Evolution of Police Culture in Subcontinent Prior to 20th Century:

A historical perspective

Ehsan Sadiq

ABSTRACT
The study gives a detailed anthropological account of ‘Police culture’ in Pakistan through a case
study of police practices and their impact on the associated communities in Thana Shahpur
(Saddar) district Sargodha in Pakistan. Thana Shahpur (and its village Jahanabad), with a social
and political history dominated by feudalism, provided an ideal setting for this ethnographic
study. The study spread over a period of three years (2008-2011) in the locale, helped to
penetrate deep into the police-community relations and explore latent structures and process in
police culture and how it impacts upon police community relations. Being first of its kind in a
Pakistani context, the study also examines the historical, social and organizational perspective of
the evolution of the police culture. The police culture, a legacy of British colonial rule in India, is
mainly manifested in the working of a Thana (police station). As cardinal point for the police’s
interaction with the community and vice versa, a Thana characterizes the police culture for most
of the citizens. In a political and social context, defined by the interplay of power and patronage
to gain influence and authority, control of Thana assumes critical importance for attaining and
maintaining social and political dominance. Consequential co-option and politicization of the
police by dominant socio-political groups negatively influence police culture with adverse
effects for the community, such as non responsive and abusive attitude, corruption, politicization,
torture, disregard for the rule of law and equal treatment. This further alienates community,
which feels scared and distrustful of the police.

Keywords: Police culture, thana, Indian subcontinent, Faujdar, Chief Police Officer,
Commissioner, magistrate, judicial authority,

INTRODUCTION
The term police culture (or Thana culture in popular phraseology) in Pakistan is widely used,
metaphorically, to allude to all the ills associated with functioning of police in Pakistan (Shigri,
2004). This is, in a way, a derogatory term, denoting all such negative attitudes, perspectives,
norms and values which are believed to be prevalent amongst police officers and which are seen
as shaping their understanding of the social world and impacting upon their behavior with
associated communities. It is in this context that the very word ‘police’ evokes so familiar
response across any dividing line in Pakistan that such a consensus is hard to find on any other
issue. Interestingly, despite major changes in police structure in recent years like in its size and
formulation of specialized units such as traffic, security and investigation, traditional perception
of police immediately brings into imagination the Thana. The term ‘Thana’ is used in at least two

1
senses; namely a particular territorial jurisdiction/unit for the purpose of law enforcement and a
specified building premises where police officials, responsible for crime control and maintenance
of order in that particular jurisdiction, are stationed to carry out their duties.

Culture is not a product of days, months and even years. It is a product of 'historical process'
(Brown, 1988) and an outcome of the interaction of different factors over a period of centuries.
The legacy of history is the first and foremost important issue which ought to be examined,
because there is no better way of understanding the present, without a reference to the past
(Shanahan, 2000). Without historical contextualization, the debate on the issue of policing would
remain polemical. In other words, the historical contextualization of the debate would not only
guide the current discussion on policing and police culture, but would also prove beneficial in
informing the process of reforming and restructuring of the police and police culture in our
country. Any discussion on police culture in Pakistan would, therefore, be incomplete without
first establishing the historical context in which it evolved. The subsequent discussion will try to
explore the continuities and shifts in the policing system during ancient, medieval and modern
eras, with a view to examine how they influenced the shaping of our present police culture, often
referred to as ‘Thana culture’.

METHODOLOGY
This research was conducted in the premises of Thana Shahpur, Saddar in the village Jahanabad,
administratively situated in Tehsil Shahpur, a Tehsil/subdivision of District Sargodha - one of the
34 districts of the Punjab province. A major reason for selecting this locale for the present study
is that Shahpur was originally one of the oldest districts of Punjab, created in 1893. Although
Shahpur was degraded to a Tehsil in 1960 and Sargodha was elevated as a district.

This research was conducted for a PhD dissertation. The methodology of this research was based
upon qualitative anthropological research methods. Methodology means philosophy of the
research process which includes the assumptions and values that serve as a rationale for the
research and the standards or criteria the research use for interpreting data and reaching
conclusions. Whereas, by “method” we simply mean the research technique or tool used to
gather data. The methods used for this research include socio-economic survey, participant
observation, key informant interviews, interviews, case studies and focus group discussions. We
choose two key informants in the village on our personal judgment basis, which knew most of
the people in the village and their socio-economic conditions. The data presented in this article
were mainly collected through In-depth interviews, delphi interviews and the review of literature.

Policing During Ancient and Mughal Period

Although, the genesis of the present police system coincided with the advent and expansion of
the British rule in India in the 18th century, however, there had always been some kind of
policing arrangements in times of the ancient Hindu and medieval Muslim periods. Historically,
the evidence on the existence of a specialized police force, as an agency for the maintenance of
2
the public peace in Indian subcontinent is quite scanty. It can be assumed that indication of the
existence of a highly organized and well-regulated city life, one finds in the ruins of Mohenjo-
Daro1 and Harappa2 in Pakistan, could not have been possible without some sort of a regulatory
body. There are also references in historical records, though in a passing manner, about policing
in this part of the world. For instance, the Laws of Manu (200 BC to 200 AD) speak of the king’s
duty to maintain fixed police posts, run spies to help in criminal justice administration, and
punish those who were indulging in violence, by imposing penalties on them (Edward, 1891).
Similarly, there is some mention in the 'Mahabharata' and the 'Ramayana' to a kind of police
administration of those periods, and then, Kalidas, in his writings, also mentions about the police
work (Oman, 2008).

Different historical accounts (more importantly, by various travelers and courtly ambassadors,
such as Megasthenes, the Greek ambassador to the court of Mauryan Indian emperor, Chandra
Gupta, two Chinese travelers, Fa Hien and Huen Tsang, and Kautilya's Arthshastra) also indicate
that in the Mauryan period ‘Nagarika' and the ‘Gopa’ were the police officers in the city and the
village respectively, who were responsible to maintain law and order. The Mauryan
administration was essentially structured around the collection of revenue and the Guptas also
adopted the Mauryan administrative style with some suitable changes. There follows a dark
period of several centuries, during which only sketchy information is available. However, by and
large, the same system continued until advent of the Muslim Rule in India.

Evidence about the police administration of the Muslim period, is equally scarce and scanty as
about the earlier period. The first available information on this subject is discernible in the 14th
century, i.e. during the Sultanate period. The official at the highest rung of the criminal justice
administration was the Mir-ie-Adil. But the person entrusted with the responsibility of police
administration was known as Muhtasib (Ombudsman). He was an Inspector General of Police, a
Chief Engineer of Public Works, as well as an Inspector of Morals (Elliot & Dowson, 1871). He
used to delegate police duties in cities to the Kotwal.

During the Mughal Empire, policing became a subsidiary aspect of the empire’s strategic,
military and revenue requirements. To some, police force during this era was a mercenary and
exotic group of people with official patronage. (Rajasthan Police: India3). Even then, community
involvement, either through the medium of the landlords or through the village level Panchayats
and analogous bodies existed to a certain extent. A detailed account of police management
during Mughal era is found in the Akbarnama-a treatise written by Abul Fazl Allami, one of the
Emperor Akbar’s advisers (Beveridge, 1948). The following extract from Akbarnama throws
adequate light on the police administration of that period:

1
An archeological site situated in the province of Sindh, Pakistan. Built around 2600 BC, it was one of the largest settlements of the ancient
Indus Valley Civilization, and one of the world's earliest major urban settlements
2
An archaeological site in Punjab, northeast Pakistan, about 35 km (22 mi) west of Sahiwal
3
History of Indian Police, Retrieved from http://rajpolice.nic.in/ab-historyIP.htm

3
"The Kotwals of cities, kusbahs, towns and villages, in conjunction with the royal clerks, shall
prepare a register of the houses and buildings which shall include a particular description of the
inhabitants of each habitation. One house shall become security for another; so that they shall all
be reciprocally pledge and bound each for the other. They shall be divided into districts, each
having a chief, or prefect, to whose superintendence the district shall be the subject. Secret
intelligences or spies shall be appointed to each district who shall keep a journal of local
occurrences, arrivals and departures, happening either by day or night. When any theft, fire or
other misfortune may happen, the neighbors shall render immediate assistance; especially the
prefect and public informers, who, failing to attend on such occasions, unless unavoidably
prevented, shall be held responsible for the omission. No person shall be permitted to travel
beyond, or to arrive within, the limits of the district, without the knowledge of the prefect, the
neighbors or public informers. Those who cannot provide security shall reside in a separate place
of abode, to be allotted to them by the prefect of the district and the public informers. A certain
number of persons in each district shall be appointed of patrol by night the several streets and
environs of the several cities, towns, villages, etc., taking care that no strangers infest them, and
especially exerting themselves to discover, pursue and apprehend robbers, thieves, cut-purses,
etc. If any articles be stolen or plundered, the police must restore the articles, produce the
criminals, or failing to do so, become responsible for the equivalent."

Under the Mughal system Faujdar was the Chief Police Officer as well as the administrative and
military head of the Sarkar (district). The Faujdar was appointed by the emperor, but he
performed his duties as lieutenant of the governor under his supervision and guidance. There was
a military contingent of 500-1500 under each Faujdar. A Faujdar was primarily responsible for
policing of the roads, controlling unlawfulness and disorder of any type, apprehension of
criminals and their commitment to the criminal courts for trial and penalty. Forceful collection of
state revenue/dues from disobedient inhabitants was another important duty of Faujdar. Besides
this, he also functioned as a police magistrate and used to be supervising shikdars (responsible to
manage each sub-district), who had control over the Thana dars-appointed to run a Thana. A
Thana dars was supported by a small number of barakandazes (armed guards). Each sub-district
used to have enough Thanas and armed guards to cater the villages in its jurisdiction.

Another distinctive feature of Mughal period was village policing. Rural policing was in the
hands of Chaukidars functioning under the superintendence of village headman and under the
overall supervision of the Faujdar (Maddison, 2006). The watchman was supposed to be vigilant
at night, find out all arrivals and departures, kept an eye on strangers and reported all suspicious
situations to the headman. The village headman was held so responsible and accountable that it
was his duty to recover goods stolen from his village, in case he could not do so, he was obliged
to make good the losses so far as his resources allowed, while the balance left over was divided
on the entire village (Indian Police Commission, 1902-1903). This liability was transferable, in
case, the villagers succeeded in tracking the offender to the boundaries of another village.
4
Secret intelligences or spies were appointed to each district to keep a daily record of local
occurrences, arrivals and departures. Not an individual was allowed to travel beyond or to arrive
within the limits of the district without the knowledge of the prefect, the neighbors or public
informers. . The Moghul system of police followed closely the indigenous system of the country
in which the principle of collective responsibility and mutual security were the basis of policing.
Interestingly, the same system of joint responsibility was almost alike to what existed in England
during Anglo-Saxon era (500-1066 AD) and was sustained by the Normans after their conquest
in 1066 AD.

The police organization of urban areas was carried out differently. There were Kotwals doing
policing in provincial capitals and other important cities, and performed a number of executive
and ministerial duties similar to the Police Commissioners during British rule in Bombay,
Calcutta, and Madras (Ember, 1964). They were not provincial officers, but were appointed by
the central government. They also performed as police magistrate, but had no judicial authority
which exclusively belonged to ‘Qazi’ and ‘Mir-e-Adl’. Their job was to catch thieves, recover
stolen goods or make good the losses.

Policing during the Mughal period was linked to the army, on the one hand, and, with the
department of justice, on the other hand (Samad, R., 2011). For instance, the Faujdar apart from
controlling crime was equally responsible for external defense and punitive action against rebels.
Similarly, in criminal cases, justice was the joint responsibility of the Qazi, who was responsible
for the investigation, and the ‘Mir-e-Adl’, who would decide the case. The same officers acted as
revenue courts when they determined cases concerning the rights in land or other ancillary
matters. There was a division between the judiciary and the executive at least up to the district
level. The ‘panchayats’ disposed of petty cases in villages.

The Mughals used to have separate machineries to deal with law and order and revenue
collection until their defeat at the hands of the East India Company’s troops in 1757. After their
defeat the responsibility to collect revenues gradually shifted to the provincial administrators
which during Mughals’ finest times were only responsible for maintaining law and order. With
the decline of Mughals’ central authority the district functions of law and order and policing
were taken over by the revenue collectors (Maddison, 2006).

Policing during the British period (18th century: 1720-1800)

The East India Company, formed by an association of London merchants in 1600 established its
foothold in India during the reign of Shah Jahan 1627-1658 when it established factories in
Surat, Calicut and Masaliputam in Bengal4. Subsequently Madras and Bombay also became

4
Indian History Sourcebook: England, India, and The East Indies, 1617 A.D

5
factory towns of the company with their supervisors designated as “presidents”. Accordingly,
these towns came to be called as Presidencies.

The first hundred years of British presence in India saw a number of remarkable changes in the
system of criminal justice administration through a process of trial and error, depending upon the
contextual requirements of the times. From 1720 to 1751 Zamindars 5 were appointed as
Faujdars6 and Kotwals7 and had under their control of a body of men doing duty as a police
force.

The East India Company took over the direct administration of the three Presidencies, after it got
the Diwani of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, in 1765. In 1770 it transferred magisterial and police
functions of Faujdars to the newly appointed (British) Collectors of Revenue. Criminal courts
were established in 1772 for each district of Bengal. In 1774 Warren Hastings observed due to
high standards of evidence demanded by these courts and resultant low rate of convictions, the
criminals were encouraged giving rise to high incidence of crime. He, therefore, decided to
restore the posts of Faujdars (which were abolished earlier by the British officers) as desperate
measures to curb rising crime. The Faujdars were reinstated in 1776 by Warren Hastings in wake
of renewed threat from Marhattas and rampant dacoities in Bengal. This arrangement was again
reversed in 1781 when the then Governor General, took the administration of criminal justice
from the Deputy Governor (a native Zamindar) and established four councils of the circuits.

The Faujdars were again relieved of their duties in 1781 and their functions (mainly of
superintendence of the police) were transferred to the (British) Judges of the Diwani Adaluts;
who in the view of these additional (magisterial) responsibilities were redesignated as Judge-
Magistrate. To assist a Judge-Magistrate in the discharge of his police duties such as to maintain
law and order, he was provided with an establishment which consisted of a jail officer, a few
clerks and between 25 and 150 Barakandazes and watchmen. This arrangement continued till
1787 when Cornwallis (1786-1793), the next Governor General, combined the police, judicial
and revenue functions and transferred these powers to the Collector. The Collector was also
empowered to try minor criminal cases.

Acknowledging, soon, the danger of an unprecedented concentration of power and position in

the office of the Collector, Cornwallis under his Regulation XVII of 1793 entitled, “Regulations

5
The term Zamindar (from the Persian zamin or land, and dar or keeper- holder or keeper of land) in use in India and Pakistan since medieval
times denotes all rent receivers above the actual cultivators. The foremost duty of zamindars was the collection and punctual remittance of the
land revenue; however they were also required to perform certain police, judicial and military duties. With both fiscal and political power at their
disposal, Zamindars exercised enormous local influence
6
“Faujdar” was principal police officer, commandant of local army and the chief executive for ensuring peace and security in the province of his
charge with the help of contingent of army troops through which if necessary he could enforce the will of the emperor or his subedar (governor).
Many Zamindars were given powers of Faujdars during the Mughal period.
7
Kotwal was the head of the city police in urban areas and head of criminal court of the province. During Akbar’s period all important cities and
towns were placed under the direct charge of the Kotwal. Provincial Kotwal was also incharge of the capital city of the province. Kotwal of
district headquarters town was also incharge of its administration and magistrate of criminal court. He acted as censor of morals of citizens.

6
for the Police of Collectorships of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa” 8, separated the three functions and
went back to the arrangement under the scheme of 1781-82 and introduced a set of measures
aimed at improving the police administration9. The following were the important provisions:

i. The police in the country should be considered under the exclusive charge of
Government and who may be specially appointed to that trust. No Zamindar or
landholder should maintain any police force or alike establishment.
ii. If the complicity of Zamindars or landholders in committing crimes or conniving with
criminals is proved, they should be compelled to make good the value of the property
stolen or plundered.
iii. Centrally situated police posts (Thanas) under the charge of Darogha (or
Superintendent), with necessary officers to assist him, should be created in every district
and the area of operation (of a Thana) should not exceed 10 square ‘Kose’ (about 30
square miles)10. The police posts and district should be numbered and named after the
central place and these should not be changed without the sanction of the Governor
General in Council.
iv. Daroghas should be nominated by Magistrates, who were held responsible for
selecting persons duly qualified for the trust. Daroghas were required to give personal
security deposit of Rs. 1000/- and surety bond by two Kotwals and the Darogha, were
also empowered to hold inquests in case of murder or unnatural death and record
confessions of persons apprehended.
v. Any complaint of murder, robbery, house-breaking, theft or other crime of offence,
cognizable by the criminal courts, were required to be made to the Darogha at the
jurisdictional police post. The Darogha was responsible to apprehend the offender,
release him on bail with adequate and solvent surety and forward him to the Magistrate
having jurisdiction within twenty-four hours.
vi. The Darogha was empowered to arrest any person found in the act of committing a
breach of peace, a notorious offender such as a thief, robber, dacoit, and murderer; all
vagabonds or suspected persons who might be loitering about his jurisdiction without any
ostensible means of subsistence or who could not give a satisfactory account of
themselves or the alike. There were various other powers given to the Darogha (as
available to SHO of today)11.

Policing during 19th century: 1800-1857

8
Regulation XXII of 1973 was slightly modified on 1st May 1793. It divided city areas into wards. All such Daroghas being under the City-
Kotwal, were required to furnish a security of Rs. 5000. The creditable persons in Rs. 250/- each for his good conduct.
9
In introducing these reform measures, Cornwallis was influenced by continuous tirade of the collectors and the Magistrates against Zamindars
and other native institutions for their failure to curb crime and lawlessness. He acceded to their viewpoint by doing away with these native
agencies altogether and by propping up the Company’s European officers with enhanced powers and pay.
10
A Thana was headed by a Darogha (SHO), who was assisted by a Muharrir (police station clerk), a Jamandar (police head constable) and about
ten Barakandazes and a number of watchmen were made incharge of the Thana. The Daroghas were also responsible to manage and control the
village police.
11
Though the Darogha was made a very powerful instrument of administration to maintain peace and order, he had to face penal action if found
guilty of corruption, extortion or oppression.

7
The efforts to find a suitable model of police that can effectively and efficiently deliver
continued with the advent of 19th century:
 In 1801 an inquiry into the causes of failure to preserve peace and order in Bengal was
ordered by Lord Wellesley, the then Governor General of India.
 In 1802-03, the Cornwallis Code (which remained unchanged for the next twenty years) was
extended to areas of Madras Presidency.
 In 1806, Lord Bentinck constituted a police committee in Madras with the same objective.
 In 1807, the government again invested Zamindars with the police powers and authorized
respectable Zamindars, farmers and Tehsildars to work as police ‘Ameens’ (Commissioners) 12.
These powers were, however, yet again withdrawn in 1810.
 In 1808, under Regulation X, new changes were introduced to improve supervision over
police with appointment of a European Officer as a Superintendent of Police13 (with a job
description similar to present day Inspector General of Police). The object was to have an officer
at the capital of the province that could co-ordinate the activities of district police authorities for
the purpose of crime control and prevention of public disorder. This officer was accordingly
made a justice of peace having concurrent, and, if necessary, overriding jurisdiction over
magistrates. Initially a Superintendent was appointed for the three divisions of Dacca (now
Dhaka), Calcutta and Murshidabad.
 In 1810, the jurisdiction of the Superintendent was extended to the Patna Division and one
more Superintendent was appointed for the Division of Benares and Bareilly (Curry, 1932)
(Lower Provinces).
 In 1812 the Court of Directors (of East India Company) appointed yet another Special
Committee to inquire into the administration of justice and police in the Company’s territories in
India. The report extensively dwelt upon the state of crime and police particularly in Bengal (the
general conditions throughout British India were not very much different). It stated that, “The
establishment of an efficient police, though an object of the first importance, appears to be a part
of the new internal arrangements in which the endeavor of the supreme Government has been
least successful” (Griffiths, 1971). The Committee identified the following factors negatively
affecting police performance:-
i. Magisterial neglect of their police duties in favor of their revenue duties arising out of
the union of the offices of Collector and Magistrate.
ii. Jurisdiction and frequent transfer of district officers.
iii. Sense of insecurity among Daroghas due to frequent dismissals and a tendency to
acquire maximum spoils from their uncertain tenure.
iv. Criminal propensities of Chaukidars or village watchmen.
v. The total wants of cooperation on the part of the people, which acted as the greatest
impediments to the success of the police operation.
12
This predictably aroused an attitude of non-cooperation, if not open hostility, in the well entrenched landed gentry. On the top of this, a
sizeable number of Zamindari police and low level policemen were discharged from service resulting in swelling the ranks of criminals. There
was, therefore, a marked deterioration in the crime and public order situation in all the areas under British occupation. In order to stem the tide,
the company had to protect its pride and once again invest many of the Zamindars with police powers in 1807.
13
He was empowered to grant pardons and he worked largely with aid of informers and spies (goyendas).

8
 vi. Poor emoluments compelling the incumbents to compensate by other means.

The Committee wrapped up by stating that, in principle, the reintroduction of something close to
pre-Cornwallis system was desirable.14 Some of reform measures suggested by the Committee
are including the following15:

i. The collector should cease to exercise magisterial function of control over the police
and it should devolve on a separate officer to be called the joint magistrate.
ii. Districts should be subdivided into sub-divisions, in each of which a deputy magistrate
should be posted with authority over the police.
iii. Pay structure should be improved.
iv. Village Chaukidari system should be reorganized, the Chaukidars should be better
paid and the responsibility of village officers should be clearly defined and enforced.

 In 1814 the Court of Directors, on the basis of the inquiry report of the Special Committee
issued a detailed directive on police administration in areas being administered by the Company.
The Court rejected the establishment of Daroghas and their subordinates and directed that
measures should be taken to restore the Village Police to its former efficiency. The Court also
directed that the duties of the Magistrates and the control of police should be transferred from
Zilla (district) Judge to the Collector.

 In 1816, these directives were given a legal shape under Madras Regulation XI. In 1827
similar system was adopted in Bombay under Regulation XII of 1827. In 1829 through a
‘reorganization’ ordered by Lord William Bentinck, the same arrangement was affected in
Bengal. The regulations practically restored the pre-1793 arrangements “whereby revenue, police
and judicial functions were combined in the office of the Collector”. Resultantly the offices of
the two Superintendents (one for the divisions of Dacca, Calcutta, Murshidabad and Patna and
the other for the Divisions of Benares and Bareilly) were abolished and their functions were
transferred once again to the newly appointed Commissioners of Revenue as a result of
‘reorganization’ ordered by the then Governor General Lord William Bentinck 16. Despite a series
of experiments to design a suitable policing model, there remained a great amount of
dissatisfaction with the working of police in India. A Select Committee of British House of
Commons, known as ‘Bird Committee’ during its proceedings looked into the state of crime and

14
In spite of fact that most of the measures introduced by Cornwallis had to be revoked or drastically modified during the next twenty years, the
basic elements of his scheme remained relevant to discussion that continued in British India for next over 60 years for a workable policing
system. This is evident from the fact that police administration introduced through Police Act of 1860 finally divested the Zamindars of all their
police powers, revived the Thanedari system with stipendiary police officers vested with full responsibility of crime control and prevention and
superintendence over the police strengthened while also ending the control of Zamindars over village watchmen.
15
Some of the recommendations of the Committee were accepted and acted upon. The separation of police functions from revenue and judicial
area was implemented and a Superintendent of Police was appointed. The organizational restructuring of the police and better salary conditions
had to be languished for another twenty years and the regular police force was continued to be small and ineffective.
16
However, after realizing the results of inappropriate supervision, a Superintendent of Police for Lower Provinces (Banaras and Bareilly) was
reappointed in 1837 to bring improvement in law and order and the Commissioners of Revenue were relieved of their superintendence over the
police.

9
policing, particularly in Bengal and concluded that the, “Subordinates were corrupt, inefficient
and oppressive, while the superior officers owing to the multiplicity of their duties were unable
to exercise an adequate supervision.”

Witnesses who appeared before the Committee complained of “corruption and other
worthlessness of the Thanedars” and “heavy duty and low paid Chowkidars were generally
admitted to be thieves”. The Bird Committee concluded that “in the absence of defined duties,
rules and regulations, powers and obligations, the village police system was in gross mess”. The
Bird Committee concluded that the primary reason of police inefficiency was its inadequate
supervision and recommended that control over police be an exclusive responsibility of an
officer other than the Collector. A fractional execution of the Bird Committee’s proposals 17
resulted in separation of judicial and executive functions by the same officers 18, opening of Sub-
Divisional offices in some parts of the province and the appointment of a superintendent of
police in each district. Accordingly an exclusive superintendent of police for the Lower
Provinces (Banaras and Braily) was reappointed and the Commissioners were relieved of their
duties pertaining to “superintendence of police”.

 In 1843, another experiment in the quest for an effective and efficient policing in India was
made in province of Sindh (then Scinde) after its annexation by Sir Charles Napier. He preferred
establishing a ‘semi-military force’ rather than a pure civilian force to cater to the needs of a
newly captured area ‘which had the reputation of being one of the most notoriously crime-ridden
parts of the empire’. For this purpose he was greatly inspired from Irish Constabulary model.

The police force organized by Napier was a separate and self-contained force exclusively meant
for maintaining public order and prevention and detection of crime. The internal administration
of the force was assigned to the police officers themselves (with a Superintendent appointed in
each district) but they were placed under general direction and control of the ‘District Officers’
(District Magistrate/District Collector), who apart from their revenue collection and judicial
functions, were held responsible for executive oversight of the district police. Particularly, they
had a dominant role in police functions relating to maintaining law and order. Introduction of this
duality of command was a purposeful deviation from the Irish Constabulary model to suit the
needs and character of the colonial administration at that time (Griffith, 1971).

 In 1849, immediately after its annexation by the British, the Napier Model was also
introduced in Punjab with a few modifications in it e.g. it had two branches: the military
preventive police (infantry) which was under control of Chief Commissioner and the civil police
of recognized burkandazes (cavalry), supervised by the District Magistrate. The same modified

17
Although all its recommendations were not accepted immediately but the main principles of the system it proposed were implemented in next
25 years.
18
The Bird Committee had recommended functional division of criminal and general administration in three offices: a judge exercising both civil
and sessions’ jurisdiction, a district magistrate having control over the police and a collector responsible for revenue matters.

10
system was then extended to most provinces of British India. For instance, Sir George Clerk, the
Governor of Bombay was inspired by the Napier model that he introduced reforms in Bombay
Police on similar lines in 185319.

While the process of restructuring the police force was being carried out in different provinces,
mainly on pattern of Napier Model, the Torture Commission of 1855 in its report highlighted
some of the significant abuses in the police working in Madras. 20 The Commission recommended
separation of revenue and police functions and placed the police establishment under
independent European officers; who would be asked to give their undivided time and energies
exclusively to the control of the force. The Court of Directors of East India Company in England,
in a letter dated, the 24th September, 1856 to the Governor General’s Council in India, summed
up the entire police organization and administration in India in the following words:

“Our attention has been directed on various occasions, of late, to the character and proceedings
of the police in different parts of India and (the reports which from time to time have been laid
before us) have combined with many incidental notices of failure, abuse to deepen the conviction
that an immediate and thorough reform of the police in all the old provinces of British India is
required… It is all but useless for the prevention and sadly inefficient for the detection of crime.
Unable to check crime, it is, with rare exceptions, unscrupulous as to its mode of wielding the
authority with which it is armed for the functions which it fails to fulfill”.

“It has a very obvious character for corruption. There is, moreover, a want of general
organization; the force attached to each division is too much localized and isolated” In view of
this indictment of police, the Court of Directors of East India Company, decided in principle that
the District Officer (District Collector/District Magistrate) would have no function to interfere in
the working of police. They also resolved to commit the police exclusively to a European
Superintendent of Police responsible only to his departmental hierarchy. The Directive clearly
stated that: “The management of the police of each district be taken out of the hands of the
Magistrate and be committed to a European officer with no other duties and responsible to
General Superintendent of Police for the whole presidency (Gupta, 1974).”

The War of Independence 1857 and enactment of Police Act 1861

The implementation of Directive of the Court of Directors in 1856, regarding taking the
management of police from the Magistrates, would have helped the police of British India to get
rid of many of its malfunctions but the events of 1857 changed the entire scenario. Once the

19
For instance a Superintendent was appointed in every district, who while generally being subordinate to the District Magistrate, had exclusive
control over his force. The police officers at Tehsil level had same equation with) as existed between the Superintendent and the District
Magistrate. The supreme control over the police from the Court or Faujdari Adaulat was transferred to the government. This reform measure did
not, however, work well and had to be abandoned in 1855, when the administration of the police was transferred to a Commissioner of Police,
who was also Inspector of Prisons.(Fraser Commission Report 1902-3)
20
One witness stated to the Commission that the police was terror to peaceful and well disposed people of the presidency and not to thieves and
rogues. Another witness said that police had become pest and bane of the society, the terror of community and origin of half of the misery and
discontent that existed among the subjects of the Government and thus it should be closed down to save the expenses of Government.

11
revolt or mutiny was successfully quelled, the British Government in India decided to revisit the
question of police reorganization and reform afresh. For this purpose a Police Commission was
constituted on 17th August, 186021. Three main factors seem to have compelled the British rulers
to bring some organic change in the system of policing in India (Razvi, 1961): Firstly, the dual
system of military and civil police proved very expensive. This is evident from the Terms of
Reference assigned to the Police Commission which included:

1. To ascertain the numbers and the cost of all police and quasi-police of every
description, then serving in each province throughout British India who were paid by the
Government from the general revenues.
2. To suggest to the government any measure either to reduce the expenditure or to
increase the efficiency in the existing police forces.22

Secondly, there was less harmony in their working as the heads of each system were not
the members of the same department.

Thirdly, the conflicting functions of a Magistrate and of a Superintendent of Police as

vested in one individual (Commissioner) demanded some solution. For the general
guidance of the Commission, the Central Government outlined a model for the
reorganization of the police. But this model was not intended to be rigidly adhered to. Its
main clauses were:-

o The police should be entirely subject to the civil executive Government.

o The duties of the police were to be entirely civil and not military.
o Their functions were to be either to prevent crime and disorder or to find out criminals
and disturbers of the peace.
o The control of the Police to be vested in the hands of the Executive Administration.
o In organization and discipline it had to resemble a Military body.
o Only the European Officers to be vested with the powers of appointment and dismissal.
o The pay of the Police had to vary according to time and place.
o The Police were to have a uniform dress, and to be given arms according to their duty.
o The Police officers were to be responsible for the interior economy of the force.

The Commission after a series of consultations with all stakeholders and prolonged deliberations
recommended a number of propositions to organize the police in India on a uniform basis. The
Commission mainly recommended that:

21
The Commission was headed by Mr. M.H. Court of Bengal Civil Service. The other members of the Commission were S. Wancope of Bengal
Civil Service, W. Robinson of Madras Civil Service and Lt. Col. Pharye of Pegu.
22
As a result of police reorganization in Punjab alone, 17 lacs of rupees were saved on account of police expenditure in 1861.

12
 (a) There should be a complete separation of the military armed forces (under military
command) from the Civil Constabulary;
(b) The Civil Constabulary for India should be formed on the model of the English and
the Irish Constabulary;
(c) The Civil Constabulary should be under the Executive Government for all police
purposes: protective, preventive or detective;
(d) There should be unity of action and organization for necessary efficiency and
economy;
(e) All separate police and quasi-police bodies should be fused in the new Constabulary;
(f) The new Constabulary to be linked to the village police;
(g) Mounted policemen to be employed only where absolutely necessary;
(h) There was to be no separate detective body, no spies and informers;
(i) There was to be a complete severance of executive police from judicial authorities, i.e.
no police officer was to have any judicial function or vice versa;
(j) The police department to be a separate branch of administration with an Inspector-
General under each Government;
(k) The Inspector-General to have under him District Superintendent and other
subordinates;23
(l) The subordinate force to consist of Inspectors, Head Constables, Sergeants, and
Constables;
(m) The Head Constable to be in charge of a Thana and the Inspector of a group of
stations.

The Central Government forwarded the Commission’s report along with a draft bill to the Local
(Provincial) Goverments including the Punjab.24 On the receipt of comments from the Local
(Provincial) Governments, Sir Bartle Frere, the then Home Member, introduced the Bill in the
Imperial Legislative Council on 29th September 1860. The Bill, as drafted by the Commissioners
on the pattern of the British and Irish Constabulary Acts and adapted to Indian conditions, after
passing through the several stages of the Legislative Council, was passed into a law as Act V of
1861, on 22nd of March, 1861. Lieutenant Colonel H. Bruce was appointed as Inspector General
of Police in India (IGP) to assist the Local (Provincial) Governments in remodeling their Police
according to this Act25.

23
The recommendations did not make any mention of the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police, while it recommended that Divisional
Commissioner should cease to be Superintendents of Police. However, general control of Commissioners over the criminal administration was
not curtailed. It gave the District Magistrates, powers of general control and supervision over the district police.
24
The Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab appointed a Committee of seven members for this purpose. The Committee carefully examined all the
propositions and the provisions of a “Draft Bill” as prepared by the Calcutta Police Commission. It was found that to a considerable extent the
principles of the new Bill were already introduced in some of the Divisions of the Punjab. It recommended that the rank of DIG should be
introduced to facilitate the IG of Police in discharge of his functions. About the Village Police it was suggested that it had better be left to the
Local Government.
25
The Act was permissive in nature as it adoption rested with the local (provincial) government.

13
After the passage of the Police Act, 1861 a Police Department was established as a separate
branch of government under an IGP.26 The IGP was placed under the Local (Provincial)
Government and had to correspond directly with the Civil Secretary of the government, the
Commissioners of the Divisions, and the Deputy Inspectors General. The IGP was also
responsible for the formulation and execution of the police policies, as well as for advising the
provincial government on matters concerning police administration in the province. He was
empowered to frame such orders and rules, subject to the approval of the Local (Provincial)
Government, as he deemed expedient, for the organization, classification and distribution of the
police force to make it efficient in the discharge of its duties. The IGP was "assisted by several
Deputy Inspector Generals of Police (DIG) posted on a territorial basis, usually each to a group
of three to five districts called a range”. 27 The DIG was responsible for the supervision of the
District Superintendents in his range.

At the district level a Superintendent of Police (SP) was appointed as the head of the police
force. In larger districts an Assistant District Superintendent of Police was provided to assist the
district SP in the discharge of his functions. The district SP had no power to make general rules,
but he could issue special standing orders for local discipline and efficiency 28. In addition to
being accountable to the DIG, the district SP was also responsible to the District Magistrate.

In each Tehsil (Subdivision) a Deputy Inspector of Police was appointed as head of the local
police. His relationship with Tehsildar was same as that of the district SP with the District
Magistrate. The subordinate grades were designated as Inspectors, Deputy Inspectors, Sergeants,
and Constables. The Thana police and the city watchmen were fused into one, and organized like
the regular Constabulary.

Conclusion
Though some kind of arrangements for crime control and order maintenance had existed, in one
form or another, throughout the history of the Indian subcontinent; the police in its present shape
was evolved mainly during the British era. After a series of experiments; basically aiming to
reconcile the two conflicting objectives of developing a modern police and effectively
controlling the local population, the British succeeded in enacting a basic police law known as
26
The Judicial Commissioner who had hitherto acted as Head of the Civil Police was replaced by an Inspector General. Major George
Hutchinson the Military Secretary was appointed as the first IG of Police of Punjab.
27
The province of Punjab was divided into four Police Circles. Each circle was placed under a Deputy Inspector General. Captain
J. W. Younghusband was placed in charge of the Ambala Circle, which consisted of Ambala Thanesar, Ludhiana, Simla,
Ferozepor, Delhi, Gurgaon, Kamal, Hissar and Rohtak. Its area was 17,358 square miles. The second Circle was under Captain
George McAndrew, and comprised of Lahore, Amritsar Gurdaspur, Hoshiarpur, Jullundur and Kangra. It covered an area of
14058 square miles. Rawalpindi was the third Circle, Capitain J.N. Miller, being placed in charge of it. He had under him the
districts of Rawalpindi, Shahpur, Jhelum, Gujrat, Sialkot and Gujranwala, which covered an area of 21067 square miles. Multan
was the fourth and the last of such Circles. It was under Captain R. N. T. Thronson. It was made up of Multan, Muzaffargarh,
Jhang, Gugaira and Sirsa, and covered an area of 22569 square miles.
28
Such special standing orders would, however, have no legal sanction to be made into general laws.

14
the Police Act, 1861- which continue to exist in one form or the other in India, Pakistan and
Bangladesh.

As the basic objective of policing, prior, during and after the British period, was mainly to
control the local populations and use the coercive police powers to maximize tax and revenue
collection the police system has been inherently suppressive and authoritarian in nature. There
was little emphasis either in organizational philosophy or strategy for service or responsiveness
to citizens. During the post-independence era police was highly politicized as it was used by
political and social elites to promote their influence and interests. Police was no longer a
bipartisan, neutral independent law enforcement entity. Highly politicized, under resourced and
ill equipped police often conducted itself arbitrarily and unprofessionally resulting in further
erosion of legitimacy.

Bibliography
Brown, M. K. (1988). Working the street: Police discretion and the dilemmas of reform (2nd
ed.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Elliot, H. M., & Dowson, j. (1871).The history of India, as told by its own historians. The
Muhammadan period (Vol 3.). Retrieved from
http://www.archive.org/stream/cu/page/n107/mode/2up.
Fazl, Abul. (1989-Reprint). Akbarnama (Henry Beveridge, Trans). New Delhi: Atlantic
Publishers (Original work published in 1948).
Gupta, A. (1974). Crime and police in India up to 1861. Agra, India: Sahitya Bhawan.
Maddison, A. (2006). Class structure and economic growth: India & Pakistan since the Moghuls
(3rd ed.). London: Taylor & Francis.
Oman, J C. (2008). The stories of the Ramayana & Mahabarata. India: Sundeep Prakashan.
Samad, R. (2011, September 16). Administrative System and Organization in the Mughal
Empire. Retrieved from http://www.articlesbase.com/culture-articles/administrative-system-and-
organization-in-the-mughal-empire-5223769.html.
Shanahan, P. (2000). Police culture and the learning organisation: A relationship? Third
National Conference of the Australian Vocational Educational and Training Research
Association. [AVETRA], Canberra Institute of Technology.
Shigri, A. A. (2004). Police Reforms. Retrieved from www.pakpolice.pk.

15