History of the War in Afghanistan, Vol. 3 (of 3): Third EditionKaye, John William, Sir
History
History of the War in Afghanistan, Vol. 3 (of 3): Third Edition
Kaye, John William, Sir
Afghan Wars
But this Broadfoot denied. He denied that the British troops held
Jellalabad only on behalf of Shah Soojah; he denied that the British
Government—under whose orders alone, he contended, the force could
with propriety be withdrawn from Jellalabad—had directed, or were
likely to direct, the immediate evacuation of Afghanistan. He denied
that the brigade could not hold out in Jellalabad; he denied that
it could not make good its retreat to Peshawur. He declared that
hostages had been given before, at Tezeen—that still our camp had been
attacked;[38] and that, so long as the enemy held our hostages and
prisoners in their hands, there was really little additional security
in such a resource. Sale said that he would execute an Afghan hostage
if the terms of the treaty were violated. “Would you do this,” asked
Broadfoot, “if the enemy threatened to kill, before our faces, two
English ladies for every man that we put to death?” It was urged,
by another officer, that if the British troops did not evacuate
Jellalabad, our hostages at Caubul would be murdered. “Then,” contended
Broadfoot, “in such a warfare, the most barbarous must be most
successful. Whoever is prepared to execute his hostages and prisoners
must gain his object, and triumph by the mere force of his barbarity.”
And thus, point after point, Broadfoot combated the arguments of
those who supported the policy of capitulation; and at last took his
stand boldly upon “first principles.” When it was said that a body of
troops, thus abandoned by Government, were entitled to look to their
own safety, he replied, that they had a right to save the troops only
when, by so doing, they would confer a greater benefit on the state
than by risking their loss. And when mention was made of the views of
the Governor-General, the chief officer of the state, he declared that
there was a higher duty still which they were bound to discharge. If,
as had been contended, the Government of India had abandoned them,
the covenant between them was cancelled by the failure of the higher
authority. But they had a duty to perform towards their country—a
duty which they could never decline. And it was plainly their duty, in
the conjuncture which had arisen, to uphold the honour of the nation.
In these views Havelock openly concurred; though, for reasons already
stated, he took little part in the debates.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account