Police and Jails
The Police system established by the Police Act of 1861 revealed grave defects in actual working, chiefly because the responsible task of maintaining law and order was entrusted to rather untrained and consequently irresponsible persons. A Police Commission was appointed in 1902 to investigate the state of police administration. The Commission made comprehensive recommendations regarding different aspects of police organisation, which were accepted in the main by the Government with some minor modifications in matters of detail. This Commission created specialized police agencies, known as Criminal Investigation Departments, in each Province for the investigation of ” specialist and professional” crimes. Also a Central Intelligence Bureau under the Home Department of the Government of India was formed to collect information from all provincial Criminal Investigation Departments, and to work for interprovincial liaison.
Strictly speaking, no Indian or All-India police was created. The police established by the Act of 1861 became an essentially provincial organisation, administered by the Local Government concerned, and not subject to the general control of the Central Government. At the head of the police organisation in each Province was placed an Inspector-General of Police with general control over it. Deputy Inspector-Generals were given subordinate charges of portions of the Province. At the head of each district was appointed a District Superintendent of Police, having under him Inspectors of Police, Sub-Inspectors and Constables in subordinate charges called sub-divisions and thanas. In villages provision was made for chowkidars or watchmen, who were not to get stipends but were to receive perquisites from the residents of the village, or rent-free lands, or small sums of money from the Government. In the Presidency towns like Calcutta, Bombay and Madras, was stationed a unified police force under the Police Commissioner, acting not under the provincial Inspector-General but dealing directly with the Government and responsible for law and order and for departmental training and efficiency.
There is no doubt that the police organisation still requires thorough-going reforms. One thing essentially needed is that the “morale and intelligence” of the police officers shall be improved so that they may exercise their authority with more discretion. The recruitment of a number of literate police constables, during recent years, and employment of Home Guards for local watch and ward, are encouraging features.
Jail administration in India came to be regulated in modern times by the Indian Prisons Act of 1894 and by rules issued under it by the Government of India and the Provincial Governments. Three types of jails were established–Central, District and Subsidiary. In each Province the Jail Department was placed under the control of an Inspector-General of Prisons, who was generally to be a member of the Indian Medical Service with jail experience.
The Central Jails were under Superintendents, who also came to be recruited from the same Service and to be assisted in large Central Jails by Deputy Superintendents. A District Jail came under the charge of a Civil Surgeon, with subordinate staff composed of jailors, deputy and assistant jailors, and warders. Many big cities were provided with Reformatory Schools administered since 1899 by the Education Department.
The Government of India appointed a Jails Committee in 1919 with a view to reforming jail administration. This committee made a comprehensive survey of Indian prison administration and emphasised “the necessity of improving and increasing existing jail accommodation; of recruiting a better class of warders; of providing education for prisoners; and of developing prison industries so as to meet the needs of the consuming Departments of Governments”. It also recommended the separation of Civil from Criminal offenders and the creation of Children’s Courts, and drew particular attention to the reformative side of the system. The Provincial Governments have tried to carry out these recommendations more or less. Under the Government of India Act, 1919, the maintenance of prisons fell within the sphere of Provincial Governments, subject, however, to all-India legislation. With the introduction of Provincial Autonomy from Ist April, 1937, jail administration became a Provincial subject and the power of legislation in this respect was vested in the Provincial Governments, the Central Government exercising only concurrent law-making powers with the Provincial Governments as regards the transfer of prisoners and criminals from one unit to another.
The Military System and Defence
During the viceroyalty of Lord Curzon, a significant change took place in the Army administration. Till then the Commander-in-Chief was an Extraordinary Member of the Governor-General’s Executive Council. But there was also on this body a Military Member as the “constitutional adviser of the Viceroy on all questions relating to the Army”. The Commander-in Chief had to introduce his proposals and schemes before the Council through the Military Member, who was an officer of lower rank than himself. Lord Kitchener, Commander-in-Chief of India since November, 1902, condemned this system as a “military solecism involving, moreover, great expense and delay”. He advocated the abolition of the Military Member, and sought to make the Commander-in-Chief the sole military adviser to the Government of India. But Lord Curzon opposed it on the ground that the military must be held subordinate to the civil power. This controversy led to the resignation of the Viceroy in August, 1905. The British Cabinet decided in favour of Lord Kitchener and made a compromise which, however, proved unworkable within a short period and was consequently abrogated. After 1909 the Commander-in-Chief was the sole military adviser of the Government of India, but in the opinion of many publicists Lord Curzon’s standpoint was reasonable and just. The next higher authority above the Commander-in-Chief, in military administration was the Governor-General-in-Council, who had to pay due regard to all orders received from the Secretary of State in regard to the Defence Administration in India. The Secretary of State, as one of His Majesty’s Ministers, had special responsibility and authority in this matter.
The problem of Indian defence has been one of the burning topics of modern Indian politics. With the progress of the Nationalist Movement in India, her people demanded a definite control over the defence administration, and political leaders insistently complained against the heavy Army expenditure, which, in their opinion, should be diverted to ” nation-building” activities. The Montagu-Chelmsford Report, after praising the brilliant and faithful services of the Indian Army during the First World War, emphasised “the necessity of grappling with the problem” of Indianising it further. The Nehru Report advocated the transfer of control over the Indian Army to the Ministers. The Skeen Committee, appointed in June, 1925, with Major-General (afterwards General) Sir Andrew-Skeen, the then Chief-of-Staff of the Army in India, as Chairman, and commonly known as the ” Indian Sandhurst Committee”, recommended the abolition of the “eight units scheme”, which had been announced in 1923 by Lord Rawlinson, the then Commander-in-Chief in India, and the establishment of an Indian “Sandhurst” by 1933. These recommendations were not fully carried out. The Indian Statutory Commission considered the ” cardinal problem” of national defence from different points of view, and insisted on the presence of the British element in the Indian Army on three considerations–frontier defence, internal security and obligations to the Indian States. It observed that “the control of an Army including a British element cannot be made over to an Indian Legislature” and that “the evolution of an entirely Indian military force capable of undertaking unaided the tasks now discharged by the Army in India, must be a very slow process indeed”. No “substantial change” was made in the matter of India’s defence by the Government of India Act, 1935.