The Hunter Commission was appointed after the

1. The Rowlatt Act: The 'Black Act' of 1919 (basic)

To understand the rise of Mahatma Gandhi's mass movements, we must first look at the 'stick' the British used while offering the 'carrot' of constitutional reforms. In early 1919, while the British were preparing the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms to introduce gradual self-government, they simultaneously passed the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act, popularly known as the Rowlatt Act Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Emergence of Gandhi, p. 320. This was a classic British policy of 'rallying the moderates' with reforms while 'isolating the extremists' with repression TN Board History Class XII, Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation, p. 46.

The Act was based on the recommendations of the Rowlatt Commission, chaired by Sir Sidney Rowlatt. Its primary purpose was to replace the expiring wartime Defence of India Act (1915) with a permanent law to crush nationalist dissent. The provisions were shockingly undemocratic: the government could imprison any person without trial for up to two years, and even the mere possession of 'seditious' newspapers could be used as evidence of guilt Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Emergence of Gandhi, p. 320. Indians aptly described it with the slogan: 'No Dalil, No Vakil, No Appeal' (No argument, no lawyer, no appeal).

What made this Act a turning point was the unanimous opposition from Indian leaders. Every single elected Indian member of the Imperial Legislative Council voted against it, but they were outvoted by the official British majority. In a powerful gesture of protest, prominent leaders like Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Madan Mohan Malaviya, and Mazhar-ul-Haq resigned their seats in the Council Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Emergence of Gandhi, p. 320. This betrayal by the British government — promising reforms with one hand and taking away basic civil liberties with the other — set the stage for Gandhi to launch his first nationwide protest.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Emergence of Gandhi, p.320; History Class XII (Tamil Nadu State Board), Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation, p.46

2. Rowlatt Satyagraha and the Amritsar Crisis (intermediate)

The Rowlatt Satyagraha marks a watershed moment in the Indian National Movement because it was Mahatma Gandhi's first attempt at a pan-India mass struggle. Until 1919, Gandhi's successes (Champaran, Kheda, Ahmedabad) were localized. The catalyst was the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act (1919), popularly known as the Rowlatt Act. This 'Black Act' allowed the British government to imprison any person suspected of 'terrorism' for up to two years without trial, effectively suspending the right to habeas corpus and legal representation.

In response, Gandhi founded the Satyagraha Sabha in February 1919. This organization was crucial because it represented a shift from the 'old agitational methods' of petitions and speeches to a novel method based on active, non-violent disobedience and the courting of arrest Modern India, Bipin Chandra, Struggle for Swaraj, p.267. Gandhi signaled a transformation in the nationalist identity by emphasizing the involvement of the common man—laborers, artisans, and peasants—and adopting Khadi as the uniform of the movement History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation, p.46.

The movement reached its tragic climax in Punjab. While a nationwide hartal (strike) was planned for April 6, the situation in Amritsar became particularly volatile following the arrest of two popular local leaders, Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlu and Dr. Satyapal Modern India, Bipin Chandra, Struggle for Swaraj, p.268. This led to a large, peaceful gathering at Jallianwala Bagh on April 13, 1919 (Baisakhi day). General Dyer, the military commander, blocked the only exit and ordered his troops to fire upon the unarmed crowd without warning, aiming to 'terrorize' the population into submission.

Feature	Pre-1919 Nationalism	Gandhian Rowlatt Satyagraha
Social Base	Primarily urban middle class and elite.	Wider participation of labor, artisans, and peasants.
Methods	Petitions, boycotts, and legal agitation.	Direct disobedience of laws and courting arrest (Satyagraha).
Symbolism	Western attire or regional dress.	Khadi as the nationalist uniform for all.

The brutality of the Amritsar crisis shocked the nation and led to the appointment of the Hunter Committee (Disorders Inquiry Committee) to investigate the atrocities Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Emergence of Gandhi, p.324. This period effectively ended any lingering faith the Indian public had in British justice, setting the stage for the even larger Non-Cooperation Movement.

Sources: Modern India, Bipin Chandra, Struggle for Swaraj, p.267-268; History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Advent of Gandhi and Mass Mobilisation, p.46; Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Emergence of Gandhi, p.321-324

3. Immediate Aftermath of Jallianwala Bagh (basic)

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre on April 13, 1919, wasn't just a localized tragedy; it was a profound turning point that shattered India's remaining faith in British justice. The immediate aftermath was marked by a chilling descent into state-sponsored humiliation. Under Martial Law in Punjab, the British administration, led by General Dyer and Lieutenant Governor Michael O’Dwyer, sought to "teach Indians a lesson." The most infamous example was the 'Crawling Order,' where Indians were forced to crawl on their bellies through the street where a British missionary had been attacked. Public floggings and other forms of dehumanizing punishment became common in Amritsar, stunning the entire nation Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 15, p. 323.

The response from India’s intellectual and political leadership was swift and symbolic. Rabindranath Tagore, the great poet, renounced his Knighthood in a scathing letter to the Viceroy, stating that "badges of honour make our shame glaring in their incongruous context of humiliation" Bipin Chandra, Modern India, Struggle for Swaraj, p. 269. Simultaneously, Mahatma Gandhi, who was deeply shaken by the spiral of violence, surrendered his Kaiser-i-Hind medal, which he had received for his ambulance work during the Boer War. Recognizing that the atmosphere had become too violent for a peaceful struggle, Gandhi called off the Rowlatt Satyagraha on April 18, 1919, famously describing his decision to start it as a "Himalayan Blunder" due to the lack of preparation for non-violence Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 15, p. 323.

To pacify the growing international and domestic outrage, the Government of India eventually formed the Disorders Inquiry Committee, popularly known as the Hunter Committee (named after its chairman, Lord William Hunter), on October 14, 1919. This committee was tasked with investigating the disturbances in Punjab, Bombay, and Delhi. While it included three Indian members—Sir Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad, Pandit Jagat Narayan, and Sardar Sahibzada Sultan Ahmed Khan—the committee's proceedings and subsequent findings were largely seen as a whitewash by the Indian public, further fueling the fire for the upcoming mass movements Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 15, p. 324.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 15: Emergence of Gandhi, p.323-324; Modern India (Old NCERT), Struggle for Swaraj, p.269

4. Constitutional Context: Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (exam-level)

To understand the rise of the Gandhian era, we must first look at the constitutional 'carrot' the British offered to pacify Indian nationalists: the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, which became the Government of India Act of 1919. This Act was born out of the August 20, 1917 declaration, where the British government stated its objective was the 'gradual introduction of responsible government' M. Laxmikanth, Historical Background, p.6. However, there was a major catch: the British Parliament—not the Indian people—would remain the sole judge of the 'time and manner' of each step toward self-rule Rajiv Ahir, Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.509. This top-down approach to 'freedom' created significant friction between the Raj and Indian leaders like Gandhi.

The hallmark of this Act was the introduction of Dyarchy (dual government) at the provincial level. Under this system, the functions of the provincial government were divided into two distinct categories. 'Reserved' subjects, such as law and order, finance, and land revenue, remained under the absolute control of the Governor and his executive council. 'Transferred' subjects, like education, public health, and agriculture, were managed by Indian ministers responsible to the legislative council D. D. Basu, THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, p.5. While it seemed like a step forward, the Indian ministers had 'responsibility' without the 'power' of the purse, as finance remained a reserved subject controlled by British officials.

Feature	Reserved Subjects	Transferred Subjects
Examples	Law & Order, Finance, Irrigation, Land Revenue	Education, Health, Local Self-Govt, Agriculture
Administered by	Governor and his Executive Council	Governor and his Indian Ministers
Accountability	Not responsible to the Legislature	Responsible to the Legislative Council

At the Central level, the Act introduced Bicameralism for the first time. The old Imperial Legislative Council was replaced by two houses: the Council of State (Upper House) and the Legislative Assembly (Lower House) Rajiv Ahir, Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.509. While the proportion of elected members was increased, the franchise (right to vote) remained extremely limited, based on property, tax, or education. Furthermore, the Act extended the communal electorate system—originally granted only to Muslims in 1909—to include Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, and Europeans, a move many nationalists saw as a 'divide and rule' tactic.

Sources: Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, p.5; Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.509; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Historical Background, p.6; Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), Emergence of Gandhi, p.308

5. Evolution of Mass Protest: Khilafat & Non-Cooperation (intermediate)

To understand the Non-Cooperation Movement (NCM), we must first look at how two separate streams of discontent—one religious and pan-Islamic, the other nationalistic—merged into a single, powerful river of protest. This was the Khilafat-Non-Cooperation alliance. After World War I, Indian Muslims were deeply distressed by the British treatment of the Ottoman Empire (Turkey). They demanded that the Khalifa (the Sultan of Turkey and spiritual head of Muslims) retain control over Muslim sacred places and be left with sufficient territory. To pressure the British, leaders like the Ali brothers (Shaukat Ali and Muhammad Ali), Maulana Azad, and Hasrat Mohani formed the Khilafat Committee in early 1919 Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 15, p.330.

Gandhiji saw this as a unique opportunity to unite Hindus and Muslims in a common struggle against British rule. He convinced the Congress to support the Khilafat cause, linking it to the demand for Swaraj and justice for the "Punjab wrongs" (referring to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre and the subsequent unsatisfactory Hunter Committee inquiry) Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 15, p.324. The movement officially launched on August 31, 1920, with Gandhi returning his Kaiser-i-Hind Medal as a symbolic gesture of non-cooperation Bipin Chandra, Modern India, Struggle for Swaraj, p.271.

The turning point for the Indian National Congress occurred at the Nagpur Session in December 1920. This wasn't just another meeting; it was a structural revolution. The Congress changed its very identity to become a mass-based revolutionary organization. Key changes included:

Feature	Before Nagpur 1920	After Nagpur 1920
Goal	Self-government through constitutional means.	Attainment of Swaraj through peaceful and legitimate means.
Approach	Petitions and speeches (within the system).	Extra-constitutional mass struggle (outside the system).
Organization	Loose annual gatherings.	Establishment of a 15-member Congress Working Committee (CWC) to lead daily.

The movement saw incredible participation across social strata. While Subhash Chandra Bose resigned from the Civil Services to become the principal of National College in Calcutta, and Motilal Nehru gave up his legal practice, the movement also reached the grassroots. In Andhra, Alluri Sitaram Raju led tribal resistance, while in Bengal, Jitendralal Banerji organized peasants against settlement operations Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, After Nehru, p.807-808. However, not everyone was on board; a section of industrialists even launched an Anti-Non-Cooperation Association in 1920 to protect their business interests Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, After Nehru, p.808.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 15: Emergence of Gandhi, p.324, 330, 332; A Brief History of Modern India, After Nehru..., p.807, 808; Modern India (NCERT), Struggle for Swaraj, p.271

6. Distinguishing the Two Hunter Commissions (intermediate)

In the study of Modern Indian History, the name Hunter can be quite deceptive because it refers to two completely different commissions appointed decades apart. As a student of the Gandhian era, you will most frequently encounter the 1919 version, but examiners often use the 1882 version as a 'distractor' in multiple-choice questions. Understanding the distinction is vital for clarity.

The first was the Hunter Education Commission (1882), chaired by W.W. Hunter. Appointed during the viceroyalty of Lord Ripon, its primary goal was to review the progress of education since the Wood’s Despatch of 1854. This commission is famous for emphasizing that the state should take special care of primary education and that such education should be delivered in vernacular languages. It also recommended handing over the control of primary education to the newly formed district and municipal boards Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Development of Education, p.567.

The second, and the one most relevant to our current hop on Gandhian movements, is the Hunter Committee (1919), officially known as the Disorders Inquiry Committee. This was chaired by Lord William Hunter (a former Solicitor-General for Scotland). It was established in response to the national outcry following the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. Its purpose was to investigate the 'disturbances' in Bombay, Delhi, and Punjab and the measures taken to suppress them Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Emergence of Gandhi, p.324. While the 1882 commission dealt with textbooks and classrooms, the 1919 committee dealt with bullets and martial law.

Feature	Hunter Commission (1882)	Hunter Committee (1919)
Official Name	Indian Education Commission	Disorders Inquiry Committee
Primary Focus	Primary and Secondary Education	Jallianwala Bagh & Punjab Disturbances
Chairman	Sir William Wilson Hunter	Lord William Hunter
Key Outcome	Transfer of primary education to local boards	Censured General Dyer (but no legal action)

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India, Development of Education, p.566-567; A Brief History of Modern India, Emergence of Gandhi, p.324

7. The Disorders Inquiry Committee (The Hunter Committee) (exam-level)

Following the horrific Jallianwala Bagh massacre and the widespread unrest caused by the Rowlatt Satyagraha, the Government of India faced intense pressure to account for its actions. On October 14, 1919, the Disorders Inquiry Committee was officially constituted to investigate disturbances in Bombay, Delhi, and Punjab. Popularly known as the Hunter Committee after its chairman, Lord William Hunter, its primary task was to scrutinize the nature of the violence and the necessity of the repressive measures taken by the administration Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 15, p.324.

The committee was composed of eight members: five British and three Indian. The presence of Indian members was a significant nod to public demand, though their dissenting voices would eventually be marginalized in the final report. The Indian members were:

• Sir Chimanlal Harilal Setalvad (Vice-Chancellor of Bombay University)
• Pandit Jagat Narayan (Member of the Legislative Council, United Provinces)
• Sardar Sahibzada Sultan Ahmad Khan (Lawyer from Gwalior State)

During the hearings in late 1919, General Dyer appeared before the committee. His testimony was chilling; he showed no remorse, stating that his intention was to "strike terror throughout the Punjab" and to reduce the "moral stature" of the protesters Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 15, p.325. Despite this admission of pre-planned brutality, the committee's final findings were largely a "whitewash." While they criticized Dyer’s actions as a "mistaken notion of duty," they did not recommend any formal penal or disciplinary action against him, largely because his actions had been condoned by his superiors at the time Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 15, p.325.

The aftermath of the report only deepened Indian resentment. While Winston Churchill and the House of Commons were critical of Dyer, the House of Lords praised him, even passing a motion in his favor. This divide in British sentiment, coupled with the passing of an Indemnity Act to protect British officials from prosecution, convinced Mahatma Gandhi that the British government was incapable of providing justice, setting the stage for the Non-Cooperation Movement Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 15, p.326.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India, Emergence of Gandhi, p.324-326

8. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

To solve this question, you must synthesize your knowledge of the Gandhian Era and the cycle of repressive legislation followed by public outcry. You have recently studied the Rowlatt Act of 1919, which allowed for detention without trial, and the massive Satyagraha it sparked. The Jallianwala Bagh massacre was the tragic peak of this tension. When approaching UPSC questions like this, always look for the institutional response to major civil disturbances; the British government often appointed committees to pacify public anger or justify their actions, and the Hunter Commission (officially the Disorders Inquiry Committee) served exactly this purpose in late 1919.

Walking through the reasoning, your focus should be on the chronological alignment of the events. The massacre occurred in April 1919, and by October 1919, the Hunter Commission was established to investigate the unrest in Bombay, Delhi, and specifically the atrocities in Punjab. Therefore, the correct answer is (B) Jallianwala Bagh massacre. As noted in Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), while the commission did examine General Dyer, its primary role was to provide a formal inquiry into the "disorders" that had shaken the empire's stability that year.

UPSC frequently uses chronological traps to test your precision. Option (A), the Black hole incident, belongs to the mid-18th century (1756) and the Battle of Plassey era. Option (C), the Uprising of 1857, led to the Peel Commission regarding army reorganization, not the Hunter Commission. Option (D), the Partition of Bengal (1905), triggered the Swadeshi Movement and eventually led to the Arundale Committee. Distinguishing between these specific administrative responses is key to avoiding common pitfalls in Modern History.