१८५७ का स्वातन्त्र्य समर (वीर विनायक दामोदर सावरकर - अंग्रेजों द्वारा छपने से पूर्व प्रतिबन्धित महाग्रन्थ)
The Indian War of Independence 1857 by V.D. Savarkar
स्वातंत्र्यवीर विनायक दामोदर सावरकर द्वारा
पृष्ठ 473, कुल 638 में से
संदर्भ में पढ़ेंTHE FALL OF LUCKNOW
Malleson writes : “ Something remained to be effected
even in the city itself. The Moulvie, the most obstinate
of the rebel leaders, had returned to Lucknow ; he was
still there, at Shahdat Ganj, in its very heart, occupying,
with two guns, a strongly fortified building whence he bade
defiance to the British. To dislodge him, Lugard was
detached, on the 21st, with a portion of the division which
had conquered the Begum Kothi, the first day of the
attack. The troops employed were the 93rd Highlanders
and the 4th Panjab Rifles. Seldom did the rebels display
so much pertinacity and resolution as on this occasion.
They defended themselves most bravely and were not
driven out until they had killed several men and severely
wounded many others on our side.”¹²
That was the last fight of Lucknow !
When the heroic impulse of this struggle and those who
carried it on had calmed down, they felt that the flag of
Swaraj for which they were fighting, was no more at
Lucknow but that it was awaiting their uplifted swords in
the wilds of Hindusthan. So, they moved away from the
building. The enemy pursued them for six miles. But
the Moulvie again effected his escape.
Now, Lucknow had completely fallen into the hands of
the English. One must really dip one’s pen in blood to
write the history of the vengeance that they wreaked on
Lucknow ! How the palace and the city were looted, how
the citizens were massacred wholesale, how even dead
bodies were insulted is a sad, sad story to tell. If, while
reading the description of the atrocities given by men like
Russell, we bear in mind that this description is given by
Englishmen, we would be able to have some faint notion
of the terrible vengeance that was taken by the English.
How different was the conduct of the Revolutionaries !
12. Kaye and Malleson, Vol. IV, page 286.
411