OUTPUT IN AP 7

Jallianwala Bagh massacre

The Jallianwala (also spelled Jallianwalla) Bagh massacre, also known as

the Amritsar massacre, took place on 13 April 1919. A large, peaceful crowd had
gathered at the Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar, Punjab, British India, during annual
Baishakhi fair, to protest against the Rowlatt Act and the arrest of pro-
independence activists Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew and
Dr. Satya Pal. In response to the public gathering,
the temporary brigadier general R. E. H. Dyer,
surrounded the people with his Gurkha and Sikh
infantry regiments of the British Indian Army.[7] .
 The Jallianwala Bagh could only be exited on one side, as its other three sides were enclosed by
buildings. After blocking the exit with his troops, he ordered them to shoot at the crowd, continuing to
fire even as the protestors tried to flee. The troops kept on firing until their ammunition was
exhausted. Estimates of those killed vary from 379 to 1,500 or more people[1] and over 1,200 other
people were injured of whom 192 were seriously injured. Britain has never formally apologised for the
massacre but expressed "deep regret" in 2019.
The massacre caused a re-evaluation by the Imperial British military of its role when confronted with
civilians to "minimal force whenever possible", although the British Army as an organisation was not
directly involved in the massacre, the British Indian Army was a separate organisation. Later British
military actions during the Mau Mau rebellion in the Kenya Colony have led historian Huw Bennett to
comment that the new policy could sometimes be put aside. The army was retrained and developed
less violent tactics for crowd control. The level of casual brutality, and lack of any accountability,
stunned the entire nation, resulting in a wrenching loss of faith of the general Indian public in the
intentions of the United Kingdom. The attack was condemned by the Secretary of State for War,
Winston Churchill, as "unutterably monstrous", and in the UK House of Commons debate on 8 July
1920 Members of Parliament voted 247 to 37 against Dyer. The ineffective inquiry, together with the
initial accolades for Dyer, fuelled great widespread anger against the British among the Indian
populace, leading to the non-cooperation movement of 1920–22. Some historians consider the
episode a decisive step towards the end of British rule in India.