Amritsar Massacre Dbq

The evidence clearly shows that General Dyer acted reckless on April 13, 1919. Therefore, the case against General Dyer is a simple one. The days before the massacre was ordered, the people were protesting and rioting ("Amritsar Massacre"). General Dyer was sent to Amritsar to restore order, but he did more than that, he got revenge on the Indians ("Amritsar Massacre"). In addition to this, Dyer was near the end of his career and on the way to going into obscurity, and the only way he could change this was to make a name for himself (Source 3). He being sent to Amritsar provided him with an opportunity to do both of these things. General Dyer should be found guilty because the massacre was premeditated and was not done for self-defense from a violent crowd, but instead to get revenge and recognition.
In Amritsar, his troops killed hundreds of people and injured over a thousand more (Source 10). There was no reason for any of this to have happened. The crowd was made up of non-violent protestors ("Amritsar Massacre"). There were about 25,000 people in the crowd, many people were observing their holy day of Baisakhi (Bose). Many of the people traveled to Amritsar for Baisakhi and did not know about the order that General Dyer made, which banned public gatherings ("Amritsar Massacre"). There were ex-soldiers in the crowd who could …show more content…
It is evident that General Dyer planned and ordered the Amritsar massacre for his own personal reasons. The Amritsar massacre was a way for him to get revenge, stay known, and not go into obscurity. This is shown by what he said about the Amritsar massacre and how he carried it out. The British forcing General Dyer to resign is evidence that even the British military does not think that General Dyer acted responsibly. Therefore, I hope that you, the jury, come to the right decision and find General Dyer