Document page
Pak Studies History IGCSEPDF 56
181 pagesrevision 46928
PDF 56
Page image rendered from the stored file at 110 dpi; it sharpens as you zoom. Outlines are placed from each region’s stored position on the page (596 × 842 pt).
readable
Source of this text: embedded text layer. The better of the embedded text and OCR is kept.
under them include, police, justice, revenue, power resources, press and publication, etc.
So, British controlled the Indians by retaining important portfolios.
The protests against Rowlatt act were going on in whole Punjab. Another version is that
Sikhs were celebrating their Vaisakhi event in Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar. 20,000 People
gathered there. General Dyer was appointed to control the law and order situation. Army
shut the door and opened fire,
resultantly 400 people were killed and
1200 injured by the attack. Hunter Committee was setup to investigate General Dyer’s
actions and he was reprimanded by the British, but his cadre (rank) was enhanced which
aggravated the Indian rage towards the British. He was murdered by an Indian freedom
fighter Udham Singh in retaliation of Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
Rowlatt Act was an extension of Defense of India Act 1915. It gave the powers to the police
to arrest anyone without warrant and detain him without the right to bail. People could not
hold meetings. They could be tried privately by three high court judges and had no right to
appeal. It had tragic results as it caused uproar in India. Strikes and
demonstrations took place. The protests were so violent that British thought it could prove to
be another war of 1857.
-> Minimal powers given to Indians.
-> Greater concessions were expected after WWI.
-> Moderates supported it.
-> Separate electorate was not accepted in true letter and spirit.
-> Diarchy provided actual powers to British governors.
Answer: The reforms kept power in the hands of British, Indians were given minimal
powers. Viceroy could veto any decision and can introduce any law. Indians who fought with
British in
World War-I expected greater concessions. Indians thought that even though they have
provided thousands of men to fight against British aggression in First World War, British have
ignored them in these reforms.
Congress and Muslim League who had recently come closer to each other and were striving
for self-rule did not accept the proposals. The reforms were condemned in the joint session
of congress in 1918, only the moderates supported it, who were soon excluded from the
party. The British had not
accepted the separate electorate in true letter and spirit.
Though British had extended the members of legislative assemblies and more members
would now be added in the assemblies through elections i.e., 103 out of 145 members, they
retained the powers through diarchy in which powers through important subjects were
vested to British governors.
Q: What is Rowlatt Act? [4]
Q: What is Jallianwala Bagh massacre? [4]
Q: Why were the Montague-Chelmsford reforms opposed by Indians in 1919? OR [7]
Q: What was the response of Hindus and Muslims towards Mont-ford Reforms? [7]
Points: