History paper 2, how well would you day i did? Watch
*reminder, this question is based on the topic of Indian independence, HOWEVER! Edexcel Paper 2 questions require the same skills as with any other topic, so with that in mind, let us READ FORTHWITH!
So this is a Section A source question, the sources of which I will link below. I want to start a discussion based on the mark scheme whether I'm *analysis, *evaluating, *concluding well?
(Be careful not to think it's good only because of its structure, I'm looking for feedback for analysis, evaluation, my judgement and conclusion in particular.)
How far could the historian use Sources 10 and 12 together to investigate the Amritsar Massacre?
Both sources reveal what happened in the Amritsar massacre. Source 10, a report from General Dyer reveals the reasoning behind the attack. Source 12 is the Hunter commission, an enquiry to the massacre, which reveals the falsehoods behind the reason for the attack. They suggest that the Amritsar massacre was a violent act beyond a reasonable decision.
Source 10, Dyer’s report of the massacre‘for his superior officers’, undoubtedly sheds light to how Dyer saw himself during the unfortunate event, as Dyer desperately tries to ‘justify’ his actions in his report. Within the source, Dyer references that he was ‘careful of not giving the mob a chance of organising’. Dyer suggests that he fired at the crowd to prevent an attack on his own force. The worry of the crowd turning into a mob is supported by the lasting impressions of Indian mutiny at 1857. It highlighted, the Raj had been challenged before and can be again. This suggests, this fear translated unto Dyer’s actions and with the emergence of hartal from the Rowlatt acts, the dread of unrest exacerbating into upheaval was deeply feared. Dyer continues to refer to ‘the crowd that was free to ask for medical aid’. He suggests that he was willing to provide medical attention for the wounded, in particular to those that proved to be among the crowd. However, this inaccurate claim suggests Dyer is attempting to put himself in a good light to his superiors, as Dyer doesn’t mention how he left the wounded to fend for themselves. This, therefore, sheds light on why the massacre occurred especially from Dyer’s perspective this was to prevent the hartals from getting worse, but, Ultimately this highlights the fears of another mutinous uprising to translate into violence against a religious gathering.
Source 12, the Hunter commission report, sheds light to whether Dyer was justified and concludes to Dyer’s reasonings of preventing a ‘rebellion’ on a similar ‘scale to the mutiny’ as inaccurate. Hunter references ‘a conspiracy to overthrow the British power... prior to the outbreak, had not been proven’. Hunter suggests Dyer’s fear of another mutiny had no objective grounding, with nothing to prove that mutinous feeling appeared rife. This supported by the Indian contribution to the war effort, as £146 million and 827, 000 sepoys were sent to aid Britain in WW1, which clearly suggests that in fact there was a great sense of loyalty to the Raj. Hunter continues, after carefully weighing all the factors that ‘Dyer acted beyond the necessity of the case’. He suggests that Dyer’s violent reaction to the religious gathering was excessive and unrequired. This is further supported by the fact that Dyer had killed 400 and wounded 1,500 more Indians, which suggests that Dyer acted out in a rash judgement at the time. This, therefore, sheds light to Dyer’s misjudgement of the situation, revealing that Dyer acted beyond the necessary requirements to maintain the peace. Even though the event of the religious gather was peaceful in own right.
Therefore, both sources together tell a story of a violent and paranoid British General who acted beyond his needs to keep the peace. Revealing that his tyrannical oppression of the Indians was built from paranoia from the past, which was sparked from the recent hartals. Even though India remained largely loyal to the Raj throughout the war also because the promise of self-rule from the Montagu Declaration encouraging the behaviour. The two sources together shed light to how Dyer misjudged the loyalty of the Indians and why Dyer committed the massacre in his ruthlessness, revealing the Amritsar massacre, as an unjustified act of oppression from British repressive policy by a paranoid British General.