The Government of India declared the establishment of an inquiry committee to investigate the events in Punjab on 14 October 1919, pursuant to directives from the Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu. Originally named the Disorders Inquiry Committee, it was later abbreviated to the Hunter Commission, taking its name from the chairman, Lord William Hunter, a former Solicitor-General for Scotland and Senator of the Scottish College of Justice. The commission's primary objective was to "investigate recent disturbances in Bombay, Delhi, and Punjab, their causes, and the measures taken to deal with them." This article will delve into the significance of the Hunter Commission, offering valuable insights for UPSC exam preparation.

Hunter Committee - Background

• The massacre at Jallianwalla Bagh had a profound impact on Indians and British observers.
• Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu, initiated an inquiry committee to investigate the incident.
• On October 14, 1919, the Government of India announced the establishment of the Disorders Inquiry Committee, later renamed the Hunter Committee/Commission after its chairman, Lord William Hunter.
• Three Indian members included Sir Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad, Pandit Jagat Narayan, and Sardar Sahibzada Sultan Ahmad Khan.
• The committee convened in Delhi on October 29, collecting statements from witnesses in Delhi, Ahmedabad, Bombay, and Lahore.
• In November, the committee traveled to Lahore to question key witnesses, including Dyer.
• Dyer defended his actions, stating it was his duty to instill terror in Punjab and diminish the rebels' moral standing.
• The committee's final report, released in March 1920, unanimously condemned Dyer, but no punitive action was taken, upheld by the Army Council.
• Before the committee's proceedings, the government passed an Indemnity Act to protect its officers.
• The Indemnity Act, labeled the "white washing bill" by critics like Motilal Nehru, faced significant criticism.

Hunter Committee - Members

The Hunter Commission, tasked with investigating the Amritsar Massacre, comprised the following individuals:

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

On November 19th, General Dyer appeared before the commission, revealing his intentions to fire upon the crowd not just to disperse it but to instill a moral impact and prevent a mutiny. He expressed his readiness to use machine guns and armored vehicles if given the opportunity and admitted to leaving the injured unattended.

Hunter Committee - Report

• May 26, 1920: The Hunter Commission submitted its report.
• Majority criticized Dyer for a misplaced sense of duty.
• Dyer's motive of creating a moral effect was condemned.
• Lack of initial notice to disperse from Bagh and prolonged firing were deemed errors.
• Commission concluded the Indian gathering wasn't a pre-planned conspiracy; it evolved from rioting to rebellion.
• Declaration of martial law deemed justifiable, and its implementation generally seen as non-oppressive.
• Dyer's firing at the mob considered justified, but he should have issued a warning and reduced firing duration.
• Commission's Indian members submitted a minority report, questioning martial law necessity and disputing disturbance severity.
• Government provided Rs. 15000 to dependents of Bagh victims and Rs. 12000 to dependents of those killed in Punjab villages.
• March 1920: Dyer found guilty of misunderstanding duty, relieved of command, and sent back to England.
• No legal action against Dyer; he received half-pay and retained his army pension.

View of Congress

Motilal Nehru, C.R. Das, Abbas Tyabji, M.R. Jayakar, and Gandhi were appointed by the Indian National Congresses to form its non-official committee.

The Congress committee articulated its perspective, condemning Dyer's actions as inhumane. It asserted that the imposition of martial law in Punjab was unjustified.

Conclusion

In 1919, the Hunter Commission reached the conclusion that the gathering was not the outcome of an Indian conspiracy. The commission deemed the declaration of martial law in Punjab justified. Additionally, it asserted that Dyer's firing at the mob was justified, though it recommended issuing a warning beforehand and reducing the duration of the firing.

FAQs on Hunter Committee

Question 1: What was the Hunter Commission in 1919?

Answer: The Hunter Commission, officially known as the Disorders Inquiry Committee, was a committee formed by the Government of India in 1919 to investigate the events surrounding the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Amritsar. The commission, chaired by Lord William Hunter, was tasked with examining the causes and consequences of the disturbances in Bombay, Delhi, and Punjab.

Question 2: What was the Hunter Commission's report?

Answer: The Hunter Commission's report, submitted on May 26, 1920, addressed the aftermath of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. It condemned General Dyer for what it considered a misplaced sense of duty and criticized his actions. The report justified the declaration of martial law in Punjab, concluded that the Indian gathering was not a result of a pre-planned conspiracy, and deemed Dyer's firing at the crowd as justified but with recommendations for improvement, such as issuing a warning beforehand and reducing the duration of the firing.

Question 3: What happened to General Dyer after the Battle of Jallianwala Bagh?

Answer: After the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, General Dyer faced consequences. In March 1920, he was found guilty of a misunderstanding of duty by the Hunter Commission and was relieved of his command. Despite being called back to England, no legal action was taken against him. He received half-pay and retained his army pension. The repercussions for Dyer were significant, though they fell short of legal prosecution.