Save Autograph Trial with airSlate SignNow

Save autograph trial

this episode of the great war is sponsored by curiosity stream so go to curiositystream.com the great war and sign up and if you do you'll also get access to nebula where you can watch current great war episodes and other creators ad free there'll be more information at the end of this video and in the video description below it's january 1921 and in british india indians can now sit on special councils to share in the administration of the colony but these reforms might not be enough to satisfy rising indian nationalism spurred on by a new political leader and a bloody massacre [Music] hi i'm jesse alexander and welcome to the great war india had been the so-called jewel in the crown of the british empire since the 18th century but the years following the great war saw british rule shaken and the indian movement for independence gained new strength in this episode we'll take a look at the dramatic events in india following the first world war and the emergence of one of the most influential world leaders in modern history and it all happened 100 years ago in the years leading up to the great war british rule was firmly established in its south asian empire which included today's india pakistan and bangladesh power was exercised by the british viceroy who was in charge of the colonial government of india lord kurzan who was viceroy from 1899 to 1905 summed up just how important india was to british prestige as long as we rule india we are the greatest power in the world if we lose it we shall drop straight away to a third-rate power the war however would place great strains on this relationship the british drew heavily on indian manpower and resources to fight the war around 2 million indians were mobilized and india contributed about 50 billion pounds in today's money to the war effort initially british politicians were pleased by the indian reaction to the war they were mass displays of loyalty in 1914 and even the nationalists supported the cause but things had changed by 1917. the campaign in mesopotamia had gone badly the british were recruiting men using coercive methods and they'd introduced unpopular wartime restrictions all of which increased pre-existing indian opposition to british rule by august new secretary of state edwin montague was promising reforms for indian governance but not full independence the policy of his majesty's government is that of the increasing association of indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in india as an integral part of the british empire so with the war dragging on into 1918 and no end in sight the british were willing to make compromises for more involvement of indians in the government but indian nationalists hoping for home rule would be disappointed indian nationalist groups like the indian national congress and muslim killer fat conference wanted the montague reforms to be the first step on the road to self-governance british policymakers on the other hand interpreted things differently for them india was so important that it had to remain under imperial control lionel curtis a british official who helped draft the reforms reflected this view india's affairs are those of the whole commonwealth she can never therefore control them apart it would not be possible so long as they remain part of the british commonwealth to place the indian frontier under the control of a government responsible only to the people of india instead the montague chelmsford reforms that were passed in december 1919 offered responsibility but little authority the act introduced a system of diarchy which would see indian staffed councils introduced into some government ministries however this applied only to the ministries considered less important to british priorities like agriculture education and public health the british-controlled government of india kept total control of foreign affairs security and finance in the end the reforms actually had the effect of reinforcing the colonial system the british offer of limited power also created divisions amongst indian intellectuals and some have considered this a case of divide and rule some wanted to accept the minor improvements that the british had put on the table while others including mohandas gandhi decided to boycott the councils entirely gandhi had been to law school in london and first entered the political scene in british south africa where he campaigned for the rights of indian workers who were living there in 1915 he returned to his native india bringing with him a new philosophy of resistance and the honorific title mahatma which means one with a great soul like many educated indians gandhi had originally supported the war effort and the idea of british justice but he was disappointed by the reforms and began to campaign for change central to his approach was a doctrine of non-violent civil disobedience which he called satyagraha or holding on to truth by accepting punishment even physical punishment gandhi and his followers hoped to create moral and ethical superiority over the power of the state which would eventually erode the british will to govern his approach differed from that of some other indian nationalist leaders who were often westernized intellectuals and who were sometimes called brown sahibs by their critics gandhi openly rejected his westernized past by adopting traditional dress and connecting political ideas to spiritual concepts that could appeal to both muslims and hindus his behavior and his appearance helped him to win support among the poor of the countryside and students historian dennis judd explained it this way owing mainly to the simplicity and quasi-religious qualities associated with satyagraha indian resistance to british rule could become for the first time a mass movement not the preserve of a western educated elite wearing suits waistcoats and ties and making speeches in english to audiences who could not always understand them not all of gandhi's colleagues supported his approach some felt that his rejection of western methods and education was too aggressive and even hypocritical independence activist lala lajpatrai for example questioned the logic of making spiritual or ethical arguments to the british rai felt reasoning with the british was akin to quote placing pearls before swine so the great war had given new strength to indian independence groups but the reforms the british had introduced had failed to satisfy them part of the reason for this was a mutual suspicion between the british and the local population that owed much to the bloody events going back to spring 1919. in 1919 satyagraha was just one of many ideologies that the british were worried about there was the rise of bolshevism in russia kemalism in the former ottoman empire and the republican insurgency in ireland the british were afraid that these ideas might weaken their hold on india and there were indeed some signs that this was happening indian communist leader m.n roy looked to bolshevik russia for support and the british perceived the restoration of the caliphate in istanbul as a test of loyalty for indian muslims so in march 1919 british authorities in india introduced the anarchical and revolutionary crimes act also known as the roll it act the act gave the state new powers to deal with alleged seditious activity including detention without trial suspension of the right to gather or protest and control of the media to many indians this was an unwarranted continuation of the hated wartime restrictions and it essentially made the activities of indian nationalists illegal activist srinavas sastri protested to the imperial legislative council when government undertakes a repressive policy the innocent are not safe men like me would not be considered innocent the innocent then is he who forswears politics who takes no part in the public movement of the times who retires into his house mumbles his prayers pays his taxes and salams all the government officials all round gandhi agreed and called the rowlet act a quote piece of devilish legislation and he encouraged indians to resist it one peaceful protest occurred on april 6 in the northern city of amritsar in punjab region the british authorities arrested and deported the local protest leaders which further inflamed tensions on april 10 protesters clashed with police the crowd threw stones and police responded by opening fire killing 12 and wounding 30 others protesters then reacted by looting shops and by beating five europeans to death brigadier general reginald dyer was sent to amritsar to deal with the growing crisis and put a stop to the violence but by the time he arrived the protests had already taken on a form of peaceful disobedience against the restrictions on gatherings on april 13th about 10 000 locals had gathered in a walled enclosure known as jaliyanwala bhak to listen to speeches and to celebrate a local religious festival around 5 pm dyer arrived with gurkha and sikh troops and several armored cars the vehicles were too large to get into the compound so dyer advanced on foot with about 90 men within 30 seconds of arriving dyer gave the soldiers the order to open fire without having given a warning in about 10 minutes 1 650 rounds were fired which killed at least 379 people and wounded about 1 200 more although some estimates of the dead put the figure much higher the amritsar massacre was a turning point for the indian independence movement for many indians including gandhi the attack and ensuing debate removed any doubt in their minds about the true nature of british rule general dyer felt that his actions had been a necessary and justifiable use of force he called the political gathering which had been illegal a quote declaration of war and said that his actions were meant to send a wider message to all of punjab the responsibility was very great if i fired i must fire with good effect a small amount of firing would be a criminal act of folly i had the choice of carrying out a very distasteful and horrible duty or of neglecting to do my duty of suppressing disorder or of becoming responsible for all future bloodshed i fired and continued to fire until the crowd dispersed and i consider this the least amount of firing which would produce the necessary moral and widespread effect it was my duty to produce if i was to justify my action he also said that he had acted to save face i think it quite possible that i could have dispersed the crowd without firing but they would have come back again and laughed and i would have made what i consider a fool of myself the massacre caused heated debate in britain liberal party politicians including winston churchill considered it an excessive use of force and describe dyer as having gone rogue on the other hand many conservative politicians newspapers military figures and anglo-indians supported him and said that he acted either out of self-defense or out of a sense of imperial duty one newspaper even raised 23 000 pounds for dire from private donations the official british response to the incident did little to ease tensions the october 1919 hunter report concluded dyer had exercised a quote mistaken conception of his duty the report found that dyer was at fault but not the british indian government it also found that there was no bolshevik plot behind the protests in punjab and it recommended that dire be retired and that new policies be found to reduce the use of force the house of commons approved the report's findings but the more conservative house of lords rejected it dyer eventually retired early but faced no other punishment gandhi was disappointed in the report but not because dire had been let off easy instead he was upset that the role of the anglo-indian government had all but been ignored we do not want to punish dire we have no desire for revenge we want to change the system that produced dire recently historians have argued that the massacre was not an extreme reaction to a tense wartime situation but rather a part of a continuation of a long-time colonial policy in india the british had long used collective punishments and often communal guilt was assigned to the indian population when conflicts arose indians were often framed as naughty school boys who needed to be punished for their own good and dyer even suggested that the indians should be thankful to him for the lesson in respect that he had taught them there are historians who have defended dire mostly using similar arguments to those that were used at the time that he was acting in self-defense or that he used no more force than was necessary in general in the historical debates dyer tends to be portrayed as either an arrogant butcher or as a soldier in a tense wartime situation who had a terrible duty to carry out 100 years later the debate in britain is still ongoing the amritsar massacre stirred passions at the time as it still does today and in 1921 its impact was no less dramatic when the indian council started their work in january of that year they found little support from the people or from the government the council's effectiveness was limited by the massacre's effect on public opinion gandhi's opposition to them and the british resistance to meaningful reform without public support the councils couldn't exert much pressure on the government and in any case the british still controlled the all-important finances and the reformer montague had now fallen from grace and his former colleagues were looking to cut ties montague himself realized that his reforms were failing as he admitted in a letter to the viceroy in july 1921 the prime minister has as you know little or no faith in me meanwhile gandhi's support was on the rise students boycotted schools lawyers boycotted courts and villagers burned foreign cloth potential british civil servants now stayed away from india and fresh university graduates from england no longer saw the indian civil service as a path to an easy life and a lucrative career in december 1920 the indian national congress held a series of conferences in nagpur to determine the movement's future they officially adopted gandhi's non-cooperation strategy as part of a campaign called svaraj in one year meaning self-rule gandhi hoped to achieve self-rule in 1921 by rejecting monolithic central state structures promoting a stateless society and uniting hindus and muslims but in 1921 the non-violent self-rule project seemed to actually be weakening as the year went on violence broke out between muslim kilafat members and hindu landlords in august which increased tensions within the independence movement in november the prince of wales arrived in india for an official visit and despite gandhi's call for peaceful non-cooperation there were outbreaks of violence within the british administration there were growing calls for gandhi's arrest throughout 1921. privately he worried that his movement might actually provoke more violence than it prevented which was the opposite of its intentions what was clear by the fall of 1921 was that indians hoping for self-rule would have to wait and now that we've talked about the troubles in india in 1921 we're going to switch gears and talk a little bit about the troubles on youtube in 2021 for history creators like us that's why we crowdfunded and released our battle of berlin documentary 16 days in berlin specifically outside of youtube where 250 of our videos were retroactively demonetized because they changed their rules years after these videos were made and given this kind of climate we've taken further steps to be safe in the future we teamed up with some other creator friends to have a platform where we don't have to worry about youtube's capricious actions this platform is called nebula on nebula you can watch top educational creators like us ad free and support them at the same time for example this video you're watching now doesn't have this very ad on nebula and we can publish content there which we can't put on youtube like our documentary series 16 days in berlin which i've just mentioned so what does this have to do with curiosity stream another platform for classic high quality documentary content they like what we're doing on nebula and they're supporting it with a pretty sweet deal if you sign up for curiosity stream through curiositystream.com the great war you get access to two platforms instead of one so signing up through curiositystream.com the great war gets you access to both curiosity stream and also to nebula and right now you can sign up for 41 off less than 12 for an entire year it's not a trial or anything you'll have access to nebula as long as you're signed up for curiosity street so if you want to watch a fascinating documentary about australian nurses in the vietnam war you can do that on curiosity stream and if you want to watch the most detailed documentary about the battle of berlin you can do that on nebula so that's curiositystream.com the great war for 41 off that's less than 12 a year we want to thank mark newton for his help with this episode and as usual all the sources we use for the episode can be found in the video description and if you want to support our channel you can do so on patreon and the link for that is in the video description as well i'm jesse alexander and this is the great war 1921 a production of real-time history and the only youtube history channel that follows a doctrine of non-violent civil disobedience [Applause] foreign