
What a skull in an English pub says about India's 1857 mutiny - gadders
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-43616597
======
zeveb
> He murdered Mr Hunter, and his wife and daughters after being brutally
> treated were butchered by the road side.

I believe that ‘being brutally treated’ means raped.

> Dr Wagner writes that his book sets out to ‘restore some of the humanity and
> dignity that has been denied to Alum Bheg … I hope I have prepared the
> ground for Alum Bheg to finally find some peace …’

If Havildar Bheg did indeed murder two men and rape & murder two women, I
can’t say that I’m all that concerned about his dignity, and not terribly
impressed by his humanity.

As an aside, being blown from a cannon, while rather spectacular from our
modern perspective, was traditional in India dating back to the Mughal era. I
imagine that it must be remarkably painless.

------
kasey_junk
> who was executed in 1858 by being blown from the mouth of a cannon

Wow.

~~~
quietbritishjim
This isn't quite as it sounds, although not exactly better.

From
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowing_from_a_gun](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowing_from_a_gun)

> George Carter Stent described the process as follows:[1]

>> The prisoner is generally tied to a gun with the upper part of the small of
his back resting against the muzzle. When the gun is fired, his head is seen
to go straight up into the air some forty or fifty feet; the arms fly off
right and left, high up in the air, and fall at, perhaps, a hundred yards
distance; the legs drop to the ground beneath the muzzle of the gun; and the
body is literally blown away altogether, not a vestige being seen.

> ...

> The destroying of the body and scattering the remains over a wide area had a
> particular religious function as a means of execution in the Indian
> subcontinent as it effectively prevented the necessary funeral rites of
> Muslims and Hindus.[9] Thus, for believers the punishment was extended
> beyond death.

~~~
kasey_junk
Actually, frankly, thats worse than I imagined.

------
farazbabar
How sad that British were able to sow enough seeds of hatred and division in
India that brothers in arms ended up fighting each other and separating into
two not quite at peace neighbors less than a hundred years later.

~~~
KaiserPro
I think its far far more complicated than that. Partition was/is a disaster,
so was bangladesh.

However when the mutiny broke out, a huge wave of violence was unleashed,
first against the british, then anyone who was seen to be helping the british,
then the nextdoor Raj. Finally in reverse by the british.

~~~
farazbabar
Of course it is. However, divide and rule was the original british mantra. It
saddens me personally how well it worked on the Indian sub-continent and as a
student of history I wonder why it did.

~~~
tdb7893
Was the history that peaceful before the British got there? I was under the
impression that the sub-continent always had a decent amount of fighting and
unrest

~~~
smoothpenguin
There was always unrest, true, though it was no exception for the time
considering its size. Either way the colonialists did nothing to help the
situation but were focused on milking the cash cow.
[https://youtu.be/f7CW7S0zxv4](https://youtu.be/f7CW7S0zxv4)

