A wildly inaccurate summation of the Mutiny.
For one thing, a great many British survivors owed their lives to the help, often at risk of their own lives, of Indian servants and even strangers.
The notion that ALL Indians were involved is just untrue. It was probably a rather small minority of the population. If all Indians, ore even a majority, had been involved it is likely every Brit in India would have been killed.
The Company at the time had three armies. The Mutiny among soldiers was limited almost entirely to the Bengal Army.
Most of India was still ruled by native princes, allied, sometime involuntarily, with the British. Most of them stayed loyal or at least neutral. Only a few joined the revolt.
Entire native peoples, notably the Sikhs, who the British had only recently conquered and the Gurkhas, stayed entirely loyal. The British could not have defeated the sepoys without their enthusiastic assistance.
Horrible atrocities were indeed committed by both sides, though the number of Indians murdered by the Brits is probably a large multiple (20x, 50x, 100x, who knows?) of the Brits murdered by Indians. This is largely because there just weren't that many Brits in India at the time, while there were lots and lots of Indians available for slaughter.
The point is that while these atrocities happened, the true nature of events bears little semblance to this definition of a "Perfect Day."
Moreover, since such a large portion of the Company’s armies were made up of sepoys, many of the atrocities perpetrated against the mutineers were likely hindustani-on-hindustani.
I didn’t realize it was the Bengals that were so largely involved. Explains a lot. Like why the British capital was later moved from Calcutta, West Bengal to New Dehli. And why the Bengalis later became such a bunch of communists. And why Churchill couldn’t give a fig when a million or three Bengalis starved when he took their produce for the war effort.