Courses
Courses for Kids
Free study material
Offline Centres
More
Store Icon
Store

The martial law imposed by General Dyer in Amritsar deprived the people of the following rights:
(A) Right of assembling
(B) Right to publish
(C) Right to protest
(D) Both (A) and (C)

seo-qna
Last updated date: 05th Jul 2024
Total views: 386.4k
Views today: 4.86k
Answer
VerifiedVerified
386.4k+ views
Hint: General Dyer, was an official of the Bengal Army and then the newly formulated Indian Army. His military career initiated boosting briefly in the regular British Army before appointing to serve with the Presidency armies of India.

Complete step-by-step solution:
General Dyer was the man behind the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre was horrible intimidation by the British troops on the people of India. The Simon Commission was a committee of 7 Members of Parliament who was brought from Britain to peek into the political situations of India. A huge mob had huddled at the enclosed ground of Jallianwalah Bagh on 13th April 1919. People had either got on there to accompany the Baisakhi festival or to protest against the British strategies in India. General Dyer, the interim Brigadier-General obstructed all the entrances and authorized open fire on unarmed civilians, murdering 379 people and wounding around 12,00. People could not evade since the departures were blocked. According to Dyer, he intended to teach the satyagrahis a lesson.
In a summary, General Dyer enacted an Act on April 13, 1919, called the martial law stating that no more than 2 people can form a group and meet at a place. This act was authorized to prevent any form of a mobilised protest against the ruling authorities. This coincided with the festival of Baisakhi, where they had assembled at Jallianwala Bagh for celebrations, upon which General Dyer opened shot on people existing there.
Hence, the Right of assembling and Right to protest was the martial law imposed.

Thus, option (D) is correct.

Note: Thereafter, Dyer was wiped out from duty and widely criticized both in Britain and India, but he evolved a prominent hero among some with relations to the British Raj. Many historians assert the incident was a strong step towards the verge of British rule in India.