Army
The second important pillar of the British regime in India was the army. It fulfilled three important functions. It was the chief instrument of British expansion in India; it defended the British Empire in India from foreign rivals; and it safeguarded British supremacy from the many internal revolts which sprang up.
The bulk of the Company’s army consisted of Indian soldiers, recruited chiefly from U.P. and Bihar. Its officers were, however, exclusively British. In 1856, only three Indians in the army were of the rank of subedar who was the highest Indian officer. A large number of Indian troops had to be employed as British troops were far too expensive. Moreover, the population of Britain was perhaps too small to provide the large soldiery needed for the conquest of India. As a counterweight, the army was officered entirely by British officials. It appears surprising today that a handful of foreigners could conquer and control India with a predominantly Indian army. This was possible because of two factors. On the one hand, there was absence of modern nationalism in the country. Secondly, the Indian soldier had a long tradition of loyally serving those who paid his salary. In other words, the Indian soldier was a good mercenary, and the Company on its part was a good paymaster. It paid its soldiers regularly and well, something that the Indian rulers and chieftains were no longer doing.
Police
The third pillar of British rule was the Police created by Lord Cornwallis. He relieved the zamindars of their police functions and established a regular police force to maintain law and order. In this respect, he modernized the old Indian system of thanas. Cornwallis established a system of circles or thanas headed by a daroga, who was an Indian. Later, the post of the District Superintendent of Police was created to head the police organisation in a district. Once again, Indians were excluded from all superior posts. In the villages the duties of the police continued to be performed by village-watchmen who were maintained by the villagers. Though the police gradually succeeded in reducing major crimes such as dacoity and suppressed thugs who robbed and killed travelers on the highways, it was used to suppress the national movement which gained steam by 1905.
Judicial Organisation
The British laid the foundations of a new system of dispensing justice through a hierarchy of civil and criminal courts. Though given a start by Warren Hastings, the system was stabilised by Cornwallis in 1793. In each district was establed a Diwani Adalat, or civil court, presided over by the District Judge who belonged to the Civil Service. Above the District Court lay the four Provincial Courts of Civil appeal and above it, the Sadar Diwani Adalat. Below the District Court were Registrars’ Courts, headed by Europeans, and a number of subordinate courts headed by Indian judges known as Munsifs and Amins.
To deal with criminal cases, Cornwallis divided the Presidency of Bengal into four Divisions, in each of which there was a Court of Circuit presided over by the civil servants. Below these courts came a large number of Indian magistrates to try petty cases. Above the Courts of Circuit lay the Sadar Nizamat Adalat. In 1831, William Bentinck abolished the Provincial Courts of Appeal and Circuit. Their work was assigned first to Commissions and later to District Judges and District Collectors. Bentinck also raised the status and powers of Indians in the judicial service and appointed them as Deputy Magistrates and Principal Sadar Amins. In 1865, High Courts were established at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay to replace the Sadar Diwani and Nizamat courts.
The British also established a new system of laws through the processes of enactment and codification of old laws. The system of justice in India had been largely based on customary law which arose from long tradition and practice. The British gradually evolved a new system of laws. They introduced regulations, and codified the existing laws. The Charter Act of 1833 conferred all lawmaking power on the Governor-General-in-Council. All this meant that Indians were now to live increasingly under man-made laws, which were the products of human reason.
In 1833, the Government appointed a Law Commission headed by Lord Macaulay to codify Indian laws. Its labours eventually resulted in the Indian Penal Code, Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure and other codes of laws. The same laws now prevailed all over the country and they were enforced by a uniform system of courts.
The British introduced the modern concept of the rule of law. This means that their administration was to be carried out, at least in theory, according to laws which clearly defined the rights, privileges, and obligations of the subjects, and not according to the personal discretion of the ruler. In practice, of course, the bureaucracy and the police enjoyed arbitrary powers which violated the rights and liberties of the people.
The Indian legal system under the British was based on the concept of equality before law. This meant that in the eyes of law all men were equal. The same law applied to all persons irrespective of their caste, religion, or class.
There was, however, one exception to this principle of equality before law. The Europeans had separate courts and even laws. In criminal cases they could be tried only by European judges. When many English officials, planters, and merchants behaved with Indians in a harsh and brutal manner and efforts were made to bring them to justice, they were given indirect protection and consequently, light or no punishment by the European judges before whom alone they could be tried. Consequently miscarriage of justice occurred frequently and made a mockery of rule of law.
There also emerged another type of legal inequality. Justice became quite expensive as court fees had to be paid and lawyers had to be engaged. Courts were often situated in distant towns and law suits dragged on for years. The complicated laws were beyond the grasp of the common man and invariably, the rich could turn and twist the laws and courts to operate in their own favour. Moreover, the widespread prevalence of corruption in the lower ranks of the police and civil administration led to the denial of justice. But in pre-British times, the system of justice was comparatively more informal, speedy and inexpensive.