Europe. Those who pursue this partial history - and that is it all it is to me - would do well to think of the savagery the Empire that funded these advancements was partly built upon.
The etched signs pull few punches. They describe the abject slaughter of 379 unarmed and nonviolent protesters in the square in which the park is now located by British troops in 1919. The protest was against the Rowlatt Act which allowed arrest without trial of any civilian on the basis of only suspicion. Several agitators for independence had been arrested and moved to Dharmasala.
Mistaking a crowd movement for a charge, Reginald Dyer ordered the opening of fire on 20,000 civilians. Hundreds were shot dead and many crushed against the walls and in at the bottom of wells that many jumped into a deep well towards the back of the square. Winston Churchill, himself no friend of Indian political rights, described the occurrence as "a monstrous event, an event which stands in singular and sinister isolation".
This outrage was a spark which solidified the disparate and separated Independence movement behind Ghandi who went on to start the passive resistance and Quit India campaigns which ultimately, alongside post WWII bankruptcy and an anti-colonial Labour government, took Britain out of India 28 years later.
It is a legitimate question to ask why we should dwell on these moments of history now buried beneath time and . But this is not an issue of self flagellation, just an understanding of what we have inherited from the past. To me at least, the ignorance of our country's previous excesses is alarming as it encourages distortion and a sense of unwarrented superiority..
Most Britons who I have met moving across India have had the vague notion that the Empire was a benevolent and kindly influence - building railways, urban centres, legal systems and providing economic opportunities. This is certainly true for a relatively tiny Anglicised upper crust which acquired great wealth through trade and access to educational institutions. Nehru, the first Indian PM, attended both Eton and Cambridge - somewhat ironically if you consider his instrumental role in the independence movement. Yet for the vast undulating majority these opportunities were not offered. At the time of the massacre only 10% of Indians were entitled to vote for a legislature rigged to favour pro British interests and subservient to Westminister. Few public services were offered outside the major cities, and a feudal labour and taxation system that resembled pre Soviet Russia which British textbooks heartily look down upon was in force.
Perhaps the lack of awareness in travellers is explainable by the UK school curriculum. The story of Britain I was taught in history classes was a broadly glorious one, focusing on World War II, World War I, the Industrial Revolution and the development of the parliamentary system. All justifiable and worthy and should be taught. As a nod to our darker past the carving up of Africa was explored, and the horrendous nature of the slave trade, although guilt is mollified by the emphasis of Britain's outlaw of the slavery well before the US, Spain or Portugal. After being in India it seems utterly astonishing India is neglected entirely - a British Territory that contained a fifth of the world's population. Why? I don't know. Perhaps this has changed more recently? Perhaps it is because of shame?
It is true that India's current economic position today - where 400m live in poverty - has much to do with appallingly bad policy adopted in the decades since independence, as well as structural issues such as extremely poor infrastructure and unsustainable leaps in population which are hard to attribute blame for. However the role of Britain in both suppressing and neglecting India's people, and its encouragement of the entrenchment of great inequality which has persisted to this day is not to be forgotten.
There seems to me a perverse nostalgia in some sections of Britain for the days of Victoriana, perhaps built on the image that rises from history books of fighting the good fight for democracy in Europe. Those who pursue this partial history - and that is it all it is to me - would do well to think of the savagery the Empire that funded these advancements was partly built upon.
No comments:
Post a Comment