Social Science (087) — AI-generated practice question

General Dyer's aim to 'produce a moral effect' reveals that the British strategy was to use terror and intimidation to suppress the nationalist movement — crushing resistance through fear rather than addressing legitimate grievances.

This strategy backfired because the massacre had the opposite effect: instead of demoralising Indians, it intensified outrage and mass anger. Crowds took to the streets across north India; strikes and protests spread widely. The brutal repression — forcing satyagrahis to crawl, flogging, bombing villages — only deepened anti-British sentiment, ultimately strengthening the nationalist movement rather than suppressing it.

Source: Chapter 2 — The Nationalist Movement in India, Section 1.2 (The Rowlatt Act)

---

• Examiners look for two parts: (1) what the strategy reveals — use of terror/repression to intimidate — and (2) why it backfired — it united and radicalised Indians further.
• Cite specific textbook details: crowds in north Indian towns, strikes, attacks on government buildings, humiliating punishments — these show the counter-productive effect.
• Avoid writing a general essay on Jallianwala Bagh; stay focused on the strategy and its failure, as the question demands.