814861
| Question | Answer |
| What are 'hartals' and why were they organised in March and April 1919 in Amritsar? | They were a form of protest whereby work would be halted and a workplace lockout would occur. They were organised in 1919 in Amritsar as a protest against the Rowlatt Acts. |
| When did rioting against Europeans begin in Amritsar? | 10th April 1919 |
| What forms did the protests take in Amritsar? | Banks were stormed, buildings fired and three Europeans killed. Also, Marcia Sherwood, a mission doctor, was brutally beaten by Indian youths and only saved from certain death by Hindus who found and treated her. |
| What was the British reaction to the riots? | The Governor of the Punjab, Michael O'Dwyer was convinced that the riots were part of a carefully planned uprising, luring Indian soldiers into the mutiny. |
| What did O'Dwyer do in response to the riots? | He treated the situation as the first stage in a general insurrection aimed at overthrowing the Raj. He ordered General Dyer to take his men to Amritsar and sort the situation out. |
| Why did Dyer become convinced that a general uprising was imminent? | When he paraded his troops and armoured cars through the streets of Amritsar, the Indians jeered and shouted threatening slogans. Similar disturbances were happening in other Punjab cities; Lahore and Kasur. |
| Why had so many Indians flocked to Amritsar on the 13th April 1919? | 13th April marked the start of one of the most important religious festivals in the Punjab so thousands of pilgrims flocked to Amritsar to worship at the Golden Temple. |
| What preceded the massacre? | Dyer read out a proclamation at various points around the city. It prohibited meetings and instigated a curfew on the inhabitants. It also threatened that any meeting or gathering considered illegal could potentially be dealt with by means of arms (weapons). |
| Why can it be argued that the issuing of the proclamation was flawed? | Despite the fact that Dyer made his proclamation at 19 points around the city, no proclamations were made in the immediate area of the Golden Temple or Jallianwala Bagh therefore it can be argued that the Indians there were not given sufficient warning. |
| When and where did the Amritsar Massacre occur? | In the afternoon of the 13th April 1919 at Jallianwala Bagh, a large open space near the Golden Temple in Amritsar. |
| Apart from gathering for the festival, what other reason was there for the gathering of hundreds of Indians at Jallianwala Bagh? | A meeting was to be held there to discuss the Rowlatt Acts and allow people to express their opinions. |
| How did the massacre unfold? | Dyer led Gurkha and Sikh infantrymen into the Bagh then without warning he ordered them to shoot. They fired repeatedly at the crowd until their ammunition ran out; 1650 rounds, in 10-15 minutes. Dyer and his troops then left, leaving the injured to fend for themselves or wait for help from family and friends brave enough to risk the curfew. |
| How many died and how many were injured as a result of Dyer's order to shoot? | Nearly 400 people died and 1500 were wounded. |
| Why was it possible for Dyer's troops to kill so many people? | There were very few streets leading into Jallianwala Bagh and these were very narrow. Despite the crowds rushing to escape through these streets they could not escape quick enough. Also Dyer's troops were blocking one of the possible escape routes. |
| What happened immediately after the massacre? | Dyer forced the residents to return to 'normality' and then declared martial law that was aimed at humiliating the Indians who lived in Amritsar. |
| Under martial law, what did any Indian who passed Dyer or any other European have to do? | They had to salaam (a greeting accompanied by a low bow). If they didn't they were flogged, arrested or made to suffer significant indignities. |
| What did all Indian lawyers in Amritsar have to do as a result of the martial law? | They were forced to work as special constables and, in particular, witness floggings. |
| Why did the martial law make it virtually impossible for Indians to travel anywhere outside Amritsar? | All third-class railway tickets were withdrawn. |
| How many Indians were permitted to walk abreast on the pavements of Amritsar? | No more than 2. |
| Why did thousands of Indians in Amritsar suffer great hardship as a result of martial law? | The city's water and electricity supplies were cut off in the Indian quarters. |
| What was the worst punishment towards the Indians by Dyer? | The Crawling Order. It stipulated that any Indian wishing to pass along the narrow street where Marcia Sherwood was assaulted would have to crawl along it on all fours. This probably roused the Indians to even greater anger than the massacre. |
| What was Edwin Montagu's (Secretary of State for India) reaction to the events in Amritsar? | He grew increasingly angry at the way in which martial law was being applied. Also, he was horrified when details of the Crawling Act emerged. |
| When did the Hunter Committee start their investigation? | 11th November 1919 |
| How many Indian members were on the committee? | Three |
| What was the role of the Hunter Committee? | To listen to evidence, ask questions and recah a conclusion about the Amritsar Massacre. |
| What did Dyer admit when he was questioned by the Hunter Committee? | That he would have used the machine guns if he could have got the armoured cars into the Jallianwala Bagh. That he had not issued a warning to the crowd before opening fire, and that he had continued firing until his ammunition was exhausted, regardless of the effect on the crowd. |
| What did Dyer reveal about his provisions for the injured? | That he had arranged no provision for the wounded but stated that they could have had help if they had applied for it. This was criticised harshly. |
| When was the Hunter Committee Report published? | May 1920 |
| What was the conclusion of the Hunter Committee? | That "General Dyer acted beyond the necessity of the case, beyond what any reasonable man would have thought to be necessary, and that he did not act with as much humanity as the case permitted". |
| Who else did the Hunter Committee Report inplicate? | O'Dwyer; the report gently reprimanded him. |
| What was the view of the three Indian members of the Committee? | They condemned Dyer and O'Dwyer. |
| What did the Punjab Sub-Committee of the Indian National Congress do in response to the massacre? | They set up their own enquiry. It heard evidence before the Hunter Committee and completed its report earlier. |
| What did the Indian enquiry conclude? | They condemned the massacre and highlighted how it aroused deep feelings of anger and resentment among the Indian subjects of the British Raj. |
| What was the reaction of some British people towards the massacre? | A deputation of British women from the Punjab region believed that Dyer had 'saved the Punjab'. Also a British official in the Punjab felt that Dyer's actions had stopped the unrest. |
| How was the press and public opinion of Dyer both in India and Britain divided? | For some, Dyer had saved the Punjab; the Morning Post newspaper opened a fund for him and presented him with £26,000 and a sword of honour. For others, he was the man who had brought disgrace to the Raj. |
| What was the view in Parliament? | The Commons censured him whilst the Lords supported him. |
| What was the effect of the Amritsar Massacre and its aftermath? | It turned millions of loyal Indians against the Raj. They believed that Amritsar had revealed the true face of British rule and that any British reform that tended toward Indian independence was a sham. |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.