Loading ...
Annihilation of 51st BNI at Peshawar
August 28In Peshawar, a Muslim gentleman of a high family, named Saiyed Ameer, was preaching holy war against the Firinghis and raising spirits on the border of the Khyber Pass.
Some of Saiyed Ameer’s letters and messages reached the disbanded Peshawar troops and was passed around the regiment. The British came to know about this and decided to carry out a search of their persons in the lines for hidden weapons etc. The newly raised Afreedi regiments, who were carrying out the search , humiliated the sepoys by constantly mocking and jeering at them.
The disarmed troops of 27th BNI did not object, but 51st BNI, exasperated by the taunts of the Afreedi regiments, rushed upon the piled arms of the 18th Punjab infantry and “attempted resistance”.
The unarmed sepoys of 51st ran out of their lines in panic and instead of trying to stop them, Brigadier Cotton ordered shooting which was followed up with utmost severity.
On the Brigadier’s orders, the British soldiers opened a fusillade “on this hapless lot in which even the civilian officers joined in.” Every nook and corner was searched for the fugitives. Standing crops were beat up , ravines probed as if for pheasants and hares.”
The firing continued for long. Seven hundred eighty five out of eight hundred and seventy one captured mutineers were executed and they “lay dead in three deep trenches.” No one raised his voice against this unprovoked massacre.
What you did not mention is that 40 of the captured mutineers were blown from cannons at Peshawar’s parade. The largest ever mass execution by blowing from guns. June 10-13 1857
At Ferozepore, 12 were executed a week later
“No one raised his voice against this unprovoked massacre.”
To call it unprovoked or indeed a massacre is hardly just. Don’t forget that the mutineers killed were just that- mutineers. Mutiny is, to this day, a crime punishable by death in almost all countries that have the death penalty. Indeed, it was a crime punishable by death in the UK all the way up until 1998 (the death penalty for murder was abolished in 1965!).
A country cannot simply allow its armed forces to turn traitor and let them get away with it.
Interestingly, the whole mutiny was ascribed at the time (with some justification) on the British being too ’soft’ on the sepoys. The sepoys were in fact treated with more leniancy than the actual British regiments themselves. For example, it was not permitted to flog sepoys but British soldiers were not afforded such immunity.
It was a resolve not to let such a mutiny happen again that helped prompt the brutal reprisals- along with the feeling of betrayal and the lust for vengance and retribution after the numerous atrocities commited by the mutineers.
You are so brain washed, it is not even funny!
You probably grew up reading about the heroics of all the generals in India.
In 7/8th of the states, British weren’t even the rulers! In Delhi, there was a legitimate king. Yet they charged the King for treason; treason against what? his own kingdom?
Not really mate, only learnt of the Mutiny a few months ago and have been reading up since. That being said, a lot of the British generals were, indeed, rather heroic. General Wheeler’s defence during the Cawnpore siege was pretty legendary, for example.
Also, I’m not entirely sure but I think the mutiny was pretty much contained to central India- an area that was under pretty solid British rule.
Finally, I don’t see why you attach any importance to the king of Delhi. He was a fairly unwilling puppet who had no real desire to rule and made no active effort to overthrow the British. He was only instated as something for the mutineers to rally behind.
The charge of treason was, of course, meaningless just as his trial was- but what else would you expect? There was no way the British could allow him to stay in India as he would ferment further trouble just by his presence alone and I’m sure they had no wish to make a martyr out of him. Thust they instead chose the only option available which was to exile him as they had done in many similar cases before.
The show trial and invented charge were just there to give a thin veil of protocol to the proceedings.
But yeah, I’m not brainwashed, I’m just trying to balance the view here by inviting people to look at it from a British point of view too.
Add A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.