India Today Queen Elizabeth II: A Royal Ruckus

September 1, 1997

THE QUEEN'S VISIT
A Royal Ruckus

The demand for an apology for the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre kicks up a row

By Manoj Joshi with Manjushri Mitra and Ramesh Vinayak

It is not the best of times for royalty, not even for the daughter of the last King-Emperor of India and the present head of the Commonwealth. The visit of Britain's Queen Elizabeth II to India in October has been dogged by controversy even before it has begun. The issue centres on the demand for an apology for the massacre in Jallianwala Bagh, where on Baisakhi Day -- April 13, 1919 -- soldiers led by Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer mowed down 379 (unofficial figures put the toll nearer 1,000) unarmed people in an enclosed park adjoining the Golden Temple in Amritsar.

It all began with a British proposal to have the Queen participate in the Golden Jubilee celebrations of India's Independence in New Delhi on August 15. The Government balked at the plan and suggested a royal visit a little after this event. The proposal for her visit to the Golden Temple originated from London, keen on a symbolic gesture that would appeal to the four lakh Sikhs residing in Britain. Discussions were initiated with the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC), which manages the shrine, and plans finalised by the Queen's Private Secretary Robin Janvrin and the British High Commissioner Sir David Gore-Booth during a visit to Amritsar in late July. The SGPC was enthusiastic and assured the British officials that the Queen would be given a "rousing reception", presented a siropa (turban) by the head priest of the Harmandir Sahib, and SGPC President G.S. Tohra would confer a "robe of honour" to her outside the shrine. As a special gesture, the SGPC agreed to allow Her Majesty to enter the shrine wearing a hat and a pair of cotton socks instead of walking barefoot, as is customary.

The demand for an apology for Jallianwala Bagh arose after a report that the Queen may offer a wreath at the memorial which is just a stone's throw from the Golden Temple. The demand was raised in August, by Jagmohan Singh, a professor with the Punjab Agriculture University and a nephew of Bhagat Singh. Jagmohan also demanded that the Queen visit the martyrs' memorial at Hussainiwala.

JALLIANWALLA CASE
Crime and 'Punishment'

The reason why Jallianwala Bagh evokes such sharp reactions is because of the manner in which the government in Britain dealt with the perpetrators of the massacre. Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer and his actions were backed by Punjab Governor Sir Michael O'Dwyer and the colonial government of India headed by Lord Chelmsford. Dyer belonged to an European family which ran the well known Dyer-Meakin (now Mohan Meakin) brewery at Solan in Himachal Pradesh.

An inquiry headed by Lord Hunter was ordered in July 1919, two months after the massacre. During its proceedings, Dyer incriminated himself by declaring that he had ordered the firing on an unarmed crowd for making "a wide impression" and producing a "sufficient moral effect from a military point of view throughout Punjab". So compelling was the evidence of misconduct collected by Lord Hunter in the next three months that Whitehall was forced to act. But all it did was to offer a mild censure by removing Dyer from active service. At the same time it absolved Governor O'Dwyer and Viceroy Lord Chelmsford of all blame. The government's decision was ratified in the House of Commons by 232 votes to 131. On the other hand, the House of Lords carried another resolution 129 votes to 89 deploring the removal of General Dyer.

The British elite was however divided. The arch-imperialist Winston Churchill condemned it as a "monstrous event, an event which stood in singular and sinister isolation ..." But, Dyer and O'Dwyer had admirers in India and England. They collected 26,000 pounds and presented it to Dyer along with a golden sword. In fact, the Golden Temple management (the predecessor of the SGPC) presented Dyer a kirpan (sword) and a siropa (turban). O'Dwyer, who was subsequently shot by Udham Singh, received his own fund, towards which some of the Punjabi elite like Kunj Bihari Thapar, Umar Hayat Khan, Chaudhary Gajjan Singh and Rai Bahadur Lal Chand contributed Rs 1.75 lakh.

The call for some expression of repentance seemed reasonable and was backed by, among others, Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal, who shot off a letter to Prime Minister I.K. Gujral, demanding that India should also seek the return of the Kohinoor, now part of the British crown jewels. In Britain, Labour Minister and MP for Leicester Keith Vaz supported the idea as did some British newspapers.

With the situation taking this awkward turn, the Indian Government began to worry about other "cross linkages" such as a demand for an apology for the Army assault on the Golden Temple in Operation Bluestar in 1984. In mid-August, Indian officials decided to advise the British to skip Amritsar. Unfortunately, the message reached them through newspaper headlines on August 17, courtesy an interview given by Gujral to the son of an old friend, now a diplomatic editor of a British newspaper. Britain sought "urgent clarifications" and both Governments moved into the damage control mode.

The row has not only created a rift between India and Britain, but reopened the old wounds in Punjab where calls for the Centre's apology for Operation Bluestar are again being voiced. As the sgpc's Tohra says, "This is a deep-rooted conspiracy ... some people with anti-Sikh and anti-Punjab interests are raising the bogey of apology to jettison the Queen's visit." Both Tohra and Badal, however, have urged the Queen not to cancel her visit. While pro-Khalistan groups in Britain expressed outrage at Gujral's remarks, Vaz insisted that the British Government go by the Indian Government's advice.

Indian officials are miffed by the controversy and claim that they had advised the British Government against the Amritsar visit when the proposal was first mooted some months ago. "If the Queen is so keen to reach out to her Sikh subjects in Britain," says one foreign ministry official, "why doesn't she do it by visiting one of the thousand-odd gurdwaras in England ?" However, considering that the British are sticklers for propriety and protocol, it seems unlikely that plans for the Amritsar visit would have proceeded without some concurrence from the Indian side. Others see an even more sinister motive in the British singling out the Sikh community for attention in this fashion. "India cannot forget that at least till 1988, Khalistani activity on British soil went unchecked," says a former diplomat. But even this sounds like post-facto cussedness considering the honeymoon in Indo-British relations under John Major.

As of now nothing is clear. Underscoring the prime minister's view, the Ministry of External Affairs demurely suggested on the day Gujral's remarks were published, that it was drawing the attention "of the British Government to the sentiments being expressed on the proposed visit to Amritsar". But Gujral subsequently made it quite clear that the Queen "is welcome to visit any part of the country".

Kuldip Nayar, a former high commissioner to Britain, says that the Queen should not drop plans to visit the Golden Temple, "but if she visits Amritsar, she must go to Jallianwala Bagh as well. Not to do so would be misconstrued". For the present though, the British Foreign Office is coy. "We are discussing the details of the Queen's visit with the Indian Government," india today was told in London last week, "and no final decision (on visiting Amritsar) has been made as yet." The issue of an apology or some token expression of regret does not quite appear to be ruled out either. A spokeswoman for Buckingham Palace said the Queen was always "guided by her ministers" on matters such as official statements and apologies. The Labour Government has hinted that it may not be averse to making a gesture, the problem being one of presentation.

The demand for an apology for Jallianwalla Bagh, absent during the Queen's two previous visits, is clearly a result of an ambience surcharged with nationalistic feelings in the Golden Jubilee year of Independence. But it has also crystallised in an atmosphere replete with official apologies for past misdeeds -- in Australia for the treatment of the Aborigines, in Britain for the devastating Irish potato famine and the US for enslaving the Blacks. Some time ago, Queen Elizabeth herself apologised to the Maoris in New Zealand for expropriating their land. An apology cannot undo what has been done. But surely, to offer it is a mark of maturity and civilised conduct.