Hunter Commission

The two Hunter Committee reports dealt with very different issues in British India. The first, in 1882, was chaired by Sir William Hunter and appointed by Lord Ripon. Its focus was on education reform. The committee aimed to assess the state of education, identify problems, and recommend improvements.

The second Hunter Committee, formed in 1919, arose from a much darker event – the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. Following the massacre where British troops fired on a peaceful crowd, Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State for India, established this committee. This committee, also known as the Disorders Inquiry Committee, had a different purpose. It investigated the events leading to the massacre and the actions taken by General Dyer.

After the uprising in 1857 shook the British Empire's foundations in the nation, the crown became the governing body. It took some time for the situation to return to normal. By 1882, it was thought important to evaluate how the nation's educational system was progressing and to fix any flaws that had crept in. For this reason, on February 3, 1882, Lord Ripon established the Indian Education Commission, which William Hunter, a viceroy's executive council member, chaired. In an effort to enhance India's educational system, the Indian Universities Act of 1904 and Lord Curzon's Educational Policy were later created. On the other hand, the second Hunter Commission was set up to tackle the fallout after the Jallianwallah bagh massacre by General Dyer. It did not lead to any lasting impact as it was merely recommendatory.

In 1857, the British Crown took over governance from the East India Company, placing a new emphasis on education in British India. This led to the formation of the first Indian Education Commission in 1882. Chaired by William Hunter, the commission was established by Lord Ripon to evaluate the progress made since the educational reforms outlined in Charles Wood's Despatch (1854).

The other Hunter Committee was setup after the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in 1919 under the same Sir William Hunter. The committee, consisting of three Indian members, collected statements from witnesses in Delhi, Ahmedabad, Bombay, and Lahore. In November, the committee travelled to Lahore to question key witnesses, including Dyer. Dyer defended his actions, stating it was his duty to instil terror in Punjab and diminish the rebels' moral standing. The final report condemned Dyer's actions, but no punitive action was taken. The government had passed an Indemnity Act to protect its officers, which faced significant criticism.

Main Objective:

• Examine the various facets of education in India, with a focus on basic education.
• Investigate how Wood's Despatch of 1854 was carried out and make recommendations for how to make improvements.

Major recommendation of the Hunter Commission 1882: The Hunter Commission's 1882 major recommendations led to the following modifications in British India's educational system:

• Candidates with literacy levels were given preference for lower level government employment, and primary school expansion was implemented in underprivileged communities.
• Under the Local Self Government Act, district and municipal boards were assigned the responsibility of overseeing primary schooling. To prevent monies intended for rural schools from being embezzled by urban schools, the finances were segregated for the two areas: rural and urban.
• The government was to supply funding for private entities to create secondary schools. Each district was to create a model school, wholly run by the government, to serve as a model for similar private institutions.
• The curriculum for secondary schools was also updated, including academic and career courses in a variety of subject areas.
• The raj actively encouraged Indian involvement in the private education system and resisted the establishment of missionary institutions. It was intended that special attention be paid to developing women's and girls' education.

Even though the majority of these adjustments were for the better, they were only made in schools that used the British Indian Government's prescribed curriculum. The government school system grew more overcrowded as conventional schools closed due to a lack of financing and enrollment, which led to structural issues in elementary education that still have an impact on society today.

While the Governor-General appointed the Hunter Commission in 1882 at a period of comparatively calm conditions, the then-Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu, appointed the Hunter Commission in 1919 during a period of far more tragic circumstances and unrest. The Hunter Committee of 1919, formally known as the Disorders Inquiry Committee, was established subsequent to the slaughter that took place at Jallianwala Bagh on April 13, 1919. The British Indian Army's General Dyer gave the order to start firing at a mob of unarmed civilians within Jallianwalla Bagh. This led to the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, also known as the Amritsar Massacre of 1919. The following individuals made up the Hunter Commission of 1919, which was tasked with looking into the Amritsar Massacre:

• Lord William Hunter, Chairman of the Hunter Commission, former Solicitor General of Scotland
• W.F. Rice, Home Department member
• Thomas Smith, Member, Legislative Council, United Provinces
• Pandit Jagat Narayan, Member, Legislative Council, United Provinces and lawyer
• H.C. Stokes, Secretary of the Commission and Home Department member
• Sardar Sahibzada Sultan Ahmad Khan, Gwalior State lawyer
• Sir Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad, Vice-Chancellor, Bombay University and advocate, Bombay High Court
• Mr Justice George C. Rankin, Calcutta
• Major-General Sir George Barrow, KCB, KCMG, GOC Peshawar Division

There were rumors of racial friction between the commission's Indian and British officials because they were both members. However, the committee overwhelmingly denounced General Dyer's conduct and released its following findings:

• The commission sent in its findings on May 26, 1920. Dyer was criticized by most of the group for having an improper sense of obligation.
• According to the research, Dyer should be held accountable for his drive to create a meaningful moral impact.
• The first mistake was not giving enough notice to leave the Bagh; the duration of the shooting indicated a serious mistake.
• The conclusion given in the Hunter Commission report was that there was no prearranged conspiracy behind the Indian gathering. Rebellion had resulted from riots in Amritsar, it was said.
• Martial law was declared, and it was decided that it would not be generally oppressive to apply it.
• Additionally, it found that Dyer's shooting at the mob was justified—with the caveats that he ought to have warned them before and that the length of the firing could have been reduced. (He'd given the order to fire for ten minutes.)
• In a minority report, the Indian members of the panel disputed the extent of the riots and questioned the necessity of martial law at the time.
• After the panel finished its work and submitted its findings, the then-government gave Rs. 12,000 to the families of those slain in the Bagh and Rs. 13,000 to the families of those slain in Punjabi villages.
• Dyer was ultimately dismissed from command in March 1920 when it was shown that he had misunderstood his duties. They called him to return to England. He was given half-pay and his army pension; no legal action was taken against him.

The Hunter Commission 1882, made sensible proposals that sped up advancement in the sphere of education. Incorporating topics like physics, agriculture, and other topics into elementary school was an attempt to make teaching more academic and practical. The education of the lower castes, women's education, Muslim education, and other areas received particular attention in the Hunter Commission's recommendations. The goal of the Hunter Commission's request was to give the Indians more authority over education, which would cause them to develop a fresh appreciation for it.

The Hunter Commission concluded in 1919 that there was no evidence of an Indian conspiracy behind the meeting. The commission decided that Punjab's announcement of martial law was appropriate. It also maintained that Dyer was correct in shooting at the mob, even though it suggested giving notice beforehand and decreasing the firing's duration.