ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 13, 2020 JALLIANWALA BAGH, NATIONALISM, AND TAMIL NADU Dr. Kodhandaraman Chinnathambi Lecturer, English Language Centre,Ibra College of Technology,Post Box: 327,Postal Code: 400, Sultanate of Oman Email: [email protected] Received: 14 March 2020 Revised and Accepted: 8 July 2020 ABSTRACT: The centennial commemoration of the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre of April 1919 provides an opportunity for the present generation, who are at a distance from that era temporally and historically, to gain a better understanding of the Indian Independence movement and Nationalism. It also offers an opportunity to examine how geographical distance played a crucial role in shaping the course of documentation of the event, and the varied ways in which it embedded itself in the memories of that generation in different parts of India, with special focus on what is now Tamil Nadu. At this juncture, it becomes evident that a revisit is possible only through two pathways; (a) the documentation available from the time of the event, and (b) oral history passed down from those who lived during those times and remembered the event. As both these sources are shaped by political and social power factors, a revisit requires one to travel through the trajectories of the making of history and of memory. Indian students of successive generations learn interpretations of history from textbooks and imbibe the fervour of Nationalism. Hence, this paper attempts to examine: (a) how the people of present-day Tamil Nadu reacted and responded to this massacre as compared to North India, both during the time of the event, and again during the observance of its centenary; (b) to what extent the present generation‟s view of the massacre is shaped by history text books in various States; and (c) in what way this revisit can throw light on the limits of nationalist historiography and the differences (documentations and memories) and controversies that underlie the process. KEYWORDS: Jallianwala Bagh, nationalism, memory, documentation, Justice Party, Tamil Nadu, text books I. INTRODUCTION On April 13, 1919, troops of the British India army were ordered by their commanding officer, Brigadier- General Dyer, to open fire on a large crowd of unarmed Indians during a public meeting at Jallianwalla Bagh near Amritsar in the state of Punjab. Several hundreds of people were killed in the massacre. The incident created a ripple effect across the colonial provinces and brought the extremists and moderate nationalists alike on to one platform to launch a Non-cooperation Movement. In order to study the effect of this event on the people of the erstwhile Madras presidency, a revisit through trajectories of historical documents and banned literature is necessary. Apart from throwing light on the reaction of the Madras Presidency and its people to this horrific massacre, such an attempt unravels interesting insights into some other important issues: (a) the rationale for the preservation of banned literature in libraries such as the National Archives of India, the British Museum Library and the India Office Library, (b) the reason for the colonial government‟s approval for preserving them, (c) the status of those banned works in the post-colonial era. II. PROSCRIBED LITERATURE It is important to note the role of British librarians whose persuasion led to the preservation of banned literature. Otherwise, during this revisit, the responses of Madras presidency to the brutal massacre would have been impossible. The colonial government did not want to preserve the banned works; it wanted to preserve only the „safe‟ works. However, the intervention of British librarians reversed the decision of the government. The conviction among British librarians that banned publications constituted a vital element of Indian literary output led to the preservation of two additional sets in London. Proscribed material initially was not included in shipment of Indian books to the copyright depositories, the India Office Library and the British Museum. In April of 1914, however, the Bombay government raised the issue of whether they should receive copies. The Government of India replied negatively, but the British Museum insisted on its legal right to possess all titles, not just those judged “safe” by the bureaucracy. At the same time, the museum‟s trustees offered to lock tip controversial items until their integration into the public library might be unobjectionable. The India Office agreed, and the Secretary of State called for a reconsideration of the question because of the literary and “perhaps pathological" interest of banned writings. The Government of India reversed its decision and instructed local authorities to send proscribed items to London. Most secretariats shipped two copies directly to the India
3082
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 13, 2020 Office, which kept one and sent the other to the British Museum. The Punjab apparently dispatched copies directly to the museum. These arrangements were constantly disrupted; nevertheless, correspondence suggests that a stream of banned literature reached both depositories between 1914 and 1947. (Barrier, p166) Although the government reversed its decision and allowed the secretariats to ship the copies to the India Office, the works proscribed in the colonial era have yet to be deproscribed due to legal controversies. The British actions against Indian publications produced two final legacies. First, the formerly banned literature remains a source of bureaucratic controversy. According to the Indian Home Department‟s interpretation, the responsibility for deproscription resides with the provincial (now state) government that initially banned the work. The local administrations have not pursued that course, largely because of complicated procedure and lack of information on what actually has been banned and why. The works outlawed for colonial reasons therefore are technically proscribed even today. In addition to inadvertently creating a lingering legal problem, British controls had one beneficial result. Although proscription removed a substantial amount of Indian literature from circulation, the process also led to the preservation of many works that probably would have been scattered and lost. Attempts to meet political challenge thus have produced a cultural heritage that should make possible a reevaluation of many yet uncharted facets of nation building in modern South Asia. (Barrier, p162) The continuity of the banned status of the works proscribed in colonial era into the postcolonial independent nation signals the carryover of colonial-era discrimination, caste hierarchy, and ideological domination. It is important to take into account these points while examining Madras presidency‟s response to Jallianwala Bagh. III. MADRAS PRESIDENCY’S RESPONSES British authorities imposed martial law, press censorship, mass arrests, aerial attacks and shooting and public flogging on unarmed people in Punjab in the wake of the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre incident. That was not the case in Madras province. Was it due to geographical distance or socio-political differences between the two provinces? This important question leads us to carefully analyse the responses from this region and the politics underlying those responses. According to the available data in the Tamil Nadu Archives (TNA), there were only a few printing presses for newspapers, periodicals, pamphlets, books and cartoons. Also, it is important to note from a study of the print media of the time, that starting about a week after the incident and continuing to different time lines, writers in Madras presidency wrote articles condemning the incident as brutal and inhuman. These delayed and relatively mild responses pose important questions in the colonial context of Madras presidency in relation to the ideas of „Nation and Nationalism‟ and „Nationalists and Nation‟. Venkatraman, in his paper titled “The Agony of Punjab: Influence of Jallianwala Bagh Outrage on Seditious Political Literature in the Madras Presidency, 1919-1923”, discusses in detail the publications (reactions) in Madras presidency with regard to the massacre. It was on the 20th of April 1919, a full week after the event, that the newspaper “Nationalist” published an article “The Cult of the Bullet” highlighting the first interview between Gandhi and the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, with a reference to Punjab incident. The Government of Madras found the article offensive and demanded a security deposit of Rs. 2000/- under the Indian Press Act (1910). (14) According to this Act, the government could proscribe any work that it considered to be objectionable or seditious, and the proprietor of the press had to give a financial security and deposit the amount as decided by a judge. This was an important strategy that the colonial government employed to control the vernacular press. In the Nationalist case, the government asked G. Harisavarthama Rao the editor of the newspaper to deposit a security of Rs. 10,000/-. The editor did not deposit the amount, so the publication of Nationalist came to an end (15). “Hindunesan”, a Tamil newspaper, faced a similar fate as its editor, L. Anantha Aiyer, published articles against Rowlatt Bills and condemning the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre. Like the Nationalist, the publication of Hindunesan also came to an end. Swadesamitran, started in April 1882 by G. Subramaniya Iyer, the founder of The Hindu, published an article “The condition of Punjab” on the 25th of April, 1919. This was about 14 days after the massacre. The government imposed a security of Rs.2000/- as it found the article offensive. The Hindu published an article “The agony of Punjab” on the 2nd of May 1919 that attacked the atrocities by officials in Punjab. Hence, The Hindu also had to pay Rs. 2000/- as security to the government. On the 6th May 1921, T.V. Kalyanasundara Mudaliar, editor of “Desabaktan”, published an article on repression and referred to Dyer as a „wretched man‟. Since that was highly critical of the government, action was taken against the editor under IPC-124A (Venkatraman, p 2-4). It is important to note that the newspapers “Nationalist”, “Hindunesan”, “The Hindu”, “Desabaktan” and “Swadesamitran” supported nationalists. There were also other publications such as books, pamphlets, booklets and cartoons protesting against the brutal massacre; Punjab-ka-Khun by Pt. SidhGopol Shukla (a Hindi pamphlet), Fughani Muslim or Fughani Ali (an
3083
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 13, 2020 Urdu pamphlet), Gandhi Mahatma Kaliyuga Prahalata (a Telugu book), Panchala Parabharamu (a Telugu book by D. PanduriKakshudu), A Mendicant’s Cry at Jallianwala Bagh (a pamphlet), Are We Still to Have Slave Mentality (a booklet in Tamil published in Burma), Swarjya Mantramu ( a Telugu book), Rama Dhandu Patta (a Telugu book), Sangit O’Dwyer Sahiyani (an Urdu booklet), Jallianwala Bagh-Amritsar-Punjab (a picture titled in Urdu), Jallianwala Bagh and Dyer Sahi (a cartoon with a footnote in Hindi). (Venkatraman, 4- 9) It is vital to examine the above cited responses in relation to the political and cultural context of Madras presidency. The responses create an illusion that Madras presidency reacted, but the fact is contrary. Here, Venkatraman presents only the details of newspapers and publications owned by nationalists. He carefully avoids discussing the dominant Justice Party‟s newspapers in Madras presidency. Hence, his analysis conveys the impression that (a) the published articles against the Jallianwala Bagh massacre represented the voice of the people of Madras presidency, (b) these presses were powerful in Madras province, (c) there was no divergence or regional interest among the people, (d) the people in Madras presidency supported the nationalist movement and accepted Hindu nationalist ideology, (e) Dravidian newspapers were afraid of running foul of the Indian Press Act (1910). There were about 110 Dravidian banned publications in the National Archives of India, about 53 in the British Museum, and about 61 in the India Office Library. None of them relate to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
(Barber, p167) Venkatraman‟s omission to mention that the articles condemning the massacre appeared only in publications owned by nationalists effectively suppresses the existence of caste divisions (such as Brahman and non- Brahman) and their connection to nationalism in Madras province. Similarly, he makes no mention of the representation of non-Brahmans in civil services and their opposition to the „brahminical‟ ideology of the Congress party. The press media of the Justice Party that represented the majority of the population of Madras presidency did not publish anything against the government with regard to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. Venkatraman‟s approach is nationalist in tone because it seeks to create an impression that the people of Madras presidency were against the British government and in support of the nationalists who opposed the British. Hence, the absence of this discussion in his paper is an act of appropriation in support of the nationalists and against the reality of regional differences that existed in supporting/opposing the Congress-led Independence movement. This argument is further strengthened by the fact that Irschick (1969), Rajaram (1988), and Rathan (2002) have pointed out the absence of historical records with regard to the Justice Party‟s reaction to the massacre in their research. Parthasarathy records that “the Justice Party government headed by the Raja of Panagal banned the publication and distribution of poems written by Indian nationalist Subramanya Bharathi” (p4). More than the documents present, it is the absence of relevant documents that these scholars predominantly mention. Hence, it can be stated that Venkatraman‟s approach highlights the reaction of nationalists, a small percentage, in Madras presidency, while ignoring the Justice Party‟s newspapers “Dravidian” and “Andhra Prakasini”. The Justice Party‟s newspapers did not record anything against the government with regard to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. They strongly opposed Gandhi and the Congress, as also did Madras Mail, a European newspaper that supported the government. Due to factionalism, this party was further divided into Caste-Hindus and Scheduled Castes. The Scheduled Castes pulled out of the Justice Party after the 1921 Buckingham and Carnatic Mills strike. “During the late Nineteenth century, Dalits started journals like Dravida Mitran (1885) and Dravida Pandian (1885), but in the early Twentieth century, their journals were named as Madras Adi-Dravidan (1919), Adi-Dravidan (1919), Adi-Dravida Pathukavalan (1927) and Adi-Dravida Mitran (1936). We could understand that Dalits have travelled from the Dravidan identity to Adi-Dravidan identity.” (Balasubramanian, p5) Such was the complexity of ideologies and identities in the
3084
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 13, 2020 Madras presidency before, during and after the time of Jallianwalla Bagh. Hence, we can conclude that, overall, the reaction from the Madras presidency population to the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre was minimal. IV. JALLIANWALA BAGH AND SCHOOL TEXT BOOKS There is a strong link between socio-political power and the construction of memory with regard to past events. This construction mostly happens at school level through history text books. Hence, classrooms and history text books play a significant role in shaping the political attitude and ideology of students. Taking a broader perspective, Dawson and Prewitt (1969) claimed that, in modern societies, “a major portion of political learning takes place in the classroom. It is through this agency that the most comprehensive and deliberate efforts are made by modern and modernizing policies to shape the political outlooks of new citizens . . . The curriculum is potentially one of the major instruments of political socialization . . . [and]. . . nationalistic values, in particular, permeate the entire school curriculum” (p146). While shaping the political outlook, school text books also reveal the dissonance between nationalist and regional historiographers or historiographies. Two systems, the Central and State school boards, are responsible for prescribing text books in India. Since the State government has the authority over text book production for State board schools, historical viewpoints differ between Central board textbooks and State board textbooks. For example, the Maharashtra government has recently revised the school history textbooks, representing Chatrapathi Shivaji as an ideal ruler whereas Akbar has been described as a ruler who tried to bring India under a central authority. Similarly, there is a revision in Class X Social Science textbook. According to this modification, Maharana Pratap defeated Mughal emperor Akbar in the 16th century Battle of Haldighati. Earlier, the result of the battle had been presented as inconclusive. Continuing this trend, the Social Science text book for Class Eight in Rajasthan excluded all mention of Jawaharlal Nehru in the chapters on “Freedom Movement” and on “India after Independence”. There was no mention of him as a freedom fighter and first Prime Minister of India (Jaffrelot). These controversial revisions highlight two important things. First, the Central government‟s (NCERT) attempt to bring India under a centralized historical narrative. Second, the State government‟s authority to produce books and to make history texts more state-centric. Such contradictions in the presentation of history confront the Indian child who will be the future Indian citizen. Hence, it can be stated that ideological differences between the State government and the Central government shape the contents of the history texts in schools, and thereby shape the viewpoints of the children. This is because Education is a „concurrent‟ subject as per the Indian constitution, giving areas of decision-making to both Central and State governments, sometimes leading to conflicts in interpretation. The current NCERT Social Science text book for class eight, under the topic “The Rowlatt Satyagraha”, refers to Jallianwala Bagh. There are 29 sentences (about 251 words) in the section, of which only 21 words refer to this incident. It is presented as one of the atrocities inflicted upon people who fought against the Rowlatt Act (p 148). There is a reference to Rabindranath Tagore as renouncing his Knighthood to express his anger and pain. Under the title “Khilafat agitation and the Non-Cooperation Movement” there are about 21 words that refer to Jallianwala Bagh and Khilafat (p. 149). By contrast, the topic “Non-Brahman Movement” in Madras presidency on page 119 has about 46 sentences (about 347 words). There is a reference to this massacre in about 26 words in the Social Science book for Class 12 (State board, Tamil Nadu) under the title “Rise of labour movement”. According to the book, “In April 1919 after the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre and Gandhi‟s arrest, the working class in Ahmedabad and other parts of Gujarat resorted to strikes, agitations and demonstrations”(39).There is no reference to any agitation in Madras presidency with regard to the massacre or Gandhi‟s arrest. In the same book, under the title Jallianwala Bagh (about 470 words), there is a reference to protests held in different places and to Rabindranath Tagore. The account reads: “The entire country was horrified at the brutalities. In Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi, Lahore there were widespread protests against the Rowlatt Act where the protesters were fired upon. There was violence in many towns and cities.” (p 47) Although there are usually differences in the content of the texts prepared by the State and Central boards, there is similarity between the two as regards the fact that there is no mention of anything about Madras presidency in connection with reactions to the massacre. However, it is important to note that this section also covers the topic „non-Brahman movement presented in 132 sentences (about 650 words). Both books have given more weightage to the non- Brahman movement than to the Jallianwala Bagh incident. Hence, it is clear that Jallianwala Bagh is presented, in the text books, as just one of the incidents arising out of protests against the Rowlatt Act. This also implies that there were many agitations against the Rowlatt Act and strict measures were inflicted upon people. Hence, from this textual analysis it can be concluded that the non-Brahman movement drew more significant attention at the time in the Madras presidency, and that there were only mild and minimal reactions to the massacre and no repercussions on a large scale.
3085
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 13, 2020 Kishwar Desai, in her book Jallianwala Bagh, 1919: The Real Story, attributes this silence and mild reaction to the differential reactions of the authorities. She states: “It could be argued that because the authorities did not react with the same severity as in Punjab, the disorders lasted for a shorter period in Delhi and everywhere else in the country.” She fails to take into account the geographical distance and the significant role of regionalism in politics. Her generalization is dangerous because it sounds exclusively nationalist in tone (similar to that of Venkatraman) and downplays liberal democratic content in the awakening of non-Brahman movement in Madras presidency. Hence, this muted response in Madras presidency has to be understood against the backdrop of the rise of the Justice Party, indirect help from the colonial government to this party, this party‟s pro-British and anti-nationalist stance, and the formation of caste associations and movements in Madras presidency around that period. V. RESPONSES TO JALLIANWALA BAGH ON THE OCCASION OF ITS CENTENARY About nine books have been published to mark the centenary (2018-19) of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. These books play a significant role in revisiting this epochal tragedy during its centenary by providing an array of perspectives into the event. For example, Eyewitness at Amritsar: A Visual History of the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh Massacre by Amandeep Singh Padra and Parmjit Singh, primarily deals with visual images relating to the horrific massacre. These visual images include newspaper photographs, posters, cartoons, and secret images smuggled out of India in 1819. The Case That Shook the Empire: One Man's Fight for the Truth about the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre by Raghu Palat and Pushpa Palat, focuses on the reports of court proceedings and a nationalist who believed in his principles above all else. It delves deep into the details of the defamation case against Sir Chettur Sankaran Nair. The Patient Assassin: A True Tale of Massacre, Revenge, and India's Quest for Independence by Anita Anand, traces the journey of Udam Singh (who shot and killed O‟Dwyer) through Africa, the United States, and Europe. It presents the details of how he arrived in March 1940 in front of O‟Dwyer at Caxton Hall in London hall ready to assassinate him. The Amritsar Massacre: The British Empire's Worst Atrocity by Vaneesa Holburn, examines the context of the massacre and delineates in detail the tensions within the region and the chain of events that the political and professional ambitions on both sides created. Jallianwala Bagh: Literary Responses in Prose & Poetry by Rakshanda Jalil, is a collection of prose and poetry, an outcome of the horrific massacre. She offers, through literary writings, vantage points into history and possibilities for reflection, interpretation and analysis of events. Khooni Vaisakhi: A Poem from the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, 1919 by Nanak Singh and Navdeep Suri, is a literary reflection based on the massacre, written originally in Punjabi and translated into English by Navdeep Suri. Jallianwala Bagh, An Empire of Fear and the Making of the Amritsar Massacre by Kim A. Wagner, uncovers the experiences of ordinary people, British and Indian and puts the reader at the centre of the tensions and anxieties of the massacre. He also explains in detail the role of Hans Raj as an approver and how his testimony was used to implicate the local leaders and those already in custody. Wagner argues that General Dyer‟s order to open fire was triggered by imaginary fears of an impending rebellion. Jallianwala Bagh, 1919: The Real Story by Kishwar Desai, focuses on the catalysts that brought about the Jallianwala massacre and provides a sharp analysis of General Dyer‟s actions and their fallout. Martyrdom to Freedom: 100 Years of Jallianwala Bagh by N.N. Vohra, highlights how the newspaper “The Tribune” deeply and fearlessly investigated and questioned the British authorities in relation to this epochal tragedy. This book brings together essays of some of the best known authors, thinkers and historians of modern India, alongside priceless articles from the archives of the newspaper, dating back to 1919. The point here is that most of the authors of these books, whether as reportage or literary response, are from Punjab and some other states of India, but not a single one is from Tamil Nadu. Similarly, the literary collections do not include any translation either prose or poetry from Tamil, although a few were written by nationalists during the colonial era. This significant absence of voices from Tamil cannot be downplayed because Punjab and Tamil Nadu are Indian states. It raises pertinent questions with regard to the concepts of „nation‟ and „nationalism‟ in India. However, the absence of literary response towards this epochal event in Tamil Nadu on the occasion of this centenary may be attributed to geographical distance and a state-centric political approach. Another important point that we need to remind ourselves about is the construction of memory via school text books. The history text books that students study in Tamil Nadu, both the central and state board history books, present the Jallianwala Bagh massacre as a horrific event that took place in Punjab, and the regions that were geographically and ideologically close to Punjab reacted and responded to the event. Hence, the students do not relate to this incident emotionally, socially, culturally, and politically as something that closely concerns them. This absence of empathy may also be ascribed, partially, to the fact that there is no reference in the textbooks to any agitation and literary response in Madras presidency against the British at the time.
3086
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 13, 2020 VI. CONCLUSION Three points converge at this juncture. First, in the Madras presidency there were only mild and minimal reactions by the nationalists against this event and no reaction from the Justice Party. Second, History text books do not record any reaction or agitation by the people in Madras presidency. Third, there is only a nominal response to this centenary celebration in Tamil Nadu. This convergence strongly signals the existence of divergences of reactions across the nation, and points to a probable explanation for the absence of agitation and vigorous literary reaction in prose and poetry in Madras province. These points are not discussed in detail in nationalist historiography. There are also other enduring mysteries such as issues related to Hans Raj, the approver, and the Indian troops‟ (Rajput, Sikh, Pathan, and Muslim) presence at Jallianwala Bagh shooting. To conclude, it can be stated that the aspects of geographical distance, differing political viewpoints, and the predominance of local issues that existed in colonial times continue to exist in the modern nation-state. This is a paradox and a kind of intervention in the very understanding of the term „Nation‟. It is true that India, as a nation, showcases “Unity in Diversity”. Yet, to make a truly integrated nation, the differences have to be horizontal and not vertical. Hence, the ideology of Nationalism or Nationalism as ideology that we uphold has to respect the shared values and be in alignment with the definition of Nation. This is what this revisit at this centenary teaches us. VII. REFERENCES [1] Anand, Anita. The Patient Assassin: A True Tale of Massacre, Revenge, and India's Quest for Independence. Scribner, 2019. [2] Balasubramaniam, J. "Migration of the Oppressed and Adi Dravida Identity Construction Through Print." Contemporary Voice of Dalit 8.1 (2016): 41-46. [3] Barrier, Norman Gerald. Banned; Controversial Literature and Political Control in British India, 1907- 1947. Vol. 61. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1974. [4] Dawson, R. & Prewitt, K. Political socialization. Boston: Little Brown, 1969. [5] Desai, Kishwar. Jallianwala Bagh, 1919: The Real Story. Context, 2018. [6] Holburn, Vaneesa. The Amritsar Massacre: The British Empire's Worst Atrocity. Pen and Sword History, 2019. [7] Irschick, Eugene F. Politics and social conflict in South India The non-Brahman Movement and Tamil Separatism, 1916-1929. Oxford University Press, 1969. [8] Jalil, Rakshanda. Jallianwala Bagh: Literary Responses in Prose & Poetry. Niyogi Books, 2019. [9] Padra, Amandeep Singh and Singh Parmjit. Eyewitness at Amritsar: A Visual History of the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh Massacre. 2019. [10] Palat, Pushpa and Palat, Raghu. The Case That Shook the Empire: One Man's Fight for the Truth about the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2019. [11] Parthasarathy, R. (1979) Builders of Modern India: S. Satyamurti. Publications Division, Government of India. P. 43. [12] Rajaraman, P. The Justice Party: A Historical Perspective, 1916-37. Poompozhil Publishers, 1988. [13] Ralhan, O. P. (2002). Encyclopaedia of Political Parties. Anmol Publications PVT. LTD [14] Ramachandran, Rajesh (Ed.). Martyrdom to Freedom: 100 Years of Jallianwala Bagh. Rupa Publications, 2019. [15] Singh, Nanak and Suri, Navdeep. Khooni Vaisakhi: A Poem from the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, 1919. Harperperennial, 2019. [16] Venkatraman, V. "The Agony of Punjab: Influence of Jallianwala Bagh Outrage on Seditious Political Literature in the Madras Presidency, 1919–1923." Available at SSRN 3236540 (2018). [17] Wagner, Kim A. Jallianwala Bagh: An Empire of Fear and the Making of the Amritsar Massacre. Penguin Random House India Private Limited, 2019. [18] Website [19] Jaffrelot, Christophe, “Why the BJP rewrites history”The Indian Express. Updated: June 7, 2016 https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/why-the-bjp-rewrites-history-textbooks-jawaharlal- nehru-aurangzeb-bala-gangadhar-tilak-aurobindo-283823. Accessed on 20th December 2019.
3087