Back, again, to Forbes-Mitchell

I must say that there is a certain charm to life in the slow lane! Wearing only my bathers with none of the accoutrements of modern life; money, cell-phones, watches, keys, even - if I may - underwear; lying in the sand on a deserted beach, the water lapping away at ones heels, the only sound being the surf and the occasional bird, one wonders why we keep running!

No. That's not from Forbes-Mitchell. That's me returning from the beach after watching a really strange cricket match yesterday. I guess the cricketing world is upset and angry (c.f. this article in The Guardian) but let's face it, cricket would not be cricket without its eccentric moments!

Anyway, back to Forbes-Mitchell for a moment. Dalrymple, in The Last Mughal, makes the case (amongst the many cases that he makes) that the Mutiny was more broad-based than is generally accepted and that the muslims received the brunt of the retribution. Forbes-Mitchell provides some support for both views. Clearly the mutineers were very committed to their cause. Both Forbes-Mitchell, as well as Forrest (the reference is somewhere in a post below this one) comment on how the mutineers fought, often to the last man. But, as Forbes-Mitchell says, sometimes the last man was a woman. He describes an incident that took place after the British had taken the Secundrabagh (an enclosed garden on the way to the Lucknow Residency). "In the centre of the inner court ... there was a large pipal tree with a very bushy top, round the foot of which were set a number of jars full of cool water. .." {He reports that many men went to the tree because of the shade and the water and that there were many bodies under the tree.] [The many bodies "attracted the notice of Captain Dawson. ... he noticed that in every case the men had evidently been shot from above." A British soldier named Wallace shot down the person sitting in the tree. "down fell a body dressed in a tight-fitting red jacket and tight-fitting rose-coloured silk trousers; and the breast of the jacket bursting open with the fall, showed that the wearer was a woman."

In another place, reporting on the assault on the Shah Najaf, the British recover the colours, drums, etc of the Seventy-First Native Infantry and the Eleventh Oudh Irregulars. The mutineers had kept their British organization intact. Amongst the bodies they found that over fify men "were found to have furlougs, or leave certificates, signed by their former commanding officer in their pockets, showing that they had been on leave when their regiment mutinied and had rejoined their colours to fight against us." Not just opportunistic rebels these.

About the Muslims. Forbes-Mitchell says (page 39) ".. I formed the opinion that the pampered high-caste Hindu sepoys had far more to do with the Mutiny and the cowardly murders of women and children, than the Muhammadans, although the latter still bear most of the blame." FM generalizes this from a single incident (where an apparent meditating yogi turns into a killing terrorist type guy).

More on the Mutiny

The one question that always puzzled me about the Indian Mutiny is how often the mutineers lost in battles against the English. In most cases, the Indians were something like ten times the strength of the British troops and they seemed to have had a much greater motivation to fight than the Indians (Sikhs, Madrasis) fighting on the side of the British. Still, battle after battle ended with thousands of Indians dead for a couple of hundred British troops.

Forbes-Mitchell (The Relief of Lucknow by Williams Forbes-Mitchell, The Folio Society, London 1962) provides some answers. Forbes-Mitchell was a young NCO in the 93rd Highlanders and he took part in the British rescue of the beseiged English men and women in the Lucknow Residency during the mutiny. Here he makes fun of the Pandies:

... in addition to the regular army, there was a large body of archers on the walls, armed with bows and arrows which they discharged with great force and precision, .... Looking at the arrow, 'My conscience!' said White, 'bows and arrows! bows and arrows! My conscience, the sight has not been seen in a civilised war for nearly two hundred years. Bows and arrows! And why not weavers' beams as in the days of Goliath? Ah! that Daniel White should be able to tell in the Saut Market of Glasgow that he had seen men fight with bows and arrows in the days of Enfield rifles! (Page 53.)

Enfield rifles are, of course, the infamous grease coated bullet using rifles that were the trigger for the mutiny. New to the army and not in the hands of the rebels, they were a great weapen for the British. In this next extract, Forbes-Mitchell talks about the superior range of the Enfield rifle. The rebels had brought their big guns outside the Padshahbagh to shorten the distance across the Gomti river assuming that they would be out of range of the British rifles:

They evidently as yet did not understand the range of the Enfield rifle, as they now came within about a thousand to twelve hundred yards of the wall of the Shah Najaf next to the river. Some twenty of the best shots in the company, with carefully cleaned and loaded rifles, watched till they saw a good number of the enemy near their guns, then, raising sights to the full height and carefully aiming high, they fired a volley by word of command slowly given ... and about half a dozen of the enemy were knocked over. (Page 66.)

What chance did the poor mutineers have with their bows and arrows against Enfield rifles and the heavy naval canons that the British used to level defensive walls! Interestingly, from the description above, even the British were new to the longer range of the rifles and presumably that's why the author describes the process, including raising the sights and aiming high, so carefully!

Shame on India!

Well, went to the Australia vs. Ireland match this morning. This morning because the match was over before lunch! The West Indian on the street is really disgusted with the Aussie team because they chose to bat second. The taxi driver said, "that's not cricket man. These guys have paid thousands of pounds to come see their team play and the Aussies should have given them a proper match by batting first. I hate the Aussie's and I hate the fans." He was half kidding of course, one of us here is an Aussie and he knew it!

A video of the most interesting t-shirt in the match. And, for entertainment, a brief view of Calypso Cricket.

India in the World Cup Cricket

So, here I am in Barbados watching the cricket world cup. Today's match was between Bangladesh and England and the match itself was ho hum bad. Sloppy fielding on both sides, and lousy batting from what should be a mature English side. Giving some truth to the movement of the center of cricket to India, Kensington Oval was full of Indian fans. The stadium was a little less than half full and about half the audience was Indian (the other half was English with the occasional Aussie and South African or West Indian dotting the stands). Shouting, playing samba music, singing songs, and cheering an India that is no longer in the World Cup. One section was on its feet throughout the match, Brazilian football like but for much longer than the duration of a football match. Take a look at the following two videos (you have to ignore the lone Australian with his huge flag in the first one!)


It says something about the maturity of India that all these fans showed up for the cup even though India was out of it. And, rather than morosely trying to pick another team or just sit around watching the matches, the Indian contingent (labeled the Bharat Army by the Barbados press) decided to go ahead and have a good time. And, a good time they did have. The action in the stands was much more entertaining than the dismal cricket on display. The English fans may be known as the "Barmy Army," but the real 'Barminess' is in the Bharat Army.