Loading ...
Hodson literally drinks blood of King’s sons
September 30Mirza Mughal, Mirza Khazr Sultan (two sons of the King Zafar), and Mirza Abu Bakr were also captured at the same time as Bahadur Shah Zafar. At one point Hudson asked for the palankins of the Badshah, Zeenat Mahal and Jawan Bakht to be parked on one side.
He asked Mirza Mughal, Mirza Khazr Sultan, Mirza Abu Bakr and Mirza Abdullah to get off their carriages. He then murdered them with his own hands. After killing them he took a sip from their blood and said that if he did not taste their blood he would go mad.
After their murder he got their heads cut off and presented them to the King saying that “This is your (Nazr - gift).
Author Sepoy Sunny Kalara
This is certainly a contentious claim!! Where did you find the source material for this revolting act?
It is from:
The Agony of Delhi
Events during the Mutiny relating to the Royal Family, The Nobility, and the Hindu and Muslim Residents of Delhi.
by Khwaja Hasan Nizami
Published for the 2nd time in 1922 by Ibn Arbi
Printed by Delhi Printing Press Works under Lanand Thakur and Sons
http://www.kapadia.com/TheMutinyinDelhi.html
Even his Wikipedia entry talks about his fascination for making others drink blood!
Let me not get started on Hodson - he was described by Bosworth-Smith as plain “blood thirsty” and “exceptionally cruel towards natives.” See p 501 of his book on Lawrence.
http://books.google.com/books?id=yH0IAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:0HMejwRXXX5At5q1#PPA501,M1
The controversy relating to Hodson’s moral character is very unpleasant as well. See, R Bosworth-Smith, Life of Lord Lawrence, appendix to the 6th edition of 1885; TR Holmes, History of the Indian Mutiny, appendix N to the 5th edition of 1898, and Four Famous Soldiers by the same author, 1889; and General Sir Crawford Chamberlain, Remarks on Captain Trotter’s Biography of Major WSR Hodson (1901).
Many of these books are available on Google books for download.
I also have recollection of seeing actual British documents (court of inquiry documents) where he was accused of looting from the natives in 1856-7.
He murdered three of the King’s sons - OK, it was the war time, he was a military person and he did what needed to be done. But was it really necessary to cut off their head, put the severed heads on a platter, and present them to the DEFEATED king as a “present”?
He was cruel to the core. When the British authors feel compelled to write that Hodson gave bad name to English, you know that he must have done really really atrocious things.
This is fascinating. I had no idea that one of my anti-heroes was really quite as revolting!!
Nevertheless, Hodsons execution of the Princes served a political purpose, by killing three possible heirs to Shah Bahadur Shah, he deprived the Nationalists of three potential leaders.
Savage murder yes, politically expedient at the time.
I’ve looked into the first reference you suppled and on further reading; although there may be a written referal to this incident I am forced to conclude that this claim is litle more than bazar gossip. As for Hodson being ‘bloodthirsty’ I think you are taking the aliteration of a common place English expression too literally. Not all British accounts of the Grat Uprising are jingoistic and there are British authors who would not shrink from showing the kind of man that Hodson was. I notice there is very litle mention made here of the 46 women and children and 4 men who were made prisoner in the immediate aftermath of the arrival of the Meerut mutineers. Prisoners for 5 days before they were murdered in cold blood inside Lal Quila , the Red Fort at Delhi. With the knowledge of the King of Delhi. What kind of head of rebellion could he possibly be, when no-one would listen to his royal command? Puppet of the British, then puppet of the sepoys.
Further reading implies that Hodson was in secret contact with Zinat Mahal and that his actions were at the instruction of Zinat Mahal- for a price.
There is an excellent new (2006) book by William Dalrymple, “The Last Mughal” which draws on may new sources - many of the in Indian archives. This does not shrink from recounting the atrocities on both sides - and the extent to which the did and did not approve of what was going on. It seems true that the multiple murders of English people given sanctuary by the king did take place inside the Red Fort, indeed under the King’s nose but, rather with his agreement or even acquiescence, it was done in the face of his opposition. There is no mention of Hodson’s decapitating the Princes although he undoubtedly murdered them in cold blood - Dalrymple states that the bodies were stripped naked and laid out in front of the Kotwali where British soldiers queued to see them. Implying they must have been identifiable. Indicative of the vindictiveness of the response to the uprising was that Hodson was severely criticised and officially investigated later, not for the murder of the Princes, but for guaranteeing the King’s life in his unofficial negotiations with Zinat Mahal (he also guaranteed her life and that of her son, Mirza Jawan Bakht)
Add A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.