What do you think?
Rate this book
Amritsar 1919: An Empire of Fear and the Making of a Massacre
A powerful reassessment of a seminal moment in the history of India and the British the Amritsar Massacre
“ Amritsar 1919 chronicles the run up to Jallianwala Bagh with spellbinding, almost minute-by-minute focus. . . . Mr. Wagner’s achievement is one of balance—of minutiae and sweep and, above, all, of perspective.”—Maxwell Carter, Wall Street Journal
The Amritsar Massacre of 1919 was a seminal moment in the history of the British Empire, yet it remains poorly understood. In this dramatic account, Kim A. Wagner details the perspectives of ordinary people and argues that General Dyer’s order to open fire at Jallianwalla Bagh was an act of fear. Situating the massacre within the "deep" context of British colonial mentality and the local dynamics of Indian nationalism, Wagner provides a genuinely nuanced approach to the bloody history of the British Empire.
“ Amritsar 1919 chronicles the run up to Jallianwala Bagh with spellbinding, almost minute-by-minute focus. . . . Mr. Wagner’s achievement is one of balance—of minutiae and sweep and, above, all, of perspective.”—Maxwell Carter, Wall Street Journal
The Amritsar Massacre of 1919 was a seminal moment in the history of the British Empire, yet it remains poorly understood. In this dramatic account, Kim A. Wagner details the perspectives of ordinary people and argues that General Dyer’s order to open fire at Jallianwalla Bagh was an act of fear. Situating the massacre within the "deep" context of British colonial mentality and the local dynamics of Indian nationalism, Wagner provides a genuinely nuanced approach to the bloody history of the British Empire.
325 pages, Hardcover
First published January 25, 2019
44 people are currently reading
1095 people want to read
About the author
Kim A. Wagner
11 books21 followersKim Ati Wagner is a Danish-British historian of colonial India and the British Empire at Queen Mary University of London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
April 13, 2019
I am posting this review on the centenary of the Amritsar Massacre which took place on April 13 1919. On that day Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer ordered his troops to fire over 1,600 (they counted) bullets at a densely packed, unarmed, crowd killing hundreds and injuring hundreds more.
In Britain the run up to the anniversary has seen debates about what took place and whether or not there should be an apology from the British government. Reading Kim A. Wagner's excellent study of the events before and after the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh I'm struck by how ill-informed much of the discussions have been. For those wanting a clearer understanding of what took place in Amritsar in the Punjab one hundred years ago, there is no better starting place than Wagner's book.
Full length review: http://resolutereader.blogspot.com/20...
In Britain the run up to the anniversary has seen debates about what took place and whether or not there should be an apology from the British government. Reading Kim A. Wagner's excellent study of the events before and after the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh I'm struck by how ill-informed much of the discussions have been. For those wanting a clearer understanding of what took place in Amritsar in the Punjab one hundred years ago, there is no better starting place than Wagner's book.
Full length review: http://resolutereader.blogspot.com/20...
April 18, 2025
As befitting its name, today Jallianwala Bagh in the Indian city of Amritsar is a verdant memorial park framed by closely-packed buildings. In the early 20th century, though, the location was a barren plot of land approximately 200 yards by 200 yards in size where open-air meetings were often held. It was during one such meeting, on April 13, 1919, that a mixed force of fifty Gurkhas and men from the 54th Sikh Frontier Force and 59th Scinde Rifles under the command of General Reginald Dyer entered the enclosed space through one of the narrow passages to the enclosure and, without warning, opened fire on the unarmed crowd. For the next ten minutes, the soldiers fired an estimated 1,650 bullets into the terrified civilians. By the time the shooting stopped, hundreds lay dead, with hundreds more suffering from gunshot wounds and injuries sustained during the panicked efforts by people to escape the square.
In the months that followed, the Jallianwala Bagh massacre became an empire-wide controversy, with Indian nationalists condemning the unwarranted brutality of Dyer’s actions while many British imperialists celebrated the general for his willingness to employ the violence necessary to maintain order. In these debates, the massacre was treated as a discrete event, or one shaped entirely by immediate events. In this book, Kim Wagner challenges such perspectives by identifying within the British response their longstanding assumptions about the people they ruled, assumptions that Dyer brought within him into the square on that fateful day and which informed how many Britons responded to the news of his actions both then and since.
Those beliefs, Wagner explains, were born from the trauma of another event in the history of British India, that of the Mutiny six decades earlier. Though the rebellion by sepoy soldiers was suppressed, the memory of it colored British attitudes for decades afterward. Fears of a second outbreak fueled a resolve to meet such emergencies in the future with overwhelming force. Events such as the Kuka outbreak in the Punjab in 1872, in which British officials faced anti-Muslim violence by a revivalist Sikh sect, were dealt with using summary executions, deportations, and other measures designed to quash threats to British rule before they spiraled beyond the control of local authorities.
As British India entered the twentieth century, such an approach was increasingly out of step with the direction of policy. In 1909, the British took the first modest steps towards granting India self-government by expanding Indian representation on the governing councils. While the passage of the Defence of India Act during the First World War led to the curtailment of many freedoms for Indians, the scheduled expiration of its restrictions after the war’s end led them to regard it as a temporary expedient only, as many of them believed that their wartime loyalty would be rewarded with greater autonomy. Instead, even before the war was over, the British sought to make many of the wartime restrictions permanent by passing the Rowlatt Act. This was justified with claims that the scattered anti-colonial activities throughout the subcontinent were manifestations of a single revolutionary movement, one that had been held in check only by the draconian provisions of the Defence of India Act. Fears of a coordinated rising were never far from the Anglo-Indian consciousness.
News of the Rowlatt Act were greeted with outrage by Indian nationalists, who saw it as a betrayal of the promises of self-government. In response to its passage on March 18, 1919, Mohandas Gandhi, then a marginal actor still finding his footing in Indian politics, announced a hartal, or a combination of general strike and spiritual cleansing, by his satyagraha movement throughout India. Amritsar was among the many places where Indians closed up shops, refused to show up for work, and attended mass meetings to denounce the legislation. Such actions fed the paranoia of British officials, who feared that the hartal was merely the first step of a general conspiracy that would end with bloodshed. In response, the lieutenant governor of Punjab, Michael O’Dwyer, ordered the arrest of two local leaders of the satyagraha organization, Saifuddin Kitchlew and Dr. Satyapal, who were taken into custody on April 10 and expelled from the city.
Upon learning of the arrests, the remaining satyagraha leaders gathered a crowd to march to the house of Miles Irving, the deputy commissioner in charge in the city, and present a faryad, or petition, asking for the release of the detained men. In response, Irving sought to bar the protestors from the administrative sector, only for the pickets he posted to panic before the advancing mass of people. The gunfire of the soldiers turned the crowd into a mob that rioted throughout much of the city. Amidst the unchecked violence, three British bank managers were killed when their banks were stormed, and two women were among those attacked by the rioters.
As British residents fled for the safety of nearby Govindghar Fort, troops poured into the city from across the region. Among them was Dyer, who, on his own initiative, traveled to Amritsar and assumed authority from the grateful officials on the scene. Given its importance to events, Wagner expends considerable effort parsing Dyer’s actions and subsequent explanation of them to discern his motivations, which he concludes were driven throughout by a determination to reassert British authority by whatever means necessary. This included enforcing Irving’s ban on further meetings, though the poor dissemination of the proclamation announcing this meant that many in Amritsar were unaware of the ban, let alone of Dyer’s intention to carry it out.
While Amritsar was now quiet, with rumors rampant and unrest continuing elsewhere in Punjab British anxieties were reaching feverish levels. Upon learning on April 13 that the members of the satyagraha movement were planning a meeting at Jallianwala Bagh in defiance of his warnings, Dyer decided to act. Treating the city as enemy territory, he posted pickets at the gates of the old city while moving towards Jallianwala Bagh with a column and two armored cars equipped with machine guns. Though the armored cars were unable to navigate the narrow entrances of the square, the rifles of the soldiers proved more than sufficient for his purposes.
Wagner invests considerable effort to untangle the events of the massacre itself, a task made more difficult by the confusion of evidence and the rumors that quickly accumulated around it in its aftermath. He notes that the assault quickly became a show of brute force intended to terrorize the population into submission. After ten uninterrupted minutes of firing, the officers gathered up the cartridges – which became one of the metrics used as evidence – and withdrew from the square, leaving behind hundreds of dead and wounded. While the total number of people killed at Jallianwala Bagh will unlikely ever be known, Wagner regards the 379 figure on which the British settled to be a considerable underestimate. In its wake, martial law was declared and used to inflict further punishment on the populace in the form of arrests, floggings, and other demeaning treatment designed to reassert British control over the city.
In the interrogations that followed, however, the British struggled to find evidence of the mass conspiracy that would justify the measures they had used. After June 9, the pressure on them increased as the lifting of martial law on that date allowed Indian nationalists to travel to the region to discover what happened for themselves and to support the accused. Their investigation was soon joined by an official inquiry that, while critical of Dyer’s actions, made him a scapegoat for the broader failings of British rule. Their conclusion proved too mild for the Indians who made up a minority of the commission, however, and their scathing criticism of the general in their report undermined the legitimacy of the official inquiry. Already the massacre became a litmus test of British rule, with the debates that followed in Parliament full of speeches praising Dyer, even as the government struggled to manage the backlash they had created.
Wagner argues that the enthusiasm with which many Britons defended Dyer’s actions ultimately did far more damage to the Raj than the massacre itself. Their endorsement of his actions turned Dyer into a representative of Britain’s attitudes towards India rather than an unfortunate outlier, accelerating the alienation of Indians from British rule. Given the author’s argument, such disillusionment was probably inevitable. And while Wagner exaggerates his case somewhat by downplaying the subsequent efforts by the British to constrain their use of force in an effort to prevent such massacres in the future, his argument is nevertheless one that is well made thanks both to his focus on the mindset of the British and his meticulous reconstruction of events. Reading it will make it impossible for all but the most diehard supporter of the British empire to believe in the myth of its benevolence.
In the months that followed, the Jallianwala Bagh massacre became an empire-wide controversy, with Indian nationalists condemning the unwarranted brutality of Dyer’s actions while many British imperialists celebrated the general for his willingness to employ the violence necessary to maintain order. In these debates, the massacre was treated as a discrete event, or one shaped entirely by immediate events. In this book, Kim Wagner challenges such perspectives by identifying within the British response their longstanding assumptions about the people they ruled, assumptions that Dyer brought within him into the square on that fateful day and which informed how many Britons responded to the news of his actions both then and since.
Those beliefs, Wagner explains, were born from the trauma of another event in the history of British India, that of the Mutiny six decades earlier. Though the rebellion by sepoy soldiers was suppressed, the memory of it colored British attitudes for decades afterward. Fears of a second outbreak fueled a resolve to meet such emergencies in the future with overwhelming force. Events such as the Kuka outbreak in the Punjab in 1872, in which British officials faced anti-Muslim violence by a revivalist Sikh sect, were dealt with using summary executions, deportations, and other measures designed to quash threats to British rule before they spiraled beyond the control of local authorities.
As British India entered the twentieth century, such an approach was increasingly out of step with the direction of policy. In 1909, the British took the first modest steps towards granting India self-government by expanding Indian representation on the governing councils. While the passage of the Defence of India Act during the First World War led to the curtailment of many freedoms for Indians, the scheduled expiration of its restrictions after the war’s end led them to regard it as a temporary expedient only, as many of them believed that their wartime loyalty would be rewarded with greater autonomy. Instead, even before the war was over, the British sought to make many of the wartime restrictions permanent by passing the Rowlatt Act. This was justified with claims that the scattered anti-colonial activities throughout the subcontinent were manifestations of a single revolutionary movement, one that had been held in check only by the draconian provisions of the Defence of India Act. Fears of a coordinated rising were never far from the Anglo-Indian consciousness.
News of the Rowlatt Act were greeted with outrage by Indian nationalists, who saw it as a betrayal of the promises of self-government. In response to its passage on March 18, 1919, Mohandas Gandhi, then a marginal actor still finding his footing in Indian politics, announced a hartal, or a combination of general strike and spiritual cleansing, by his satyagraha movement throughout India. Amritsar was among the many places where Indians closed up shops, refused to show up for work, and attended mass meetings to denounce the legislation. Such actions fed the paranoia of British officials, who feared that the hartal was merely the first step of a general conspiracy that would end with bloodshed. In response, the lieutenant governor of Punjab, Michael O’Dwyer, ordered the arrest of two local leaders of the satyagraha organization, Saifuddin Kitchlew and Dr. Satyapal, who were taken into custody on April 10 and expelled from the city.
Upon learning of the arrests, the remaining satyagraha leaders gathered a crowd to march to the house of Miles Irving, the deputy commissioner in charge in the city, and present a faryad, or petition, asking for the release of the detained men. In response, Irving sought to bar the protestors from the administrative sector, only for the pickets he posted to panic before the advancing mass of people. The gunfire of the soldiers turned the crowd into a mob that rioted throughout much of the city. Amidst the unchecked violence, three British bank managers were killed when their banks were stormed, and two women were among those attacked by the rioters.
As British residents fled for the safety of nearby Govindghar Fort, troops poured into the city from across the region. Among them was Dyer, who, on his own initiative, traveled to Amritsar and assumed authority from the grateful officials on the scene. Given its importance to events, Wagner expends considerable effort parsing Dyer’s actions and subsequent explanation of them to discern his motivations, which he concludes were driven throughout by a determination to reassert British authority by whatever means necessary. This included enforcing Irving’s ban on further meetings, though the poor dissemination of the proclamation announcing this meant that many in Amritsar were unaware of the ban, let alone of Dyer’s intention to carry it out.
While Amritsar was now quiet, with rumors rampant and unrest continuing elsewhere in Punjab British anxieties were reaching feverish levels. Upon learning on April 13 that the members of the satyagraha movement were planning a meeting at Jallianwala Bagh in defiance of his warnings, Dyer decided to act. Treating the city as enemy territory, he posted pickets at the gates of the old city while moving towards Jallianwala Bagh with a column and two armored cars equipped with machine guns. Though the armored cars were unable to navigate the narrow entrances of the square, the rifles of the soldiers proved more than sufficient for his purposes.
Wagner invests considerable effort to untangle the events of the massacre itself, a task made more difficult by the confusion of evidence and the rumors that quickly accumulated around it in its aftermath. He notes that the assault quickly became a show of brute force intended to terrorize the population into submission. After ten uninterrupted minutes of firing, the officers gathered up the cartridges – which became one of the metrics used as evidence – and withdrew from the square, leaving behind hundreds of dead and wounded. While the total number of people killed at Jallianwala Bagh will unlikely ever be known, Wagner regards the 379 figure on which the British settled to be a considerable underestimate. In its wake, martial law was declared and used to inflict further punishment on the populace in the form of arrests, floggings, and other demeaning treatment designed to reassert British control over the city.
In the interrogations that followed, however, the British struggled to find evidence of the mass conspiracy that would justify the measures they had used. After June 9, the pressure on them increased as the lifting of martial law on that date allowed Indian nationalists to travel to the region to discover what happened for themselves and to support the accused. Their investigation was soon joined by an official inquiry that, while critical of Dyer’s actions, made him a scapegoat for the broader failings of British rule. Their conclusion proved too mild for the Indians who made up a minority of the commission, however, and their scathing criticism of the general in their report undermined the legitimacy of the official inquiry. Already the massacre became a litmus test of British rule, with the debates that followed in Parliament full of speeches praising Dyer, even as the government struggled to manage the backlash they had created.
Wagner argues that the enthusiasm with which many Britons defended Dyer’s actions ultimately did far more damage to the Raj than the massacre itself. Their endorsement of his actions turned Dyer into a representative of Britain’s attitudes towards India rather than an unfortunate outlier, accelerating the alienation of Indians from British rule. Given the author’s argument, such disillusionment was probably inevitable. And while Wagner exaggerates his case somewhat by downplaying the subsequent efforts by the British to constrain their use of force in an effort to prevent such massacres in the future, his argument is nevertheless one that is well made thanks both to his focus on the mindset of the British and his meticulous reconstruction of events. Reading it will make it impossible for all but the most diehard supporter of the British empire to believe in the myth of its benevolence.
June 4, 2019
Wagner tells a cracking yarn! He marshals his cast of thousands with a deftness of touch and an ear for drama. The events of that fateful April polarise opinions; did so then and do so now. Corbyn and May faced off across the despatch box to mark the centenary of Jallianwala Bagh and pretty much repeated the points made by their Tory and Labour predecessors a hundred years ago.
I love the extraordinary tension between archival research and narrative phrasing. Precarious balancing act: to allow the record to emerge without prejudicing the reader. What could so easily have been a dispiriting trudge through the primary materials (or a heavy-handed polemic) becomes, in Wagner's skillful hands, a deeply satisfying exposition of colonial paranoia and doublethink.
It's outside the scope of this book, but I would have liked a bit more on the psychological impact of WW1 on the British empire. Wagner drops lots of interesting hints, but obviously doesn't have the space to develop them here.
I love the extraordinary tension between archival research and narrative phrasing. Precarious balancing act: to allow the record to emerge without prejudicing the reader. What could so easily have been a dispiriting trudge through the primary materials (or a heavy-handed polemic) becomes, in Wagner's skillful hands, a deeply satisfying exposition of colonial paranoia and doublethink.
It's outside the scope of this book, but I would have liked a bit more on the psychological impact of WW1 on the British empire. Wagner drops lots of interesting hints, but obviously doesn't have the space to develop them here.
April 11, 2022
“We are not responsible for the past, but we are responsible for how we choose to remember (or forget) the past. And perhaps there are wounds that we should not attempt to heal.”
A country with 5000-year-old civilization. A country which tolerated so much in the history yet managed to keep its soul alive. I sometimes wonder how? Maybe because of the teachings, the cultural values, the memories of the past which have been carried in our veins through the ages… generation by generation. Maybe because our ancestors had sacrificed themselves to keep the spirit of India alive. I wonder that is the reason that the British who came to “save” India started targeting our cultural and moral values. In 400 years of tyranny, we have our history twisted. It is sad that we have been made to know the history as written by them. How easy it is to say that people gathered for protest in spite of martial law imposition and so they were fired upon. But is it this simple? Was 13th April 1919 just another day when the British tried to enforce law and order in the city?
In his book Jallianwala Bagh (aka Amritsar 1919), Kim Wagner made a thorough investigation on the series of events that lead to the massacre of thousands of innocents who did not have a clue what was going on that place on that day. Those innocents whom the history failed to remember. They did not even get their name recorded anywhere only to keep the number of deaths “reasonable” in the government files. A must-read book to know about the infamous chapter in the Indian history that shaped the India’s struggle for freedom.
A country with 5000-year-old civilization. A country which tolerated so much in the history yet managed to keep its soul alive. I sometimes wonder how? Maybe because of the teachings, the cultural values, the memories of the past which have been carried in our veins through the ages… generation by generation. Maybe because our ancestors had sacrificed themselves to keep the spirit of India alive. I wonder that is the reason that the British who came to “save” India started targeting our cultural and moral values. In 400 years of tyranny, we have our history twisted. It is sad that we have been made to know the history as written by them. How easy it is to say that people gathered for protest in spite of martial law imposition and so they were fired upon. But is it this simple? Was 13th April 1919 just another day when the British tried to enforce law and order in the city?
In his book Jallianwala Bagh (aka Amritsar 1919), Kim Wagner made a thorough investigation on the series of events that lead to the massacre of thousands of innocents who did not have a clue what was going on that place on that day. Those innocents whom the history failed to remember. They did not even get their name recorded anywhere only to keep the number of deaths “reasonable” in the government files. A must-read book to know about the infamous chapter in the Indian history that shaped the India’s struggle for freedom.
November 8, 2023
We can (we must) learn from history and this book has many lessons to teach.
Is it even possible for one country to rule another that is so ethnically different without brutal ruthlessness? Theoretically I guess so, even to the benefit of the governed people but only if laws are just, scrupulously fair and justly administered, with no discrimination or favoritism or cruelty. People might prefer security to chaos and lawful protections to rampant lawlessness. Religious rivalries might be held in check and public works might be undertaken to benefit everyone. Clean water, schools, hospitals, roads for ease of trade, government support after weather disasters, etc.
(It is telling that all hell broke loose after Independence when Britain was no longer checking conflicts between religious parties. But maybe enemies were united only so long as they had a common enemy.)
However, when justice is ignored at the convenience of the ruling class, then the ruling power has become immoral. Even worse when torture and humiliation are excused and criminal acts by soldiers and police go unpunished. Then there is NO ethical justification for one country to rule another. I guess that is why “colonialism” is now a bad word.
Mainly I am struck by the rabid racism of the British. They looked on Indians as less human than themselves, with lives that were of no worth. They thought of domination as their “duty”. Even church on Sundays seemed to encourage this thinking. Appalling!
A good companion fiction book worth reading is George Orwell’s “Burmese Days”. I read it last year and it only took three or four days. It is quoted throughout this nonfiction work because it captures the then British attitudes towards native peoples so accurately. There was no easy solution to this widespread and deep seated prejudice, except to get out of the way and let people govern themselves.
Is it even possible for one country to rule another that is so ethnically different without brutal ruthlessness? Theoretically I guess so, even to the benefit of the governed people but only if laws are just, scrupulously fair and justly administered, with no discrimination or favoritism or cruelty. People might prefer security to chaos and lawful protections to rampant lawlessness. Religious rivalries might be held in check and public works might be undertaken to benefit everyone. Clean water, schools, hospitals, roads for ease of trade, government support after weather disasters, etc.
(It is telling that all hell broke loose after Independence when Britain was no longer checking conflicts between religious parties. But maybe enemies were united only so long as they had a common enemy.)
However, when justice is ignored at the convenience of the ruling class, then the ruling power has become immoral. Even worse when torture and humiliation are excused and criminal acts by soldiers and police go unpunished. Then there is NO ethical justification for one country to rule another. I guess that is why “colonialism” is now a bad word.
Mainly I am struck by the rabid racism of the British. They looked on Indians as less human than themselves, with lives that were of no worth. They thought of domination as their “duty”. Even church on Sundays seemed to encourage this thinking. Appalling!
A good companion fiction book worth reading is George Orwell’s “Burmese Days”. I read it last year and it only took three or four days. It is quoted throughout this nonfiction work because it captures the then British attitudes towards native peoples so accurately. There was no easy solution to this widespread and deep seated prejudice, except to get out of the way and let people govern themselves.
March 21, 2023
Kim Wagner has done an incredible job of documenting the events at Amritsar and the lead up to the massacre. While it begins, seemingly, to restate some of the British positions of a "Rogue Individual" in the Punjab, the book and it's conclusions are totally the opposite. Quite the contrary, it makes an excellent case to show the systemic racism and brutality of the British Empire.
He builds the case step-by-step, using original court documents, letters and diaries from the residents (Anglo and Indian) written during the period. Using the British soldiers' own words, he demonstrates the racialized attitude, disregard for Indian lives, as well as the unspeakable anger directed by the British officers against the local populace. It is no surprise that so many of them were lost to a white man's rage.
But it is not just one white man's rage - it is British rage against the native subjects for the audacity of the natives to desire freedom from their rule. Truly an amazing book.
He builds the case step-by-step, using original court documents, letters and diaries from the residents (Anglo and Indian) written during the period. Using the British soldiers' own words, he demonstrates the racialized attitude, disregard for Indian lives, as well as the unspeakable anger directed by the British officers against the local populace. It is no surprise that so many of them were lost to a white man's rage.
But it is not just one white man's rage - it is British rage against the native subjects for the audacity of the natives to desire freedom from their rule. Truly an amazing book.
August 27, 2019
Wagner presents a sombre reality of the vulnerable position of the British in India amidst the empire's racist fear triggered by the bloody 1857 Mutiny.
A painstaking and detached reconstruction of the events that led to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
Warning: Not for those with empire nostalgia
Read my interview with the writer here:
http://www.newindianexpress.com/lifes...
A painstaking and detached reconstruction of the events that led to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
Warning: Not for those with empire nostalgia
Read my interview with the writer here:
http://www.newindianexpress.com/lifes...
November 22, 2020
what an utter piece of garbage.
April 18, 2021
Brilliant. Deeply insightful on the colonial mindset and ideology, with some sad echoes of our current moment.
February 7, 2025
Erg goed geschreven, Wagner weet het zo scherp te vertellen dat je soms vergeet dat dit al meer dan een eeuw geleden is gebeurd. Hij gebruikt veel en gevarieerd primair bronmateriaal en maakt daarmee ook een overtuigend punt; dat het bloedbad van Amritsar geen losstaande uitspatting was van het Britse imperialisme, maar juist een onvermijdelijk resultaat ervan.
May 5, 2020
Impressive writing and research about a monumentally important event in Indian history and, in a sense, the eventual crumbling of Britain's empire.
August 17, 2019
This is a vividly researched and illuminating portrayal of the massacre of 1,500 innocent people. What the author does so well in this book is to give an insight into the colonial mindset that produced sociopaths like General Dyer. Throughout history when a minority dominates the majority there will inevitably be moments when the myth of paternalistic tyranny breaks down and you have mass murder.
Even Winston Churchill who never concealed his contempt for Indians was appalled by the slaughter. This incident highlights the curious feature of the concentric societies within India during this period. You had the servile Indians, co-opted by the British and who dutifully supplied the military with misinformation which led to the massacre, and the English women who were quite content to live their lives looking down their noses at the native Indians. And then you had ascetic revolutionaries like Gandhi, who were so enamoured of the power of non-violence. And finally, you had the every day Indian, the working class, who had been subjected to the countless humiliations of the British; exemplified by the crawling order.
I find it interesting that while the world knows of Aamon Goethe and the Jewish masscare at Krakow, the name of Reginald Dyer does not evoke the same contempt. The purveyors of history do seem to be selective of the atrocities they highlight.
The only aspect missing from this book was a deeper insight into the psyche of General Dyer. The author does relate some possible moments of contrition but you wonder how much of that was genuine bearing in mind he received 3 millions pounds from well-wishers when he was dismissed from his post.
Even Winston Churchill who never concealed his contempt for Indians was appalled by the slaughter. This incident highlights the curious feature of the concentric societies within India during this period. You had the servile Indians, co-opted by the British and who dutifully supplied the military with misinformation which led to the massacre, and the English women who were quite content to live their lives looking down their noses at the native Indians. And then you had ascetic revolutionaries like Gandhi, who were so enamoured of the power of non-violence. And finally, you had the every day Indian, the working class, who had been subjected to the countless humiliations of the British; exemplified by the crawling order.
I find it interesting that while the world knows of Aamon Goethe and the Jewish masscare at Krakow, the name of Reginald Dyer does not evoke the same contempt. The purveyors of history do seem to be selective of the atrocities they highlight.
The only aspect missing from this book was a deeper insight into the psyche of General Dyer. The author does relate some possible moments of contrition but you wonder how much of that was genuine bearing in mind he received 3 millions pounds from well-wishers when he was dismissed from his post.
March 27, 2021
A thoroughly researched and well structured historical depiction of the events that led to the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh on April 13th 1919 and the reactions that followed the event.
Though the novel begins with a slight bias to the english version of the massacre, to my pleasant surprise turned into a very event driven depiction, and explanation of the colonial mindset of the English government that reigned over India.
The author has at length called out and crafted that this event was never the mistake of a single military general, General Dyer, as it is historically and politically referenced but a true execution of the kind of violent suppression that a lot of like-minded English civil and military personnel believed was needed to rule the natives of countries like India, Burma, Afganisthan etc. The chain of events leading to fear before d-day and the historical imprint of the past mutinies that were at that time close to 60 years back, is brought out vividly. It is truly shocking to relive the fear that went through the people protesting peacefully and those just gathered at the bagh that evening when 1650 rounds were fired in close proximity.
And a befitting conclusion that choosing to remember the lives lost as a wound not healed, could be better than looking for a superficial apology from the British government, waving it off as an exception in the colonial rule or reign.
Though the novel begins with a slight bias to the english version of the massacre, to my pleasant surprise turned into a very event driven depiction, and explanation of the colonial mindset of the English government that reigned over India.
The author has at length called out and crafted that this event was never the mistake of a single military general, General Dyer, as it is historically and politically referenced but a true execution of the kind of violent suppression that a lot of like-minded English civil and military personnel believed was needed to rule the natives of countries like India, Burma, Afganisthan etc. The chain of events leading to fear before d-day and the historical imprint of the past mutinies that were at that time close to 60 years back, is brought out vividly. It is truly shocking to relive the fear that went through the people protesting peacefully and those just gathered at the bagh that evening when 1650 rounds were fired in close proximity.
And a befitting conclusion that choosing to remember the lives lost as a wound not healed, could be better than looking for a superficial apology from the British government, waving it off as an exception in the colonial rule or reign.
April 16, 2020
A thoroughly described book on one of the most horrible events of the British rule in India. It is a detailed study of the Jalliyanwala Bagh massacre. Each and every detail has been given in a unique literary sense that the readers enjoy it from beginning to end. I personally enjoyed reading about the incident but the excessive detail irritated me a little bit. So three stars from me.
October 15, 2021
That is an exceptional book and there needs to be a copy of the same in every British school library. The focus on sharing both the British and Indian sides to the events leading up to the massacre and after is very good. A hundred plus years later, it still does seem that there remains a extremely wide difference in value put to lives of civilized and “uncivilized” peoples.
April 26, 2022
A very powerful and detailed narrative of what possibly happened of the much debated massacre of an event
Scathing and caustic at places in describing the racialised approach of the colonial English over their subjects and what kind of misinformed fear led to what Dyer did
For once some semblance of a well researched book on the event that remains a blot on human history
Scathing and caustic at places in describing the racialised approach of the colonial English over their subjects and what kind of misinformed fear led to what Dyer did
For once some semblance of a well researched book on the event that remains a blot on human history
February 18, 2020
Kim Wagner paints the picture of an era where a massacre of civilians was inevitable. It happened in Amritsar but it could have happened anywhere else.
In the colonial system, a very small number of Englishmen were tasked with ruling over hundreds of millions of people in the Indian subcontinent, against their consent. To do so, they established a political and racial hierarchy with the English on top. This hierarchy had to be enforced at all costs for the colonial system to continue. And since some people in Amritsar had participated in riot that killed three Englishmen and severely injured an English woman, they deserved a good firing. The liberals in England may have questioned how much firing was sufficient to teach the natives a lesson (the news of two to three hundred dead barely raised an eyebrow), but hardly anyone questioned if a firing should have taken place at all.
One of the most fascinating thing about this book is how the author explores the psyche of the Anglo-Indians (the English living in India). She describes how they lived in constant fear of being attacked or killed by the ruled. While the Indians had all but forgotten the Mutiny of 1857 (or as Indians call it, the first war of Indian independence), its echos remained fresh for the Anglo Indians in 1919. Every fresh batch of arriving Anglo Indians was reminded of how Anglo Indian families had been raped and killed by mutinous soldiers in Kanpur, and if they wavered in their actions, they would suffer the same fate. So, it was critical at all times to stay and appear in control.
Another thing that stayed with me after I put the book down was the discussion of race, how the colonial masters insisted that they belonged to a super race. After the massacre, the colonial authorities command every Indian in Amritsar to salute an English person on the street (they need to learn how to respect the super race!), or any Indian person crossing the street where an English woman was beaten during the riots had to crawl on their belly, or how countless Indian men were tied to a post and flogged, without any due process. There were English soldiers who were happy to be be where the action was, and taking pictures of how they humiliated the "natives". How different is this than ways in which white masters controlled their slaves? Or the American South even in the twentieth century where any black person could be punished for a crime that was committed by any other black person. Or Abu Ghraib?
The book seems to be meticulously researched, drawing on a vast number of primary sources, from testimonies provided to the Hunter Commission and the Indian National Congress's enquiry of the event, personal diaries, debates in the British parliament, contemporary newspapers and even literature. The author tries to look behind official facts and propaganda, to ferret out what really happened and the state of mind of the people involved. She does not spare modern Indian politicians and academics who are busy trying to rewrite what happened, to wipe out the memories of those who died, and use their unfortunate deaths to write the story of the today's Indian nation. It is an authoritative and timely book and a must read for anyone interested in understanding how colonialism worked then and now.
In the colonial system, a very small number of Englishmen were tasked with ruling over hundreds of millions of people in the Indian subcontinent, against their consent. To do so, they established a political and racial hierarchy with the English on top. This hierarchy had to be enforced at all costs for the colonial system to continue. And since some people in Amritsar had participated in riot that killed three Englishmen and severely injured an English woman, they deserved a good firing. The liberals in England may have questioned how much firing was sufficient to teach the natives a lesson (the news of two to three hundred dead barely raised an eyebrow), but hardly anyone questioned if a firing should have taken place at all.
One of the most fascinating thing about this book is how the author explores the psyche of the Anglo-Indians (the English living in India). She describes how they lived in constant fear of being attacked or killed by the ruled. While the Indians had all but forgotten the Mutiny of 1857 (or as Indians call it, the first war of Indian independence), its echos remained fresh for the Anglo Indians in 1919. Every fresh batch of arriving Anglo Indians was reminded of how Anglo Indian families had been raped and killed by mutinous soldiers in Kanpur, and if they wavered in their actions, they would suffer the same fate. So, it was critical at all times to stay and appear in control.
Another thing that stayed with me after I put the book down was the discussion of race, how the colonial masters insisted that they belonged to a super race. After the massacre, the colonial authorities command every Indian in Amritsar to salute an English person on the street (they need to learn how to respect the super race!), or any Indian person crossing the street where an English woman was beaten during the riots had to crawl on their belly, or how countless Indian men were tied to a post and flogged, without any due process. There were English soldiers who were happy to be be where the action was, and taking pictures of how they humiliated the "natives". How different is this than ways in which white masters controlled their slaves? Or the American South even in the twentieth century where any black person could be punished for a crime that was committed by any other black person. Or Abu Ghraib?
The book seems to be meticulously researched, drawing on a vast number of primary sources, from testimonies provided to the Hunter Commission and the Indian National Congress's enquiry of the event, personal diaries, debates in the British parliament, contemporary newspapers and even literature. The author tries to look behind official facts and propaganda, to ferret out what really happened and the state of mind of the people involved. She does not spare modern Indian politicians and academics who are busy trying to rewrite what happened, to wipe out the memories of those who died, and use their unfortunate deaths to write the story of the today's Indian nation. It is an authoritative and timely book and a must read for anyone interested in understanding how colonialism worked then and now.
October 21, 2023
Wagner provides a thoughtful analysis of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre by utilizing quotes from Indian and British individuals before, during, and after the event. He effectively contextualizes the unrest in Colonial India and the significance of the 1857 Mutiny, demonstrating how the British perpetuated a system of fear. It is worth noting that Wagner emphasizes Gandhi's ambition for a system that would prevent the rise of leaders like Dyer, although this aspect could have been further explored. Furthermore, in addition to racism, Wagner could have examined other aspects of the Colonial system that contributed to an Empire of Fear and paranoia amongst colonial rulers. I also disagree with the idea that a formal apology would be without value, as long as the apology acknowledges that this incident was not an isolated case but rather a symptom of the broader problem of colonialism.
Read
July 1, 2020In April 1919 some 400 Indians were gunned down in an enclosed courtyard. This book tells the whole story. What is described is a British contingent walking on eggshells- in their minds every Indian gathering or speech foretold a replaying of the 1857 mutiny. War time emergency measures were compounded once WWI ended. Indian leaders looked for some breathing room but that only made the British paranoid. General Dyer the perpetrator of the massacre came upon a dense crowd of people and saw a revolt. After the massacre the British fixed evidence that a revolt was being worked on. Martial law was invoked and locals were brutalized with public whippings and other humiliations. Still the truth of Amritsar came out. The horrid story of colonialism in 263 pages.
August 4, 2020
A very detailed account of the making of the Jallianwala bhag massacre. The stories are very well narrated and the character development is gripping. Not just learnt, but enjoyed in the process.
Some may feel that the author is trying to defend the British administration, I felt so at certain chapters, but then when the book it read to its completion, the author has given a good balance to all sides and just been honest.
Some may feel that the author is trying to defend the British administration, I felt so at certain chapters, but then when the book it read to its completion, the author has given a good balance to all sides and just been honest.
January 20, 2025
This is the new best book about the Jallianwala Bagh massacre on 13th April 1919.
Listened to the audiobook purchased from Audible.com
Narrated to perfection by Niel Shah except his Gandhi voice which is irritating.
It might be an accurate impersonation for all I know.
The constant panic of Irving and the racist beliefs of Dyer led to this carnage.
India will never forget this murder and neither should they.
Very good history book.
Listened to the audiobook purchased from Audible.com
Narrated to perfection by Niel Shah except his Gandhi voice which is irritating.
It might be an accurate impersonation for all I know.
The constant panic of Irving and the racist beliefs of Dyer led to this carnage.
India will never forget this murder and neither should they.
Very good history book.
December 18, 2025
Wagner exposes the brutality of British imperialism set in India just over a century ago. He shows how racism is the cement that holds the system of oppression and subjugation together and how fear of the oppressed leads to acts of horrendous violence. At a time when right wing patriots are flying flags from lampposts it is a healthy reminder of what we don't have to be proud of. Engagingly written too.
September 19, 2020
The Massacre that Remains Indelible 100 years on
A clear prose intertwined with history. Whether factual or otherwise is beyond the point. What is not, is that the sequence of events described seamlessly and effortlessly, dovetails into the assertions made. An important part of India's colonial history written entirely from a novel perspective involving the Sepoy Mutiny.
A clear prose intertwined with history. Whether factual or otherwise is beyond the point. What is not, is that the sequence of events described seamlessly and effortlessly, dovetails into the assertions made. An important part of India's colonial history written entirely from a novel perspective involving the Sepoy Mutiny.
October 2, 2019
A brilliant read and very explicit as to why the massacre happened and who was to blame.
February 16, 2020
Sobering. Very well written and put together.
March 18, 2021
An eye opening and amazing book.
Read
October 17, 2021This is a stellar account. Highly recommend for undergrad/grad syllabi on British India or colonialism.
January 16, 2023
A salient rending of the Massacre perpetrated to “uphold” the British Empire. Dispassionately vibrant. Responsible & clear.
Read
February 13, 2023you’ll never guess which class i read this for (hist400 - modern india reading colloquium)
February 17, 2023
Fascinating background to a horrific event during the Raj.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews