The inception of the East India Company in 1600 and its evolution from a trading entity to a governing authority in 1765 initially had minimal influence on Indian politics and governance. However, the era spanning from 1773 to 1858, during Company rule, followed by British Crown rule until 1947, experienced a multitude of constitutional and administrative transformations. While these changes were intended to align with British imperial ideology, they inadvertently infused elements of the modern State into India's political and administrative framework.
Logo of East India Company
Satyendra Nath Tagore
In 1893, the House of Commons approved simultaneous exams, but it was never implemented. Secretary of State Kimberley stated the need for a sufficient number of European members in the civil service.
Government of India Act, 1935
The 1935 Act suggested the creation of a Federal Public Service Commission and a Provincial Public Service Commission within their respective domains. However, the pivotal roles of control and authority continued to be held by the British, preventing the Indianization of the civil service from translating into effective political power for Indians. This was due to Indian bureaucrats functioning as agents of colonial rule.
In pre-colonial India, under Mughal and native states, governments were autocratic, lacked a formal police system. Watch guards protected villages, while faujdars and amils maintained law and order under the Mughal rule. The Kotwal oversaw city law enforcement. During dual rule in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa (1765-1772), zamindars were responsible for law and order duties but often neglected them.
In 1770, the faujdar and amil institutions were abolished, but Warren Hastings reinstated them in 1774. The police system saw developments under the British, with Cornwallis organizing a regular police force in 1791, relieving zamindars of police duties. Mayo appointed SPs in 1808, but their spies faced issues. In 1814, darogas were abolished in Company possessions except Bengal.
Bentinck (1828-1835) abolished the SP office, placing collectors/magistrates in charge. The Police Commission's (1860) recommendations led to the Indian Police Act, of 1861, establishing a civil constabulary system. The police, while successful in curbing criminal acts, had an unsympathetic attitude and was used to suppress the national movement.
The British did not create an All-India Police. The Police Act, 1861 provided guidelines for provincial setups, introducing uniform ranks nationwide. In 1902, the Police Commission recommended establishing CID in provinces and a Central Intelligence Bureau at the Centre.
Before the 1857 revolt, two distinct military forces operated under British control in India: the Queen's army and the Company's troops.
Post-1857, there was a systematic reorganization of the Indian Army to prevent another revolt and defend the Indian territory against imperialist powers like Russia, Germany, and France.
The European branch dominated the Indian branches, with commissions in 1859 and 1879 enforcing a one-third white army principle.
Proportions of Europeans to Indians were fixed at one to two in the Bengal Army and two to five in the Madras and Bombay Armies.
Strict European monopoly was maintained over key departments, and Indians were excluded from officer ranks until 1914.
British Army Corps
The policy of balance and counterpoise, or divide and rule, guided the reorganization of the Indian branch, with an emphasis on 'martial races' and 'non-martial races.'
An ideology of 'martial races' justified discriminatory recruitment policies towards Sikhs, Gurkhas, and Pathans, while soldiers from regions involved in the 1857 revolt were labeled 'non-martial.'
Communal, caste, tribal, and regional consciousness was encouraged to deter the growth of nationalist feelings among soldiers.
Measures were taken to isolate soldiers from the broader population, including restricting access to newspapers, journals, and nationalist publications.
The British Indian Army remained a costly military machine with conscious efforts to maintain control and prevent internal dissent.
In pre-colonial India, including the Mughal era, the judicial system lacked proper procedures, organizational structure, and a systematic hierarchy of law courts. Hindu litigation was often resolved by caste elders, village panchayats, or zamindars. For Muslims, the qazi, typically a religious figure, administered justice in provincial capitals, towns, and large villages. The dispensation of justice was often arbitrary, with rajas and badshahs considered the source of justice.
The introduction of a common law system, based on recorded judicial precedents, began with the establishment of 'Mayor's Courts' in Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta in 1726 by the East India Company. As the Company transitioned from a trading entity to a ruling power, it replaced the existing Mughal legal system with new elements in the judicial system.
Abolition of District Fauzdari Courts led to the establishment of circuit courts in Calcutta, Dacca, Murshidabad, and Patna, featuring European judges for civil and criminal case appeals.
Sadar Nizamat Adalat relocated to Calcutta, placed under the governor-general and members of the Supreme Council, assisted by chief qazi and chief mufti.
District Diwani Adalat was renamed District, City, or Zila Court, overseen by a district judge, with the collector limited to revenue administration.
Hierarchy of civil courts established for Hindu and Muslim laws:
Cornwallis Code introduced:
The abolition of the four Circuit Courts led to their functions being transferred to collectors under the supervision of the commissioner of revenue and circuit.
Sadar Diwani Adalat and Sadar Nizamat Adalat were established at Allahabad for the convenience of the people in Upper Provinces.
Previously, Persian was the official language in courts; now, suitors had the option to use Persian or a vernacular language. In the Supreme Court, English replaced Persian.
In 1833, a Law Commission under Macaulay was established for the codification of Indian laws, resulting in the preparation of a Civil Procedure Code (1859), an Indian Penal Code (1860), and a Criminal Procedure Code (1861).
Negative Aspects:
1. Increased complexity and expense in the judicial system, allowing manipulation by the wealthy.
2. Abundant opportunities for false evidence, deceit, and chicanery.
3. Prolonged litigation resulting in delayed justice.
4. Overburdened courts due to a surge in litigation.
5. European judges often unfamiliar with Indian customs and traditions.
728 videos|1212 docs|628 tests
|
1. What were some major constitutional developments in India between 1773 and 1858? |
2. How did the civil services evolve in India over time? |
3. What were the key changes in the administrative structure of India after the revolt of 1857? |
4. How did the police system evolve in modern India under British rule? |
5. What were some significant judicial developments in British India? |
728 videos|1212 docs|628 tests
|
|
Explore Courses for UPSC exam
|