General Dyer: Defender of Order or Agent of Violence?

General Dyer: Defender of Order or Agent of Violence?

A historian could make an incredibly substantial use of both Sources 1 and 2 to investigate into the attitudes towards the actions of General Dyer in Amritsar. This is because whilst Source 1 was written in defence towards Dyer’s actions claiming them to be simply a measure too far, Source 2 had a far more condescending view towards the unchecked violence that occurred due to Dyer’s tactics. Overall, both sources together represent the deep divisions that split between imperialists and nationalists in regards to viewing Dyer’s actions through views regarding protection and morality respectively.

A historian could make a significant use of Source 1 in regard to an investigation into the actions of General Dyer because it is a stark reflection on the conservative perspective towards what he did at the massacre, highlighting their sympathy in regarding the actions as necessary for the protection of British rule. Immediately, the speech starts off with Finaly immediately stating how “an injustice has been done to a very distinguished and deserving officer.” which implies that the Conservatives and imperialists had viewed the actions of Dyer to be simply an officer following his duty, highlighting how they were determined the punishment attributed to him were out of line for an officer simply restoring order within a colony. This is backed up by own knowledge with how upon being forced to resign after the Hunter Commission, Dyer was praised by the Ladies of the Punjab and cheered by his garrison before returning to London, suggesting how many had associated Dyer with a heroic status and how they saw his actions as essential for India to fall back into the rule of the British. Furthermore, when describing about what Dyer had seen upon entering Amritsar, Finlay recounted the gathering of Indians consisting of “criminals of the worst type” and such highlights how the Conservatives and Imperialists had always viewed Indians to be barbaric and uncivilised, suggesting they believed Dyer did the right thing in restoring the British values of discipline and obedience back into India. This is backed up by the fact that after the massacre, Dyer had ordered Indians to a mandatory salaaming of Europeans where floggings would occur upon disobedience, suggesting that they saw how Dyer’s actions were beneficial in forcing the Indians to understand who were ruling over them, forcing them to recognise British superiority. Finally, to conclude the speech, Finlay makes the statement that “If General Dyer had hesitated, all would have been lost.” which suggested that they believed that Dyer’s actions were very much accounted for in ensuring that British rule still remained over India, seeing no reason for punishment. This is supported by proof that Dyer set up the “Crawling Order” where any Indian who wished to cross the street where Doctor Sherwood was assaulted had to do so crawling on all fours in trash and filth, showing how Dyer’s actions to them enabled Britain to re-establish their ruling identity and gave them the opportunity to further constrict their colonies, which was necessary for imperial strength. The source’s provenance also gives this source a high credibility for this investigation to a historian. For example, the source was a speech which is useful in giving the historian an insight into the emotional sympathy that Imperialists attached themselves too in believing that Dyer was never truly guilty and the massacre was never out of malice but out of duty. On top of this, the speech was delivered to the House of Lords which is significant as since they mainly consisted of Conservatives who were believers in imperialism, it allows the historian to gain a greater insight into the Conservative attitudes towards Dyer’s actions. However, a historian must also be cautious when using this source as there are some limitations that debases its credibility. For example, the source does contain certain logical inaccuracies which makes its historical value less accurate, such as how the source mentions the gathering to have had no women or children present even though the gathering took place during a festival of which children and women were likely to be present. Furthermore, the source also uses Dyer’s own estimate in the amount of people at the gatherings which, although could be accurate to a certain extent as it was from someone who witnessed it first-hand, still might not be accurate to how many were actually there, suggesting the violence that occurred must have been significantly downplayed.

Source 2 is also another source that a historian could make an immense use out of in relation to the same investigation as it echoes the anger and disgust within the Imperial World towards Dyer’s actions, reflecting how Liberals and Nationalists viewed Dyer’s actions to be detrimental towards British-Indian relationships and as a whole, a display of apathy and immorality. The source from the very start immediately exposes the Hunter Commission for its lack of truthfulness, describing its inhumanity in excusing “some of the worst examples of military tyranny” suggesting how Dyer’s actions were inexcusable in causing the lives of several innocent people to be lost and the consequences he faced for such were well-deserved due to bluffing about simply doing his duty. This is supported by my evidence that during the massacre, Dyer’s squad had fired 1,650 rounds into the crowd in 10-15 minutes, suggesting how attitudes against Dyer viewed Dyer’s actions as never being about restoring order but rather, about inciting unjustified fear into Indian people who were simply celebrating as a community. Moreover, when discussing about what the Indian Minority in the Hunter Commission had to discuss in regards to the massacre, they had stated how Dyer’s actions were “inhuman and un-British” suggesting that this event had caused attitudes against Dyer to question entirely what it even meant to be British anymore, showing how the event led to speculation about whether being British was really associated with virtue, causing attitudes to further sour. This is supported by own knowledge that Dyer had never given a warning to the crowd to disperse, suggesting how all sense for being British was denied by Dyer, showing how his determination was never attributed to his values but rather to dominance. Finally, when the source ends utilising a statement from Montagu, he states how the crawling order and the massacre overall was an offence that offended “every principle of civilised government” suggesting how attitudes against Dyer had clearly seen no form of morality within the attack, showcasing how many saw Dyer’s actions to be apathetic and cruel to the extent of staining the British image to be one of terror and inhunamity. This is backed by proof that Dyer claimed that had he had fit them into the Jallianwala Bagh, he would have used machine guns and more deadly ammunition on the crowd too, which suggested that Dyer had only truly cared about the destruction he brought onto Indian rather than simply suppressing the rage, showing how he never cared about what the mission expected him to do, but rather how much he could destroy. This source’s provenance also makes it highly useful into this investigation. As a written article, it was made for the purpose of informing those who read it about the inhumanity of the massacre, which is important to a historian as the broader audience suggested how the hatred towards Dyer’s actions were widespread. However, the source does have a limitation that undermines its credibility that being that since it was written in New Zealand, it had a relatively far distance from where the event took place, meaning that details were likely less clearer in comparison to a possible first-hand account of the event itself.

When taken together, both sources are highly useful for a historian into the investigation because together, they explain how attitudes to the actions of Dyer in Amritsar were highly conflicting for different reasons, with Source 1 presenting Dyer a hero for restoring British control and Source 2 as a more callous figure for causing the death of several with no empathy whatsoever. Both sources were written towards about the time when the massacre occurred, about a year later from it, which shows how the attitudes towards Dyer’s massacre had stemmed relatively quickly and allows us to give a greater insight into the immediate reactions that came from people with different viewpoints. While Source 1 was a speech, Source 2 was an article, and these natures gives the historian a massive insight into how the sources utilised emotions because both of them did, but to different degrees. As a persuasive speech, Source 1 had utilised emotive language quite a bit adopting a sympathetic tone to gain emotional attachment from fellow Conservatives to understand why exactly the actions of Dyer were justified and why he never deserved to have a forced retirement, yet Source 2 as an article with the purpose of informing uses little to no emotions and instead just mentions facts showing how no amount of emotional attachment can excuse the actions of Dyer as the truth shows nothing more than tyranny and corruption, suggesting how more liberal and national attitudes viewed Dyer’s actions as nothing more than an abuse of power. However, despite both of these sources having useful detail from their tones and presentations of this figure, they both still have their respective limitations. As both sources were written at a similar time, a year after the massacre had ended, and were written at distances from where the actual event happened, their details could sometimes be skewed or not evidential or analytical enough to be believable. For example, Source 1’s mentioning of the lack of women and children as well as the use of Dyer’s estimates makes the source slightly inaccurate since the gathering was a festival where children and women were likely to be present whilst Source 2 simply could be using overheard or second-hand information as there is no proof that they know or understand the exact events of what happened in the Hunter Commission.

In conclusion, a historian can make highly substantial use of both sources to investigate the polarising attitudes towards the actions of Dyer in relation to the Amritsar Massacre.