smash-pacifism-zine

to take: constitutionalism or militant resistance Reform or
revolution To this debate, Gandhi's satyagarah appeared to
offer a third choice: mass nonviolent protest.
The Rowlatt Campaign, 1919
In 1919, Gandhi, now a rising member of the INC,
opportunistically proposed a nonviolent campaign against a
government committee developing new counter-insurgency
measures known as the Rowlatt Committee (named after its
head official, British judge Sir Sidney Rowlatt). The
committee recommended new legislation which became
known as the Rowlatt Bills, a sort of “anti-terrorist” set of
laws. These empowered the government to carry out
preventive arrests without warrant, indefinite detention of
'dangerous' persons, and to try seditious cases by three
judges rather than by jury.
The Rowlatt Bills were widely condemned
throughout India. The INC's campaign against these new
laws was opportunistic because Gandhi, and his fellow
Moderates in the INC, constantly condemned the very
militants the new laws were primarily aimed at.
The new legislation, along
with declining socio-economic
conditions resulting from World War
1, (including restrictions on trade), as
well as new taxes, contributed to
heightened anti-British feelings. In
addition, the Russian Revolution of
1917 had also inspired revolutionary
movements in India. Some
Moderates feared the potential
rebellion the anti-Rowlatt campaign
could unleash.
The official INC campaign
began on April 6, 1919, with a Day of
Action comprised of protests and
limited hartal (withdraw of labour,
services, and the shutting of stores). In many cities and
towns, however, protests escalated into clashes and rioting
(including Bombay, Delhi, Lahore, and even Ahmebadab,
where martial law was declared). Sabotage of telegraph
and railway lines also occurred. British police opened fire
on demonstrations, killing and wounding scores of people.
The worst state violence was to occur in the
Punjab. Here, the movement against the Rowlatt Bills was
particularly strong. Some 10,000 mostly Sikh protesters
gathered in a park in Amritsar, on April 13, 1919. On
previous days, clashes had occurred, as well as some
deaths. When the April 13 protest occurred despite a ban on
rallies, a British officer (General Reginald Dyer) ordered
his troops to open fire. As many as 400 were killed, with a
thousand more injured:
“The massacre sent shock waves throughout India,
and aroused intense anger and deep antagonism to British
rule. If a single event were to be chosen as the critical
turning point in the entire history of India's nationalist
movement, the Jallianwala Bagh [a park in Amritsar]
massacre would surely be it, for it revealed the intrinsic
violence of British rule, a savage indifference to Indian life,
and an utter contempt for nationalist feeling and peaceful
protest.”
(Gandhi, p. 111)
Gandhi declared he had made a “Himalayan
miscalculation” in launching the movement without
adequately training the people in nonviolence, and called
off the campaign on April 18, 1919 (perhaps he should have
trained the British military in his pacifist doctrine to start
with). He also did a three day fast in 'penance' of the
violence that occurred. Many, including some of his own
supporters, ridiculed his decision.
“The circumstances under which Gandhi called off
the Rowlatt Satyagraha were a clear acknowledgement that
his first essay into all-India politics was a palpable failure.
The fact that the campaign had been called off without
removing the Rowlatt laws from the statute book was in
itself a defeat for Gandhi. However, what was even more
humiliating for him was his
failure to instil among his
followers the doctrine of nonviolence.
Gandhi was dismayed
by the discovery of the depth of
hatred and ill-will that his
supporters bore towards the
British rulers... Gandhi's agony
over the turn of events was also
aggravated by the anger that
some of his fellow-leaders
displayed towards the decision
to terminate the Rowlatt
Satyagraha. They claimed that
Gandhi's decision was
impulsive, ill-conceived and
sacrificed the gains of a highly successful mass movement
for the dubious benefit of upholding the principle of nonviolence.”
(Indian Nationalism, pp. 251-52)
Amritsar, April 13, 1919, when as many as 400
Indians were killed by the British Army.
For their part, the British now saw the need for
their vastly outnumbered forces in India (100,000 at most,
against 330 million Indians) to reconsider the
indiscriminate use of force on such a large scale, and
resorted to criminalization (including greater resources for
police and intelligence, use of the courts and prisons):
“...and for the next 20 years the colonial authorities
tried to find ways of moderating and refining the use of
force during civil disobedience movements, though without
surrendering the practical necessity... for some degree of
controlled violence by the state and the propaganda of
attributing violence, or its incitement, to the nationalist
11