The British Actions at Amritsar
Do you agree with the view that the British actions at Amritsar were justified in the aftermath of world war one
The British actions at Amritsar were justified in the aftermath of world war one to an extent. The war seemed to boost the self esteem on Indians and unite them, suggesting threat against the raj, however the view in source 10 shows that there was no proof of a conspiracy, source 11 agrees with this but also shows why dyer might have acted in this way. Source 12 agrees with the fact that the actions were justified in the aftermath of world war one.
The aftermath of world war one increased the self esteem if Indian as they were fighting alongside British soldiers, it also strengthened the arguments of the Indian politicians that India should be given a greater say in Indian affairs, this suggests that Indian nationalism was starting to progress. Muslims and Hindus had also joined together, forming the Lucknow pact, which shows that the Indians were becoming more powerful as they were joining together but the day of the massacre in Amritsar only included mostly Sikh people who were gathered to celebrate their religious festival showing that the attacks weren’t necessary. local officials also went on strike as a result of the aftermath of the war, suggesting that support for the raj was crumbling, showing that maybe the action of the British at Amritsar were due to the fear of Indian nationalism and the falling support for the raj. However source 10 clearly says that “it is not proven that any conspiracy had been formed” and that Dyer had acted “beyond the necessity of the case” showing that his action was not necessary and fair as there was no proof and evidence at the scene at jailaiwad bagh to justify that the actions of the British.
Source 11 is a letter by Dyer saying that if he had hesitated it would have “induce attack” showing that the British might of felt that the Indians had gained power after world war one so they might attack . The source
The British actions at Amritsar were justified in the aftermath of world war one to an extent. The war seemed to boost the self esteem on Indians and unite them, suggesting threat against the raj, however the view in source 10 shows that there was no proof of a conspiracy, source 11 agrees with this but also shows why dyer might have acted in this way. Source 12 agrees with the fact that the actions were justified in the aftermath of world war one.
The aftermath of world war one increased the self esteem if Indian as they were fighting alongside British soldiers, it also strengthened the arguments of the Indian politicians that India should be given a greater say in Indian affairs, this suggests that Indian nationalism was starting to progress. Muslims and Hindus had also joined together, forming the Lucknow pact, which shows that the Indians were becoming more powerful as they were joining together but the day of the massacre in Amritsar only included mostly Sikh people who were gathered to celebrate their religious festival showing that the attacks weren’t necessary. local officials also went on strike as a result of the aftermath of the war, suggesting that support for the raj was crumbling, showing that maybe the action of the British at Amritsar were due to the fear of Indian nationalism and the falling support for the raj. However source 10 clearly says that “it is not proven that any conspiracy had been formed” and that Dyer had acted “beyond the necessity of the case” showing that his action was not necessary and fair as there was no proof and evidence at the scene at jailaiwad bagh to justify that the actions of the British.
Source 11 is a letter by Dyer saying that if he had hesitated it would have “induce attack” showing that the British might of felt that the Indians had gained power after world war one so they might attack . The source