[3] The mutiny had its roots in British insensitivity towards Indian cultural sentiments, combined with negligence and poor supply arrangements, which caused growing resentment amongst the sepoys of several regiments of the Bengal Native Infantry after a long march from Mathura to Barrackpore.

The Commander-in-Chief, India, General Sir Edward Paget, ordered the troops to lay down their arms before considering their requests for redress.

[15][16] Under the leadership of Bindee Tiwari, the sepoys maintained order during the day and stayed on the parade ground all night, while a petition was sent to Paget, who arrived from Calcutta on hearing of the escalation.

They secretly surrounded the sepoy camp ground and a final message was sent to the mutineers, demanding that they lay down arms before any discussion on grievances but it is said that only ten minutes were offered to make up their minds.

[23] The sepoys either hesitated or rejected the ultimatum and Paget ordered two cannons to fire on the rebels, followed by an attack from the rear by the secretly placed horse artillery.

Some of the sepoys jumped into the Hooghly River to escape and drowned, others entered local households for shelter but the loyalists chased them in and killed them with bayonets.

[25] Bengal Hurkaru, a local semi-official newspaper, published a report in November 1824, stating that the number of deceased was 100, per a "perfect guess".

[2] Most of the remaining mutineers were captured and on 2 November, eleven sepoys were identified as the ring leaders and received a swift trial, where they were sentenced to death by hanging.

[30] On 4 November, by a general order issued from Fort William, the 47th Regiment was disbanded and its Indian officers disgraced, discharged and declared unworthy of the confidence of the government, as it was thought mutiny could not have occurred without their knowledge.

[32][33][34] The news of the unrest in Barrackpore, especially concerning the use of violence to subdue a peaceful protest, was suppressed in public media in Calcutta, London and elsewhere.

The colonial government maintained its silence except for a short official paragraph published in the Calcutta Gazette on 4 November, where the incident was largely trivialised, with no mention of casualties.

[35][36] Bengal Hurkaru, a local semi-official newspaper under the editorship of a British Deputy Judge-Advocate, also published a short report in November 1824.

[38] The Oriental Herald in London first published a story on the subject almost six months after the incident, calling it the "Barrackpore Massacre", based on a report by a British correspondent in Calcutta.

[39] The Oriental Herald severely criticised the conduct of the British officers present, Paget in particular for resorting to violence to suppress a peaceful protest, and demanded increased pay for the sepoys as well the provision of transport for luggage.

[15] The report was particularly harsh in its criticism of Amherst, whom it labelled an "evil genius", blaming him for the escalation:[35] If this example was necessary to preserve the obedience of the native troops, how miserably precarious is the tenure of our authority!

Hume, a Radical MP from the opposition, described the incident to his colleagues, criticising the conduct of the military, and appealed for a fresh investigation to identify those responsible; he perceived that Amherst was showing a lack of will in finding the real culprits.

To commemorate the incident, six months after Bindee's death, Indian sepoys and locals erected a temple near the site of his execution.