The Amritsar Massacre. How far does the evidence of Sources 11 and 12 support the judgement of the Hunter Committee presented in Source 10?

by honeymonster95 (student)

How far does the evidence of Sources 11 and 12 support the judgement of the Hunter Committee presented in Source 10?

Sources 11 and 12 both share a similar view, compared to the one put across in Source 10 by the Hunter Committee’s report from 1919.

This is because Source 10 was taken from a report published by the Hunter Committee (a group of British Lawyers) in 1919. The source suggests that the Hunter Committee felt Dyer’s actions were ‘beyond what any reasonable man would have thought to be necessary’. This shows that the British lawyers were questioning the means of a British soldier. The Hunter Committee did not agree with the opinion that Dyer’s actions ‘saved the Punjab and averted a large-scale rebellion’ in fact they felt that since there was no sign of a conspiracy to overthrow the British Raj, it was extreme and unreasonable to open fire into the crowd.

Source 11, which is from General Dyer’s account of the events at Amritsar, and Source 12 both support Source 10 to some extent. This is shown by the fact that they recognise the loss of life that occurred on the 13th of April 1919. If the Hunter Committee in Source 10 is correct when they say that ‘it is not proven that any conspiracy had been formed to overthrow British power.’ then it does suggest that Dyer’s act of violence that killed so many innocent people was unnecessary.

However the other side of the argument is the view that Dyers actions were ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

However the other side of the argument is the view that Dyers actions were necessary as displayed in Source 11 and 12. In Source 11, Dyer claimed that he felt it was necessary to react quickly considering the small size of his force ‘and that to hesitate might induce attack’. This suggests that his actions were impulsive as source 10 hinted by saying ‘he acted beyond the necessity of the case’ but Dyer himself saw it as being essential, considering the attacks that had taken place the previous days, and in this extract defends his actions. Also he refers to the people gathered in the Jallianwala Bagh as a ‘mob’ and he felt the only way to diffuse the situation was to use violence, but unfortunately this caused around 200-300 unnecessary deaths. Again he is defending his actions and seems to justify them. This therefore does not support the evidence shown in Source 10.

The view shown in Source 11 can also be seen in Source 12 was taken from a letter which was presented to General Dyer by the ‘ladies of the Punjab’ when he was leaving India in disgrace. This source suggests that although the ladies of the Punjab ‘deplore[ed] the loss of life’; they also felt that his actions were necessary in saving the Punjab and protecting their friends and family. The ‘ladies of the Punjab’ (who were European women and not native Indians) were supportive of the British Raj and so the letter that they handed to Dyer was one of congratulation. This evidence from Source12 does not seem to support the evidence in source 10.

In conclusion, the views and evidence expressed in Sources 11 and 12 do not support source 10. This is because both Sources 11 and 12 seem to justify Dyer’s actions and say that they were necessary. Therefore Sources 11 and 12 do not support the evidence shown in Source 10.

Holly LowPage