India Essay

879 Words4 Pages
The three Sources suggest that there were contradictory opinions relating to General Dyer’s actions at Amritsar. Were these actions seen as an appropriate response to the Indian’s disobeying the proclamations made? Or were they unnecessary and a waste of 400 lives? Source 10 and 12 both hold similar views on the necessity of Dyer’s actions; both stating that they were an appropriate way forward. Source 11, by contrast states that it was “an extraordinary event, a monstrous event.” Sources 10 and 12 clearly state that Dyer’s actions were an appropriate response to the situation; expressing feelings that Dyer was “a fine old soldier” and that “his action saved both them and theirs.” Source 10 is a letter sent by Viceroy Chelmsford to Secretary of State, Edwin Montagu. This was written in 1920, a year after the Massacre occurred. It could be seen that because of this, the Source is not biased, due to the Country moving on from the event. Viceroy Chelmsford is also a liberal and Montagu is in support of home rule, therefore despite their pro-British views, the Source would have taken into account both Indian and British sides of the story. In contrast to this high level of provenance, Source 12 has little to trust. The author, Ethel Savi, writer of ‘Rulers of Men’ was a British novelist brought up in India. Not only do readers of this Source not know who Savi is or where she has got her information from; but it is clear that she would have been brought up in the British Raj environment; therefore having the potential to be narrow minded. However, even so both Sources give the same opinion on the necessity of Dyer’s actions. Source 10 states that the British Community favoured Dyer and believed his actions to be appropriate; as “his action saved both them and theirs.” The word ‘saved’ really expresses how faithful the British Community were to Dyer and perhaps it shows

More about India Essay

Open Document