Consider the statements on the Hunter Commission's inquiry into the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre:
1. Dyer submitted that he could possibly have dispersed the crowd without firing.
2. Dyer admitted that he made no efforts to help the wounded, deeming it was not his job.
3. Hunter commission did not condemn Dyer’s actions.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3 only
Explanation Statement 1 is correct. During the Hunter Commission's inquiry (1919), General Dyer admitted he could have dispersed the unarmed crowd peacefully but chose to fire. This revealed his authoritarian mindset and deliberate use of excessive force. His admission underscored the brutality of colonial rule, fueling global condemnation and strengthening India's resolve for independence.
Statement 2 is correct. Dyer confessed to the Hunter Commission that he did not assist the wounded after the massacre, stating it was not his responsibility. This apathy highlighted his disregard for human life and colonial indifference toward Indian suffering. The admission intensified outrage, exposing the moral bankruptcy of British imperialism and uniting Indians in resistance.
Statement 3 is not correct. The statement is incorrect as the Hunter Commission unanimously condemned Dyer’s actions as "inhumane." However, internal conflicts existed: Indian members, like Chimanlal Setalvad, demanded harsher criticism and accountability, while British members softened their stance, citing Dyer's intent to maintain order. This disparity reflected colonial bias and exposed Britain's reluctance to fully acknowledge its atrocities, further fueling Indian resistance.
Kutos:History Expert
Hello! I am a History expert. You can ask any question or request a detailed analysis related to this topic.
