The Government of India announced the formation of a committee of inquiry into the events in Punjab on 14 October 1919, following orders issued by the Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu. It was originally known as the Disorders Inquiry Committee, but it was later shortened to the Hunter Commission. It was named after the chairman, Lord William Hunter, a former Solicitor-General for Scotland and Senator of the Scottish College of Justice. The commission's stated mission was to "investigate recent disturbances in Bombay, Delhi, and Punjab, their causes, and the measures taken to deal with them." In this article, we will discuss the Hunter Commission which will be helpful for UPSC exam preparation.

Hunter Commission - Background

• The massacre at Jallianwalla Bagh shocked Indians as well as many British. The Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu, established an inquiry committee to look into the matter.
• So, on October 14, 1919, the Government of India announced the formation of the Disorders Inquiry Committee, later dubbed the Hunter Committee/Commission after its chairman, Lord William Hunter.
• There were three Indians among the members: Sir Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad, Vice-Chancellor of Bombay University and advocate of the Bombay High Court; Pandit Jagat Narayan, lawyer and Member of the Legislative Council of the United Provinces; and Sardar Sahibzada Sultan Ahmad Khan, lawyer from Gwalior State.
• After meeting in Delhi on October 29, the committee took statements from witnesses called in from Delhi, Ahmedabad, Bombay, and Lahore.
• In November, the committee traveled to Lahore to question the main witnesses to the events in Amritsar. Dyer was called before the committee.
• He was certain that what he had done was only his duty. Dyer stated that his intentions were to instil terror throughout Punjab, thereby lowering the moral standing of the 'rebels.'
• Despite the fact that Dyer's statement sparked racial tensions among committee members, the final report, released in March 1920, unanimously condemned Dyer's actions.
• Dyer's actions were condoned by various superiors, still the Hunter Committee took no punitive or disciplinary action (later upheld by the Army Council).
• In addition, prior to the start of the Hunger Committee's proceedings, the government had passed an Indemnity Act to protect its officers.
• The Indemnity Act, dubbed the "white washing bill" by Motilal Nehru and others, was heavily criticized.

Hunter Commission - Members

The following people served on the Hunter Commission, which was formed to investigate the Amritsar Massacre:

• Lord William Hunter, Chairman of the Hunter Commission, former Solicitor General of Scotland
• W.F. Rice, Home Department member
• Thomas Smith, Member of the Legislative Council of the United Provinces
• Pandit Jagat Narayan, Member of the Legislative Council of the United Provinces and lawyer
• H.C. Stokes, Secretary of the Commission and Home Department member
• Sardar Sahibzada Sultan Ahmad Khan, Gwalior State lawyer
• Sir Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad, Vice-Chancellor, Bombay University and advocate of Bombay High Court
• Mr.Justice George C Rankin, Calcutta
• Major General Sir George Barrow, Peshawar

On November 19th, General Dyer appeared before the commission. He stated that he intended to fire at the crowd not only to disperse it, but also to instill a moral impact in order to prevent a mutiny. He also stated that he intended to use the machine guns and armored vehicles and would have done so if given the opportunity. He also admitted to leaving the injured unattended.

Hunter Commission - Report

• On May 26, 1920, the commission submitted its report. The majority of the members chastised Dyer for having a misplaced sense of duty.'
• The report stated that Dyer's motive of producing a sufficient moral effect was to be condemned.
• The lack of notice to disperse from the Bagh in the beginning was an error; the length of firing demonstrated a grave error.
• The Hunter Commission's report concluded that the Indian gathering was not the result of a pre-planned conspiracy. It claimed that rioting in Amritsar had devolved into rebellion.
• The declaration of martial law was deemed justifiable, and its implementation was deemed not oppressive in general.
• It also concluded that Dyer's firing at the mob was justified, with the exception that he should have issued a warning first and that the duration of the firing should have been reduced. (He had ordered ten minutes of firing.)
• The commission's Indian members submitted a minority report, questioning the need for martial law at the time and disputing the severity of the disturbances.
• Following the submission of the commission's report and completion of its work, the then-government provided Rs. 15000 to the dependents of those killed in the Bagh and Rs. 12000 to the dependents of those killed in Punjab villages.
• Dyer was eventually found guilty of a misunderstanding of duty and relieved of command in March 1920. He was called back to England. There was no legal action taken against him; he was paid half-pay and received his army pension.

View of Congress

• Motilal Nehru, C.R. Das, Abbas Tyabji, M.R. Jayakar, and Gandhi were appointed by Indian National Congresses as its own non-official committee.
• The Congress presented its own point of view. This point of view condemned Dyer's actions as inhumane and claimed that the imposition of martial law in Punjab was unjustified.

Conclusion

The Hunter Commission concluded in 1919 that the gathering was not the result of an Indian conspiracy. The declaration of martial law in Punjab was justified. It also concluded that Dyer's firing at the mob was justified, with the exception that he should have issued a warning first and that the duration of the firing should have been reduced.

FAQs

MCQs

1. Why was the Hunter Commission formed?

A) To investigate the 1857 Revolt
B) To assess the Indian National Congress
C) To investigate the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre
D) To promote education in India

2. Who was the Viceroy of India during the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre?

A) Lord Curzon
B) Lord Chelmsford
C) Lord Ripon
D) Lord Reading

3. Who was held responsible for the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre?

A) General Havelock
B) General Dyer
C) Lord Curzon
D) Lord Minto

4. What was the outcome of the Hunter Commission’s investigation?

A) General Dyer was sentenced to life imprisonment
B) General Dyer was removed from his post but faced no major legal consequences
C) The British government officially apologized
D) The massacre was declared justified

5. What was the main reason behind the gathering at Jallianwala Bagh in 1919?

A) To celebrate a festival
B) To protest against the Rowlatt Act and demand the release of Indian leaders
C) To launch a new political party
D) To welcome a British official

GS Mains Questions and Answers

Q1: Evaluate the significance of the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre in the Indian independence movement.

Answer: The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre was a turning point in India’s struggle for independence. The brutality of the massacre, where hundreds of unarmed civilians were killed, shocked the Indian population and galvanized support for the independence movement. It exposed the repressive nature of British rule, leading to a mass rejection of British authority and the rise of leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, who initiated the non-cooperation movement. The massacre also attracted international attention, putting pressure on the British government.

Q2: Discuss the role of the Hunter Commission in addressing the grievances of the Indian public post-Jallianwala Bagh Massacre.

Answer: The Hunter Commission was set up to investigate the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre. However, it failed to meet Indian expectations. While the Commission criticized General Dyer’s actions and removed him from command, it did not impose severe punishment or acknowledge the broader context of British repression. This led to widespread dissatisfaction among Indian nationalists, who felt the Commission’s findings were inadequate in delivering justice for the atrocities committed.

Q3: Analyze the impact of the Rowlatt Act on the Indian nationalist movement.

Answer: The Rowlatt Act, passed in 1919, allowed the British government to detain political activists without trial, which led to widespread unrest in India. The act was seen as a betrayal of promises for increased self-governance after World War I, and it fueled nationalist sentiments across the country. It sparked protests and contributed to events like the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, which further united Indians against colonial rule and accelerated the demand for complete independence.

Previous Year Questions on Hunter Commission

1. UPSC CSE Prelims 2021:

Question: What was the primary objective of the Hunter Commission of 1919?

A) To promote education
B) To investigate the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre
C) To assess Indian agriculture
D) To negotiate a treaty with Indian leaders

Answer: (B)

Explanation: The Hunter Commission was specifically established to investigate the circumstances and events surrounding the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre of April 1919.