rjisacjournal.com

GENESIS OF POLICE ADMINISTRATION IN INDIA

Dr. S. Murugavel
Associate Professor, P.G and Research Centre of History, Rani Anna Government College for Women, Tirunelveli – 8.

Abstract
The aim of this paper is to describe the origin of the Police administration in India. The Police have the important mission of maintaining law and order and providing protection to the people.  The Police Department has a glorious record of service since its establishment, by discharging its ordained responsibility of maintenance of law and order with utmost vigilance, dedication and professionalism.  Policing has always been and is ever a challenging task.  They have always proved their mettle on most occasions.  It maintains law and order, investigation or any other function. The Police Department has attained the greater heights in its efficiency through the professionalization of Police force and better Police public relationship. It has a glorious history.  It has evolved into a very effective and strong Police force geared to deal with the emerging challenges in a most efficient manner.  The Police people strive hard to maintain the highest standards of work ethics.  The department has discharged its onerous responsibilities with exemplary courage and dedication, earning the respect and admiration of everyone. Law and order are essential to the civilized society.  The Police are one of the chief instruments in creating and maintain such civilize society. However after Independence the Police was required to play a formative role to uplift the people and maintain a stable social order in the society.

Introduction
The term ‘Police’ had been derived from the Greek word, ‘Polis’1 i.e., a city, though the Latin ‘Politia’ which means the condition of a State Government also came in use later. In the past it meant a system of administration, but now it indicates an organised body of civil officers engaged in the preservation of law and order, detection of crime and enforcement of laws.2 In ancient times some institutions or the other discharging police duties were in existence, but it was not given a distinct name. A civil organization for maintaining peace and providing security to the citizens in their lawful occupations was of great antiquity, Greek and Roman laws alike.3 Even in the laws of Manu, reference to the police systems are found and the chief duty of the king, according to Manu Dharma was to restrain violence and punish the evil doers.4 There is ample evidence of the security organization in the Harappan civilization.

The origin of police in India can be traced to the earliest Vedic period of Indian history. The two Vedas – the Rig Veda and the Atharva Veda, mention certain kinds of crimes and punishments known of Vedic India. Manu, the law giver, talks about the art of secret intelligence practiced in his time for the prevention and detection of crime. The kings in ancient India had their own network of secret intelligence to keep themselves well informed about the nature and incidence of crimes and awarded adequate punishment to the criminals. In the land of Srilanka in Valmiki’s Ramayana, Dharakas parading the streets of the little kingdom of Ravana when Hanuman was engaged in espionage there.5 Armed with lathis these policemen of the demon king can be compared with the constables on patrol duty today. ‘Danda’ which symbolized the power of the state was adequately accepted by moral and spiritual applications. It was never orbitary and at the same time it was the first basic demand responsible for the birth of the police system. The primary meaning of ‘Danda’’ is rod of staff. ‘Danda’ the symbol of the right to punish is Dharma itself for a king. Danda became an important one to the royal office.

There exist detailed and authentic accounts of police organization and activities during the Mauryan and Gupta periods of Indian history. Kautilya’s ‘Arthasastra’ written around 310 B.C. is a monumental work and yields systematic information about investigation techniques and agencies, punishment to the guilty and vice-control devices. Kautilya classifies spies into nine distinct categories, including women  spies.  They  belonged to good families and were loyal, reliable and well-brained in the art of disguise.6 Thus Arthasastra is not only a fascinating book of historical interest, but also a testimony to the nature of police work which was done in India 2300 years ago.7  The indigenous system of police in India was organized on the basis of the village community. In many ways, it was similar to the police system in Saxon England. The Zamindar was required to maintain public peace and restore the stolen property. The villages had the joint responsibility to trace out the criminals. Otherwise they had to establish that the offender had gone beyond the boundary of the village. The law and order was maintained through headman who was assisted by one or more village watchmen. Besides keeping watch in the village, these watchmen had to report to the headman, the arrival and departure of all strangers and suspicious persons. If a theft was committed, the headman had to detect the thieves and recover the stolen property; in case he failed to do so, he had to make up the loss as for as his means permitted and the balance was recovered from the villagers.8 Moreover at times, payments were made to the leaders of plundering tribes to prevent depradations by them.9

During Gupta period, more or less a similar pattern of policing was adopted. The judiciary and the police continued to be the important agencies of the State administration. With the passage of time, the police responsibility widened and different organizations had to be necessarily created in order to implement effectively the law and order system and bring criminals to justice. The normal life of the subjects was not disturbed and they lived in fearless amity. The village police, the city police and the palace police were the basic systems which was suitably developed or changed by various kings.

After the break-up of the Hindu empire, the Afghan and the Mughal rulers who followed their own concept of police administration super imposed the Arabiccum-Feudalistic institutions of ‘Faujdar’ and ‘kotwal’ on the existing structure of policing in the village. The Faujdar represented the executive authority of the Government within the limits of a rural district. He was principally a military officer, but also functioned as the chief police officer for the area under his command.10 The district was divided into a number of parganas which were under the sigdars. The Faujdar and his subordinate officers were assisted by the Zamindars, who had, appropriated the police functions of the village headman, because they paid and controlled the village watchman. In large towns the police administration was under the ‘kotwal’ who was usually paid a large salary out of which he was required to defray the expenses of a considerable establishment of police.           While the police in sizeable towns was under the ‘kotwal’, the smaller places were under the revenue officer. The Faujdar was the in-charge of the whole police force in the district.

The indigenous police system made a very important contribution towards successful governance during the regimes of both Alla-ud-din Khilji and Shersha Suri. Crime was kept under control through a system of surveillance and espionage, the laws were enforced with rigidity, resulting in repression of the people. The common man in India has ever since been carrying in his mind a foul image of the Kotwal can ever be a protector of his rights, property and person. The police organization during the Mughal period, laid so much emphasis on the higher ranks of the police hierarchy that the lower ones remained neglected. During the last days of the Mughal Empire the military exploits of the emperors put the police administration into oblivion and the rulers had to pay quite heavily for this neglect.11

The police system during the Mughal period was undoubtedly suited to the needs of a simple and homogenous agricultural community but it could not stand the strain political disorder and the consequent relaxation of control of the centre. So with the decline of the Mughal Empire, its system of administration also collapsed. Extortion and oppression became the rule of the day and the officials in-charge of law and order themselves became corrupt and tyrannial. The Zamindars, the headmen and the watchmen committed crimes and gave shelter to criminals with a view to sharing the booty. Even the highest officials indulged in such practices. The rule to restore the stolen property or to make good the loss was no longer observed.12 Under these circumstances life and property became very insecure.

The study of the system of police administration in medieval India under the Mughals and the Maratha kingdoms reveal that neither the Mughals nor the Marathas directly provided for policing rural areas. They merely adopted one of the chief features of the traditional system of the old autonomous village community. It maintained the system of local responsibility for local crimes and make the village headman and his subordinates (Watchmen or Chouckidars) responsible for the prevention and detection of crimes in villages.

The Marathas also adopted the Muslim practice of maintaining the urban Police by the State. The Head of the Maratha City Police was also called ‘Kotwal’. He was in-charge of maintenance of security, prohibitory orders (prohibiting people from entering and leaving the town after nightfall), organization   of official spies, control of markets and prices and care and disposal of understate property (restoration of the properties of deceased or missing persons to the legitimate heir).13 The ‘Kotwal’ by and large resembles the present day inspector of police. In many places of Northern India, police officer in-charge of city police station is known as ‘Kotwali’.

Police during British Rule
With the distintegration of the Mughals there was a complete breakdown of police system. It was to this legacy that the East India Company succeeded as Diwans in Bengal in 1765. By this time the East India Company had also strengthend the political power and stability in the country and took upon it to bring about improvement in the police system of provinces under their domain.

The battle of Plassey in Bengal in 1757 marked the beginning of a new phase in the activities of the Company. During the first one hundred years of their rule, they made several experiments in the police organization. It felt about the incidents of crime   and unrest and to combat the unrest, Governor General Cornwallis took police administration out of the hands of the Zamindars in 1792 and established a police force responsible to the agents of the Company. Districts were divided into parts, and a police official known as Darogha was appointed in each part to maintain law and order. The darogha was to raise and direct a force of men known as ‘Barkandazes’ ‘the lightening throwers’ as they were armed with guns to supervise the police work of the village headmen and were accountable to the District Judge. The ‘Kotwal’ however remained in-charge of police administration in the towns.14

Many Commissions and Reports condemned the darogha system. So the Company abolished the system in 1814 and returned to the traditional method of village policing. The village police was to be supervised by the Collector, the chief executive officer in each district.15 But, even after that there was no improvement in the law and order situation.

In 1813, the Board of Directors of East India Company appointed a special committee to enquire into the administration of police and justice in India. The committee decided to enlist the co-operation of the local people in the prevention of peace, and the Madras Regulation Act XI of 1816 was passed to establish a uniform pattern of village police throughout the Presidency.16 The select committee appointed in 1832 to report on the affairs of East India Company gathered much valuable information that the superior officers were unable to exercise effective control over their subordinates because they had too many duties and so they became ineffective, inefficient, corrupt and oppressive. But, no immediate action was taken on the recommendations of the committee.17

The solution to the law and order problem came just by chance Sir Charles Napier conqured the territory of Sindh for the Company in 1843. In Sind there was neither a village police system nor a revenue system. Sir Charles Napier followed the Royal Irish constabulary model for policing in Sind and created a separate police organization which was totally directed by its own officers. The Inspector General of Police was responsible for law and order in Sind where as a Superintendent looked after each district.18 Thus, the Government of Sind maintained law and order through the Collector, but the organization and discipline was entrusted to a new and separate department. Impressed  by the police administration in Sind, the Madras Government appointed the Torture Commission in 1858 to examine the existing organization of Madras police. Accepting the report of Torture Commission, the Government of Madras wanted to free the police of the executive control of the Magistrate over it. But, Sir Charles Trevalyan, the Madras Governor, forced modifications in the proposed bill and succeeded in superceding the views of the Commission.19 Sir George Clark, Governor of Bombay was also impressed by the Sind experiment and the 1853 reform modelled the Bombay police on the pattern of its counterpart in Sind.20

Sir Henry Lawrence reorganised the Punjab police. All these reforms in the major provinces, in the pre-mutinity period, laid down the foundations of the police organization which continued to be strengthened after the termination of the rule of the Company. The mutiny broke out in 1857 shocking the British into full realisation of the responsibilities of imperial domination in such a vast-country as the Company controlled. The inability of the police to deal with the increasing problems and disorder made the imperial Government to realise the urgency of a unified police system for the entire country.  The heavy expenditure involved in maintaining, a military like police, compelled the Government to appoint an All India Police Commission in 1860. The Commission suggested ways to reduce the expenditure on police force and a guest for uniformity in the existing police system.21

1) Military police should be dispensed with and policing should be entrusted to a civil constabulary. 2) Civil police should have its own separate administrative establishment headed by an Inspector General of Police in every province. 3) The Superintendent was responsible to the civilian Collector and he should supervise the village police22 were the Commission’s recommended.

The recommendations of the Police Commission were accepted by the Government and a bill, based on them was introduced and passed on 16th March and it came into force from 22nd of the same month as the Indian Police Act, 1861 after receiving the assent of the Governor-General.

The Police Act of 1861

The major recommendations of the Police Commission was incorporated into the Police Act of 1861 which was more or less on the lines of the Madras Police Act of 1859. The basic structure of police organization as provided in the Act (1861) had with stood the best of time, forms the corner stone of police administration even today. It had two main aims in view. The establishment of a unified police force in every province and to use it to keep the people effectively under control. The act did not conceive the police force as a service organization, but as an instrumentation of coercion.23 After the passing and implementation of the Police Act of 1861, the British Government in India made no structural reforms in police administration during the next 100 years of their rule. It may be noted that the Act of 1861 was only applicable to the British India and not to the rest of India comprising the Princely States in which the age-old police organization continued and there was hardly any impact of the act on it.

The Police Commission of 1902-1903

Another landmark in the history of Indian police during British period was the appointment of the second All-lndia-Police Commission in the beginning of 20th Century. The recommendations of the first Commission and the subsequent Police Act of 1861 were deficient in several aspects. Inefficiency and corruption in the police force existed and the new recruits continued to be untrained and ill-equipped for the job. Hence Lord Curzon, Viceroy of India set up a new Police Commission in 1902 to make a thorough inquiry into the functioning of the police. This Commission consisted of five Europeans and two Indians.

Before submitting its final report the Commission called a special conference of all the Inspector General’s of Police and heard their problems which they confronted.24 The Commission visited all the provinces, got the detailed report compiled by the provinces and examined 279 witnesses and received 683 written replies to its questions.25 The recommendations of the Commission were meant to restore and reorient the personnel policies of the Police Department to make it face the mounting challenges. Even though they were introduced to strengthen the district police, some of the very vital reforms like Indianisation of the police force were ignored. Maharaja Nameshwar Singh of Darbhanga, a member of the Commission highlighted the weakness of the Commission’s report in his ‘Note of Dissent’. He emphasized that the policy of speedy Indianisation of the senior ranks in the Indian police organization should be given a fair trial, the discriminatory treatment should be stopped without further delay, the policy of recruitment by open competition to the ranks of police organization should be accepted and encouraged in a positive manner, and the control of police authorities must not be vested in the hands of European District Magistrates or Collectors who viewed the police organization as a tool to further British imperial interests.26  Inspite of the Nationalist dissent of the Maharaja, the recommendations of the Commission were accepted by the Government of India. Two new agencies, the CID and the Railway Police were created on its recommendations and passed orders on the reports of the Commission on 21st March 1905 with a view to improve the police administration at all levels.27

The pay salaries of the lower ranks of policemen were raised. The Police Commission of 1902 recommended that the educated Indians be recruited to the police force at officer level. But, after the Commission had submitted its report, a new rank, immediately below the rank of the Superintendent i.e., Deputy Superintendent was created for them.28 Thus, even in the new structure, the educated Indians could hope to reach the rank under the Europeans with which they began their career. For decades the police had to strive to attain the status of a distinct and independent departmental organization. Between 1903 and 1947 the period of 44 years between the submission of report by the Commission and the freedom of India many important changes took place on the social, economic and political life of the country. Some of these changes had a direct learning on the role of the police. The most important event was the independence of India. Independent India inherited a colonial police structure which had been intact since the reforms in 1861 and a colonial concept of the role of police.29

Conclusion
The new constitution which came into effect on 26th January 1950, assigned the responsibility for law and order to the State. The framers of the constitution obviously thought that the extent of decentralization  of police administration already existing was sufficient. The constitution   authorized the Central Bureau of Intelligence and Investigation to establish and maintain the law and order.30

References

  1. Moriarty C.C.H., Police Procedure and Administration, London, 1955, p. 15.
  2. Ibid. p.20.
  3. Encyclopaedia Britanica, Volume 18, London, 1973, p. 158.
  4. Cury J.C., The Indian Police, London, 1932, p. 18.
  5. Hariprasad Shastri, Ramayana Translation, London, 1959, p. 83.
  6. Shama Shastri, Arthasastra Translation, Banglore,1951, p. 12.
  7. Report of Indian Police Commission 1902-03, Government Central Training Office, Simla, 1903, p.8.
  8. Ibid., p.14.
  9. Rajinder Prasher, Police Administration, New Delhi, 1986, p. 12.
  10. Ibid.
  11. Ibid., p.5.
  12. Ibid., p.6.
  13. Ibid, p. 16.
  14. Ibid., p. 7.
  15. Cury, J.C., Op.cit., pp. 23-24.
  16. The Law Relating to India and East India Company, London, 1865, p.194.
  17. Rajinder Prasher, Loc.cit, p.15.
  18. Ibid., p.16.
  19. The Madras District Police Act 1859-60, Edition VIII, Madras Law Department, Madras, 1958, pp.79-90.
  20. The Law Relating to India and the East India Company, London, 1865, p.22.
  21. The Report of All India Police Commission, 1860.
  22. Ibid.
  23. Rajinder Prasher, Police Administration, Op.cit, p.17.
  24. Report of the Indian Police Commission 1902-1903, Simla, 1903, p.26.
  25. Ibid. p.30.
  26. Rajinder Prasher, Police Administration, Op.cit, p.18.
  27. Government of India Orders, dated. 21st March 1905.
  28. David. H. Bayley, The Police and Political Development in India, Princeton, 1969, pp. 49 – 50.
  29. Ibid. p.55.
  30. The Constitution of India, As Modified up to 1st Feb. 1977, (New Delhi : Govt. of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, 1977), VIISchedule, List II, Entry Nos.1&2.