Delhi Quarrels

View of the palace from Metcalfe House

The state of affairs within the walls was anything but tranquil. The sepoys of the various mutinied regiments, instead of covering themselves in glory, were reduced to squabbling for pay with the king, and as August rolled along, they became harder and harder for General Bakht Khan to control. When he complained to the king, he replied the general should send them away. Meanwhile, Bahadur Shah, his coffers emptying faster than he could fill them, was disgusted at his impromptu army. They had failed to take the Ridge, they had not even come close to securing him the victory he had envisioned. With 60’000 men at his disposal, they had not even “won a clod of dirt from the English.” while the ever-enthusiastic Jihadis complained they were the only people who were earnestly fighting the English, everyone else were like “people sitting down and making no exertions.” Meanwhile, the explosion of the magazine only added to Bahadur Shah’s worries – rumours soon flew around Delhi that he had orchestrated it in an attempt to kill off the sepoys. In their turn, they decided to attack the king, plunder his house and take his head instead. Nothing came of it.

The harassment of the citizens of Delhi continued unrelentingly. One day, as an excuse to plunder their houses, they were accused of harbouring Englishmen; on another, they were accused of spying for the English. Extortion was the last resort, with several citizens rounded up in August and told they were to pay up or face imprisonment. The residents of Sabzi Mandi had had enough and sent a petition of their own to Theophilus Metcalfe, telling him of their utter destitution, to which Metcalfe had replied they should not fret, for the English would be with them soon.
As for the army, many disillusioned sepoys quietly left the city, abandoning their arms as they headed for home. General Bakht Khan was coming to his wits’ end – unable to convince the king that he was receiving bad advice, he proclaimed he would no longer run the army but satisfy himself by commanding the Bareilly Brigade, something the King would not hear of. Meanwhile, the sepoys complained they were starving. When the King ordered they be fed, the commissariat officer claimed he could not do so; he had no money.
In all this time, there was no one leading the army. General Bakht Khan was embroiled in petty politics, surrounded by wily courtiers and scheming princes. Jealousy was rife between the various regiments, each one accusing the other of transgressions, of spying, of not pulling its weight, and in the middle of it all sat a King staring at the ruins of his empire.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

5 thoughts on “August in Delhi”

  1. Wow, the amount of research and effort that must’ve went into this. I must admit this isn’t my area of expertise, so I can’t comment in the slightest, but I can appreciate hard work when I see it. So keep on keeping on!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  3. (I am not sure if my comments actually appear on your blog – I don’t think that I have the hang of it yet!)

    Many thanks for this. Hodson is one of those fascinating characters which fills the history of the Mutiny – characters on both sides! Like so many others, Hodson is three dimensional in character, and never just black and white; as Sen describes him, ‘…his easy conscience and elastic standard of honour was an enigma to those who admired his warlike virtues … In serving his country he did not miss an opportunity of serving his personal interests, and he did not neglect the chance of making a penny, honest or dishonest, if it should come his way. His bravery and indefatigable industry earned him the friendship of many good men but his callous cruelty equally repulsed many potential well-wishers.’ (Sen, Eighteen Fifty-Seven, p.99). But there does seem to be remarkably little evidence for the things that he was accused of. William Forbes-Mitchell, then a corporal in the 93rd Highland Regiment, says that he was present when Hodson was killed in Lucknow, and he is adamant that no looting by Hodson or anyone else was going on at the time. ‘That Major Hodson was killed by his own rashness cannot be denied but for anyone to say that he was looting is a cruel slander on one of the bravest of Englishmen.’ (Reminiscences of the Great Mutiny 1857-59, Kindle Edition, Loc. 2530). The same is true of his killing of the princes in Delhi, an act that we quite rightly recoil at. But much is said about this without any actual evidence. I have read that the princes were promised their lives before a trial – but no contemporary writer mentions that; they surrendered unconditionally. There is talk that Hodson cut their heads off; but, again, not contemporary writer mentions this – even Hodson’s detractors never used this against him. Indeed, the first mention of it that I can find is in Sarvakar’s Indian war of Independence, and Sarvakar has a somewhat interesting take on what is factual. Again, there is rumour of ‘irregularities’ when he was with the Guides, but there is no evidence – just rumour.

    The Revd. Canon Peter Yeats pinindia09@gmail.com St John’s Anglican Church, PH: 0422 762 935 PO Box 45, Balmain, NSW 2041 AUSTRALIA

    >

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. I agree absolutely! Hodson is a controversial person, no doubt, yet it must also be remembered he had many detractors even when he was alive and much that was reported about him was false or painted with a very dark brush. I think when we look at the man in the context of his times we can get a sense of who he was. I think there was much that was honourable about William Hodson as a man., even with his faults. I think Sen makes the most sensible estimation of his character. Of course we cannot overlook the bad but especially in Hodson’s case it is usually the only thing people read about which is, as it goes, unfair. Everyone deserves a fair shake, Neill got his even though his barbarous treatment of Indians rarely is spoken of; the bloodthirsty civilians in Allahabad who enjoyed hanging so much they turned it into a game are given a passing glance, but everyone remembers it was Hodson who shot the princes!
      Sarvarkar had a very loose interpretation of facts and for that matter, reality, and his book carries a very disturbing undertone of nationalism and patriotism to legitimise violence. There is a very interesting article, https://www.jstor.org/stable/4419575?read-now=1#page_scan_tab_contents called History as Revenge and Retaliation: Rereading Savarkar’s “The War of Independence of 1857” by Jyotirmaya Sharma. I have attached the link above.
      Hodson certainly shot the princes, the beheadings are a Sarvarkar flourish.
      “FIctions Connected with the Indian Mutiny Exposed.” https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.172893 makes very interesting reading , it attempts to give a more rounded view of the many articles that were circulating at the time.. It is a shame that the first casualty of war is the truth, and history becomes as malleable as those who write it.

      Thank you so much for reading!

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment