General Dyer Analysis
Jury and people of the court, there comes a difference between a warning and an attack. There also comes a difference between an attack and a massacre. General Reginald Dyer however, was unaware of these lines that could be crossed. The day in question was April 13th, 1919. A Sunday. It was in the public garden known as Jallianwala Bagh, in Amritsar India. The 13th was the day of the Sikh Baisakhi Festival, where thousands of people gathered to celebrate. However, a few days prior, Amritsar was put under martial law, where from there, General Dyer banned all meetings and gatherings in the city. However, word of this news hadn't spread, and many came unaware of the new law passed. General Dyer, after hearing the news, then sent out troops
…show more content…
Some claim that an illness could have caused aggravation, affecting ones decision making. Alfred Draper, author of 1981 historical account Amritsar: The Massacre that Ended the Raj stated that at the time "Dyer was suffering from arteriosclerosis, a degenerative and incurable disease. His violent temperament aggravated by physical pain rendered him liable to overreact in an emergency.” (Source 2) However, the specific type of arteriosclerosis is unstated. When looking across symptoms for many types of arteriosclerosis, small pain such as leg pain or chest pain was noted, however no pain that could cause such irritation, and altering one's judgment. (Arteriosclerosis / Atherosclerosis) 12 years prior to the release of Drapers' historical account, V.N. Datta wrote her historical account in 1969 entitled Jallianwala Bagh. When speaking on behalf of Mr. Dyer, she writes "There is no evidence that Dyer was suffering from arteriosclerosis at the time, and Dyer’s recent brilliant performance at the relief of Thal showed that he was still able and alert and in full possession of his faculties." (Source 4) Therefore, the claim for General Dyers' unstable physical and mental state doesn't have enough evidence to prove …show more content…
Having not yet made his name into anything, Mr. Dyer might have wanted to create a ruckus in order for people to remember him as General Reginald Dyer. Roger Perkins talks about Dyers character stating ".. one of several to be found at the Club bar of any Indian hill station. The only hope for Dyer was that something might turn up, something dramatic which might give him a final chance to make his name." (Source 3) In addition, in a feature filmed entitled Gandhi produced by Richard Attenborough in 1983, General Dyer's character is portrayed as a stiff, strict, and arrogant man looking for perfection in his soldiers training, and a grudge against the Indian citizens. According to the film "During the inquiry Dyer says that he wanted to 'inflict a lesson that would be felt through all India.'" (Source 5) Maybe Mr. Dyer did not see a real problem with the festival being held on the day in question, but instead, saw an opportunity to make a statement to the Indian crowd as well as put his name in the history book. He succeeded in doing both, but in the wrong
Some claim that an illness could have caused aggravation, affecting ones decision making. Alfred Draper, author of 1981 historical account Amritsar: The Massacre that Ended the Raj stated that at the time "Dyer was suffering from arteriosclerosis, a degenerative and incurable disease. His violent temperament aggravated by physical pain rendered him liable to overreact in an emergency.” (Source 2) However, the specific type of arteriosclerosis is unstated. When looking across symptoms for many types of arteriosclerosis, small pain such as leg pain or chest pain was noted, however no pain that could cause such irritation, and altering one's judgment. (Arteriosclerosis / Atherosclerosis) 12 years prior to the release of Drapers' historical account, V.N. Datta wrote her historical account in 1969 entitled Jallianwala Bagh. When speaking on behalf of Mr. Dyer, she writes "There is no evidence that Dyer was suffering from arteriosclerosis at the time, and Dyer’s recent brilliant performance at the relief of Thal showed that he was still able and alert and in full possession of his faculties." (Source 4) Therefore, the claim for General Dyers' unstable physical and mental state doesn't have enough evidence to prove …show more content…
Having not yet made his name into anything, Mr. Dyer might have wanted to create a ruckus in order for people to remember him as General Reginald Dyer. Roger Perkins talks about Dyers character stating ".. one of several to be found at the Club bar of any Indian hill station. The only hope for Dyer was that something might turn up, something dramatic which might give him a final chance to make his name." (Source 3) In addition, in a feature filmed entitled Gandhi produced by Richard Attenborough in 1983, General Dyer's character is portrayed as a stiff, strict, and arrogant man looking for perfection in his soldiers training, and a grudge against the Indian citizens. According to the film "During the inquiry Dyer says that he wanted to 'inflict a lesson that would be felt through all India.'" (Source 5) Maybe Mr. Dyer did not see a real problem with the festival being held on the day in question, but instead, saw an opportunity to make a statement to the Indian crowd as well as put his name in the history book. He succeeded in doing both, but in the wrong