Jallianwala Bagh: New research reveals how colonial govt was racist in paying compensation to Indians affected

In the aftermath of the violence, the imperial government placed a significantly higher value on European claims, valuing them at 600 times more than those of Indians. District magistrates in Punjab used their discretion to allocate a total of R. 523,571 to widows and children of five Europeans who lost their lives in Amritsar and Kasur, as well as Europeans who were injured, shocked, or attacked during the protests. They set individual payments for Europeans at approximately R. 300,000 (highest), R. 30,000 (lowest), and R. 80,000 (median). In contrast, the Government of India sanctioned one-time payments for Indians not exceeding Rs 500 for the death of a family member and approximately Rs 300 to those with qualifying permanent maiming. In total, a sum of Rs 14,050 was “distributed quietly” to Indian subjects “through confidential inquiries.” British officials hoped that this covert distribution of payments would discourage new requests and limit the establishment of precedents for colonised subjects in the aftermath of state violence.

After almost two years of legal struggle and political protest by Indians, British officials agreed to a second round of payments for Indians. However, these payments were still significantly lower compared to the compensation provided to Europeans. The Viceroy’s Council allocated R. 226,000 to more than 700 Indian individuals as compensation for the colonial government’s use of excessive violence at Jallianwala Bagh and Gujranwala. Shockingly, this amount, intended for 700 Indians, was less than half of what was distributed among nearly a dozen European individuals. Clearly, this continued disparity sheds light on the racial prejudice with which the British valued Indian lives.

British officials did not make these payments in the name of racial justice, redress, or equality. Instead, they were motivated by the imperial concerns of maintaining Britain’s foothold in imperial India. It is important to note that the funds for these payments were collected from fines and taxes imposed on the residents of Punjab and India. Therefore, it can be said that Indians themselves paid for their own compensation in the aftermath of imperial state violence.

How did the British officials reach the final number after two years? Could you narrate briefly the kind of legal proceedings that followed the massacre?

The India Office in London instructed the Government of India to investigate the extensive violence that occurred in the early months of 1919 after granting amnesty to British officials. In their final report delivered in 1920, the Punjab Disturbances Committee was divided along racial lines. The committee’s four European members justified the widespread violence and brutal tactics used by British officers in Punjab, while the three Indian members vehemently disagreed. The Government of India, with a 4:3 division based on race, claimed that its officers were legally entitled to use violence in all situations, including actions such as forcing colonial subjects to crawl on their bellies, whipping, caning, and making arrests, with only two exceptions. The first exception was Jallianwala Bagh, and the second was Gujranwala, a Punjabi locality where British pilots dropped bombs on colonial subjects from planes.

Using the colonial government’s own findings as a foundation, Indian legislators demanded that British officials compensate Indian families who had lost a family member or had been injured at Amritsar or Gujranwala, on par with European subjects compensated in 1919. These legislators had learned that British officials employed by the Government of Punjab had given money to European families, while providing almost nothing to Indian families in 1919. Indian families across Punjab had provided most of the financial support for Punjabi families through donations.

Armed with this information, Indian legislators demanded a statement of regret and compensation for the Indian families who had lost loved ones in Amritsar and Gujranwala. It is important to note that both Indian legislators and British officials severely limited the eligibility for compensation to only those affected in Amritsar and Gujranwala. British officials conferred to ensure that, if they agreed to compensation, it would not establish a precedent. They also refused to issue a statement of regret.

The Government of Punjab established a committee to evaluate compensation claims for Indian families. Although the government encouraged Indian families to come forward and file claims, many hesitated due to fear that the compensation process was a ploy by the imperial government. The Government of India provided the compensation committee with specific guidelines for evaluating payments for Indian subjects. The committee was instructed to use a method similar to actuarial science, taking into account a person’s annual income or projected income and life expectancy to determine the value of their life. After deducting one share for the deceased individual, the remaining payment was divided among the dependents.

In contrast, calculations for Europeans included not only life expectancy and annual income, but also took into account the emotional and material hardship. The largest payment was awarded to Marcella Sherwood, an instructor at the Girls Mission School of the Church of England and a resident of Amritsar for 15 years. She had been attacked by a group of Punjabi men while riding her bicycle home, resulting in her hospitalisation for a few weeks.

These payments to British women are significant because initially, the colonial government was reluctant to compensate any Indian families for the loss of a child or female family member. Eventually, British officials agreed to assign a fixed nominal amount to account for their lives. This clear gender discrimination, along with race, reveals the lack of respect or value that British officials placed on Indian life, labour, hardship, and property.

Were there any protests by Indians or Europeans against the nature of compensation?

There was a protest by Indians demanding compensation, debates among Indians and British officials regarding the nature of compensation, and protests against the method of compensation payment. Each of these points of protest is crucial for understanding how racial prejudice is infused in every aspect of British imperialism, from how the colonial state acknowledges the harm its officers inflict on colonial subjects to comprehending their claims for equality.

The protests of Indian subjects underscored how Indian subjects, unlike their European counterparts, are forced to protest and wait for inquiries before the state acknowledges the legitimacy of their claims for compensation. However, even after British and Indian officials agreed that compensation would take place for survivors and families of the murdered, there was a debate on what the terms of compensation would be and if a statement of regret would be issued. These debates significantly narrowed the scope and scale of compensation payments. Finally, after the Compensation Committee conducted its work, the Government of India protested against its report, insisting it was “unduly liberal” in allocating payments to Indian subjects. For instance, one British official insisted that payment to a merchant who had been maimed due to the loss of one leg did not require compensation because he could still do his work. Ultimately, British officials agreed to make the payments fearing that they would face great political scrutiny if they did not.

The only issue British officials did not protest against was the payments made to Europeans in Punjab in 1919.

Was it really a surprise to find that the colonial government was unfair in their compensation towards Indians? Would it not be expected given the nature of colonialism?

The more serious question, in my opinion, is how colonialism was unfair. We should all know that colonialism was a horrid practice that justified the racist subjugation of millions across the globe.

I am particularly interested in understanding how imperial legal practices contributed to the establishment of financial penalties to punish anti-imperialists in the aftermath of protests, and how race, gender, and class all play significant roles in how states assess the value of human life, hardship, and harm.

In my research, I clearly demonstrate how British officials favoured protecting European life, wealth, and property through various legal acts. This includes police acts that were put into effect immediately after the Crown government took control from the British East India Company in the wake of the rebellions in 1857. These acts imposed indemnities, taxes, and financial penalties on local Indian communities if they caused damage to state or private property. However, British officials did not apply the same legal structures to safeguard Indian life and property in cases of state or European violence. In my research, I examine a parallel narrative of legal discrimination in the compensation practices that emerged after 1919 and reference connected imperial histories.

There have been many instances in recent years of demands being made to the British government to give a formal apology for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. How would you say your research strengthens that demand and what would you say the British government ought to do to correct its historical wrongs, particularly in terms of monetary compensation of the victims of the massacre?

The demands for an apology are partly an attempt to compel a verbal acknowledgement of the horrific violence and legacies of British imperialism. This is the first step in a much-needed, wider set of decolonial processes for Britain to recognise its historical wrongdoings.

In my research, I aim to highlight how the legal foundations of modern compensation originated from and were expanded through colonialism. This history is relevant to the past, but also the present, given that our current practice of compensation and demands for reparations are still operationalised and sorted through similar legal structures. I provide numerous examples of this in the text, as well as draw parallels to imperial histories in the Caribbean, specifically Haiti, and the British government’s payments to slave owners for the loss of “their property” during abolition. In each of these cases, the money derived from slavery and imperialism, as with the payments made after the atrocities in Punjab, is used to protect European wealth, life, and property, while devaluing the claims and worth of non-European lives, livelihoods, and their struggles for freedom. Without understanding these processes and their ongoing impact, we continue to perpetuate imperial logic in the present.

Therefore, it is essential to decolonize the parameters, including the legal parameters, that we have inherited. Historical scholarship plays a crucial role in this process, which is why history is often the most politically charged discipline in many countries, and the first field of knowledge that imperial and authoritarian governments seek to control. The goal is not only to prevent individuals from seeing themselves in history but also to hinder their ability to have access to well-informed research and vocabularies to understand why the inequities in today’s world persist as they do.

In short, my research and my objective as a scholar are to provide meaningful, urgent, and rigorous research that people have access to. It is their choice to demand what they believe is fair, and it is our responsibility as a society to ensure that we comprehend equity in broad terms, so we avoid reinforcing imperial epistemologies and politics from the past.