The British Makeover of India: Judicial and Other Indigenous Institutions Upturned

Rundown by three waves of colonisation, Bharatiya Civilisation was subject to the interpretations of the colonial powers. Even now, the world continues to view Bharat through the colonial lens. Perception is the foundation for a narrative. Unfortunately, even after becoming independent, a jaundiced narrative of India administered by colonial laws is widely prevalent. Very little effort has been made to unshackle independent India from the Colonial governance structures.

The institutional framework of independent India is an extension of the colonial structures erected by dismantling the indigenous structures. While relentless Islamic invasions partially corrupted native institutions, they were completely uprooted by the British colonisation.

Castigating the British colonisation as exploitative and ruthless, famous French historian Fernand Braudel stated that – “the despotism of the Mughals in India was ‘enlightened despotism’ as compared to the mindless plunder of the British”. He observed that while the Mughals desired the golden egg, they were wise enough to know that they shouldn’t kill the goose that laid the golden egg. On the contrary, the British killed the golden goose for their avarice and greed. As the British consolidated their power over India with a series of victorious battles, they systematically trampled down the Indian institutions- political, economic, educational and cultural and subsequently created fissures in the society.

Padma Sri Meenakshi Jain in her new book- “The British Makeover of India: Judicial and Other Indigenous Institutions Upturned” takes a deep dive into this colonial institutional architecture. Her latest work is a new addition to the rich corpus of knowledge treasure she has produced. Laid out in 19 chapters, the author critically dissects the paradigm shift in the East India Company's (EIC) attitude towards India- a shift from initial enthusiasm to utter disdain and disparagement.

Conferred with administrative powers of three provinces in 1765, the mercantilist East India Company transitioned from being revenue collectors to the supreme rulers of India. Along with a string of military successes, the notion of the dominant race began to gain currency.  As a result, the initial reaction of awe and adoration towards Indian antiquity steadily descended into abomination. They began depicting India as a “people uniquely predisposed to corruption, extortion and mendacity”.

From around the 1760s till the early 19^th century, Britishers associated with the East India Company- William Bolts, Luke Scrafton, J.Z. Holwell, Alexander Dow, and Harry Verelst hailed Hindus as  “an ornament to creation” (p-5). These people even advocated that the company must adhere to the native institutions. They contended that the Mughals didn’t tamper with the Hindu laws and were allowed to follow their own regulations. Indeed, Harry Verelst warned of the adverse consequences of introducing English laws. Concerned about the loss of British colonies to America, Edmund Burke exhorted the need for respecting the indigenous laws.

Indeed, the first governor-general of India, Warren Hastings took a deep interest in the Hindu religion. Quite uncharacteristically, he attributed “Europe’s triumph not to the superiority of Christianity but to secular reasons like – free government, cold climate and printing and navigation”(p-20). He believed that to administer India, a sound knowledge of its culture was essential and went on ‘Pundit hunting’. He worked to create an elite orientalised service well-versed in Indian languages and Indian traditions.

During his tenure, he encouraged oriental scholarship and established the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1784. Researchers like Charles Wilkins, Nathaniel Halhed, Jonathan Duncan and William Jones made notable contributions in the fields of Indian language, archaeology, philosophy, philology and history. Charles Wilkins translated Bhagavad Gita, Halhed translated Hindu Law- ‘Vivadarnava Setu’, as A Code of Gentoo Laws while Jonathan Duncan started a Sanskrit College in Banaras in 1791.

Hailed as the father of Indology, William Jones translated Kalidas’s Shankuntalam, and Gita Govinda. Jones believed that Pythagoras and Plato drew from the Sages of India and accepted the concept of transmigration of the soul. Simultaneously, Hastings encouraged the translation of Islamic texts like Ayine Akbery, Fatwa-al-Alamgir, and Hedaya into English. The motivations for an exalted interest in Indian civilisation weren’t “politically naïve” altogether as Hastings wanted to control, dominate, and divide the Indian population.

Some believed that dissemination of Indian knowledge would liberate the East India Company from charges of “moral turpitude”. Among the scholars who were in admiration of India included several Scotsmen who were critical of missionaries' depiction of Hindus “remain under the grossest, the darkest and most degrading system of idolatrous superstition that almost ever existed upon the earth”(p-51).

By the mid-18^th century, the tide began to change steered prominently by Charles Grant, an evangelist and James Mills. They challenged the consensus of the earliest set of Oriental scholars. The Company took an initial fascination with India. But it was driven by strategic objectives. They were cognizant of the huge benefits they could accrue from India. They believed that retreat from India would lead to “French domination” which could give them “the empire of the sea” and make them a “universal monarchy”.

After obtaining Diwani rights, the British ruthlessly exploited the farmers. British policies even induced famines that killed close to 10 million people in Bengal.

Hastings and his group attempted to reinterpret the Indian laws and Dharmasastras through a European lens and committed grievous errors. They believed that Dharmasastras were immutable legal texts. However, they are intellectual and philosophical discourses that are not fixed or static but evolutionary. They attempt to ossify them. ‘Lokavyavahara’ prevailed over dharmasastras. The Britishers overlooked local customs or acaras and complicated the matters with their narrow interpretations.

Indian perspective of justice was different from the European one which relied on precedence and consistency.  Dharma sastras and sutras never demonstrated their obsession for precedent as they largely believed that every individual had a unique dharma and a unique set of responsibilities. Indeed, the Indian texts were attuned to the changing requirements. By codifying the laws, the British had made them rigid. Case laws appeared for the first time in 1816. While the practice of administering justice through ‘A Code for Gentoo Laws’ had commenced, in some provinces governors depended on the local customs, unwritten maxims and verses in the local language for quicker dispensation of cases.

British had set up two centres- St. George College at Madras and Fort Williams in Calcutta to train officials in the new code. But this code created a divide in India with the Company men in the South resisting the ‘Northern School’ of the Code of Gentoo Laws which believed in the primacy of Dharmsastras. Francis Whyte Hall, the precursor of the Dravidian ideology opposed it calling them a ‘Brahminical recommendation’ (p-81) and pressed for the application of customary laws. This north-south difference had been a creation of the missionaries and the evangelist Company men furthered these divisions by widening these fissures.

The British gradually introduced the rules and regulations of European legality. Reluctant to employ Indians for higher positions, company men faltered to dispense cases quickly. To overcome the language barrier and to facilitate easy communication, they introduced the Vakil system which made justice redressal an expensive affair. Unlike the Panchayats which were efficient, effective, less expensive, regular, prompt and approved systems for dispensing justice, English Courts were highly unpopular. They invoked distrust, fear and eventually became seats of corruption as people had to pay huge sums of money to hire a Vakil to defend their case.

Modelled on the ‘Royal Irish Constabulary’ the British dismantled the indigenous policing system and the appointment of ‘Darogahs’ by district magistrates (Chapter 14). The magistrates relied on the advice of officers who were bribed to favourably recommend a person. Soon, corruption, bribery and oppression became all pervasive in the police system.

By transplanting the European institutions onto Indian territory, the British inflicted a death blow on the indigenous institutions that ensured the smooth functioning of the society. Disinclined to recruit natives for higher positions, Britishers trained relatives and friends of the company at Haileybury College, London for deployment in India. The course curriculum included vernacular language learning including Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic, European knowledge and Christianity with a mandatory reading of James Mill’s ‘History of British India’.

Compiled with the information sourced from missionaries in India, James Mill who never experienced India wrote a six-volume treatise. In the words of Orientalist, H.H. Wilson, the book was – “its tendency is evil; it is calculated to destroy all sympathy between the ruler and the ruled… a harsh and illiberal spirit has of late years prevailed in the conduct and councils of the rising service in India, which owes its origin to impressions imbibed in early life from the History of Mr. Mill” (p-264, Chapter 19).

The Haileybury College was a testament to the change in the outlook of the EIC. The curriculum injected a harsh view of India into the British officers from around 1830. This marked change in the Company also stemmed from its tightening strangle grip over India.  Subsequently, the Company officials shed any pretence of religious neutrality and openly supported missionaries. They facilitated Christian teaching in educational institutions. Through the Charter Act of 1813, the company gave missionaries the right to propagate religion.

Dismantling the indigenous institutions, the British weakened the harmonious social fabric of India. Aflush with several references, the book is an excellent go-to source to understand British Colonisation. The book is among the great works of Meenakshi Jain. However, an in-depth analysis could have certainly enhanced eloquent articulation.

This thoroughly researched work is an eye-opener to colonised Indians who take immense pride as inheritors of the European Framework.  A sequel to the book, (yet to be published) on the Company’s ruination of the native education system is expected to offer a complete perspective on British colonisation that extirpated every trace of “Indianness” and its identity.

@ Copyrights reserved.