u/necessarydisplay

Crawling Order

By 1919, Punjab was characterized by significant socio-economic instability. Despite India contributing approximately 1.3 million personnel to the British war effort, the region faced high inflation, heavy taxation, and the impact of the 1918 influenza pandemic. The enactment of the repressive Rowlatt Act, limiting civil liberties, attempting to crush dissent, served as the catalyst for widespread political unrest. On April 11, 1919 Marcella Sherwood, a British missionary was attacked by rioters while cycling in the lane, she was rescued by some local Indians, who hid her from the mob. Thereafter, Amritsar’s Kucha Kurrichhan became a focal point for the subsequent military response. 

On April 13, under the belief that an insurrection was imminent, Dyer banned public meetings, a notice many citizens never received. During the Baisakhi festival, thousands gathered peacefully at Jallianwala Bagh. Many who were present were merely passing through the Bagh on their way home. Without warning, Dyer blocked the exits and ordered his troops to fire into the densest parts of the crowd for ten minutes. Dyer later admitted his goal was "not to disperse the meeting but to punish the Indians for disobedience" 

Dyer's Statement

National Army Museum

Rituals of Humiliation: The Crawling Order 

Six days later, Dyer issued the Crawling Order. The street where Ms. Sherwood had been attacked was sealed off, and any Indian wishing to pass through was forced to crawl on their belly. During the Hunter Commission, Dyer justified this by stating:

“Some Indians crawl face downwards in front of their gods. I wanted them to know that a British woman is as sacred…”

https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/dyer-consequence/cid/1829351 

The Political Response and the Hansard Record (The Illusion of Accountability)

The British government's official reaction, as recorded in the July 1920 House of Commons session shows a strategic effort to categorize the event as an anomaly. Winston Churchill described the massacre as:

"An extraordinary event, a monstrous event, an event which stands in singular and sinister isolation."

Hansard Records: Army and General Dyer

This rhetoric aimed to frame the violence as "without precedent" in the history of the Empire to maintain the legitimacy of British law.

Hansard: Jallianwala Bagh Debate

Institutional vs. Public Outcomes 

While the House of Commons voted to remove Dyer from his appointment, the House of Lords passed a motion in his support. 

Moved, to resolve, "That this House deplores the conduct of the case of General Dyer as unjust to that officer, and as establishing a precedent dangerous to the preservation of order in face of rebellion."— (Viscount Finlay.)

Hansard: House of Lords

Dyer was never tried for murder. Instead, he was forced into a retirement funded by the British public. The Morning Post launched a fundraiser titled The Man Who Saved India, collecting £26,000 ensuring a comfortable retirement.

Related Links-

Medium Article

Jallianwala Bagh Wiki. 

Related Article: How a newspaper collected funds for Dyer

Rudyard Kipling donates to the Dyer Fund

Note: This post is a compilation of primary and secondary source materials, including Hansard records and National Army Museum archives. Given the depth of this subject, I welcome any factual corrections or additional context from those more familiar with the subject.