Echoes of the empire: Unravelling the legal labyrinth of British India

Southampton Uni law student Mihika Chopra provides a roadmap of the legal formation of the British Raj; the colonial power which controlled British India

Within the annals of history, seldom are tales as compelling as those of the saga of the British empire; one that once held dominion over the sun’s rising and setting. Within this journal, I seek to tell the story of British India, a jewel coveted by an empire, ensnared in a web of legal machinations; a tale woven with threads of power, resistance, and a land under siege.

As I peel back layers of legislative decrees and acts, it is undeniable that a tumultuous period which shaped the destiny of millions is revealed. Dissecting the intricate legal framework shows how oppression thinly veiled the growing sustenance of a power-hungry imperial power. The legal imposition of English laws — designed to consolidate ultimate control over the Indian subcontinent — looted it of its original charm, splendour, and culture, regained only by independence.

The historical background of British colonialism in India

Beneath the veneer of trade and commerce, the East India Company unfurled its imperial ambitions after its founding in 1600, seizing control from India’s established monarchies and reshaping centuries old traditions. Initially entering India under the guise of a trading entity, it soon morphed into a colonial power. It usurped sovereignty from the various jurisdictions already established under the constitutional monarchies of Rajas and Nawabs, as well as their munshis and ministers. These were constitutional democratic monarchies which had existed for centuries before the British stepped foot in India, dating back to before Alexander The Great’s failed conquests of the subcontinent.

The company disparaged the indigenous Indian governance as “primitive”, brandishing the native cultivators of the land, language, and legal system as nothing more than savages. Ergo the company enforced a paternalistic structure of governance, as accorded by the warped principles of British imperialism. The Battle of Plassey in 1757 marked the beginning of British territorial conquests to govern dominions, laying the groundwork for the British Raj.

Legal foundations of British rule in India

The 1773 Regulating Act emerged as a cornerstone piece of legislation, ostensibly to curb corruption within the East India Company. Yet, it surreptitiously laid the groundwork for an era of unyielding British dominion by establishing a governor-general in Bengal, and creating a Supreme Court in Calcutta. However, this centralisation of judicial authority primarily served British interests, ensuring tighter control over Indian territories, and cementing the control which was exerted through the judicature.

1784 witnessed the enactment of Pitt’s India Act, a legislative manoeuvre which further captured Indian governance within the British Imperial oversight of the East India Company’s affairs. This act marked a significant shift towards greater crown intervention within Indian governance, signalling the erosion of the company’s autonomy as a “sovereign” institution, and the permanent presence of imperial authority. This ultimately paved the way for the liquidation of the East India Company and its monopoly of Indian trade, allowing for the British Crown to assume direct control and governance over the Indian subcontinent, within the mid to late 1850s.

Furthermore, with the Charter Act of 1883, the British government centralised its legislative might by effectively dissolving the diverse legal tapestry of India into a singular, imperial weave in the form of the governor-general’s council. This was then the sole legislative authority for all British Indian territories.

Subsequently, the Charter Act of 1853 introduced competitive examinations for the Indian Civil Service, allegedly opening positions within the latter to Indians. However, the educational requirements, and the imposition and inherent permeation of racist beliefs within socio-political structures vis-à-vis the employment system, job market, and education systems meant that the  majority of these positions remained in British hands. Put simply, the aims of colonisers are not to improve the state of a country for the natives to whom the land belongs, but rather to ensure their interests remain protected. This pertains to the semblance of contemporary equality within the civil service so as to prevent potential future “mutinies”; reasonable demands for independence.

Establishment of the British Raj

The Revolt of 1857 served as a catalyst for the British Crown to liquidate the East India Company, ushering in an era of direct rule through the Government of India Act 1858.

This established the office of the Secretary of State for India, which wielded substantial power over Indian affairs, cementing the centralised control of the British Raj. Following on from this, the Indian Councils Act 1861 reintroduced legislative councils within India, however, they wielded very limited powers. Whilst the act included provisions for Indian representation, the nominated Indian members had little to no influence, and this was yet again another move to appease and quash calls for the ousting of the British. The act’s primary purpose was to placate Indian elites without granting substantial political power.

The Indian Councils Act 1892 marginally expanded Indian representation, and introduced indirect elections to the formerly mentioned legislative councils. However, the electorate was restricted to a narrow section of Indian society, and these legislative councils did not have the executive power to make any significant legislative decisions.

Discriminatory laws and their impact

The Rowlatt Act; formally known as the Anarchial and Revolutionary Crimes Act of 1919, epitomised the zenith of British authoritarianism in India, granting the colonial government draconian powers to quell the growing spirit of Indian nationalism. This legislation empowered the government to imprison suspects without trial, conduct secret trails, and curtail press freedoms.

It was evident that the act was met with widespread condemnation, since it sparked massive protests; most notably the tragic Jallianwala Bagh massacre, where British troops killed hundreds of unarmed civilians. This act epitomised the authoritarian and punitive measures taken by the British to snatch political and legislative control of a nation which was not rightfully theirs by suppressing Indian nationalist movements whose aim was to bring a semblance of unity against the British in order to reassert Indian sovereignty.

The Vernacular Press Act of 1878 targeted the Indian-language press, allowing for colonial authorities to confiscate printing presses and shut down publications which were deemed seditious. The law aimed to stifle dissent and control narrative of current affairs and provides an example of a stringent curbing of the freedom of expression and silencing voices critical of the British rule. The act was vehemently opposed by Indian journalists and intellectuals, who rightly saw it as a blatant attack on their rights. To strip a nation of its dignity by preventing its own citizens from criticising their authoritarian leaders within their mother tongue is perhaps the most symbolic cruelty which needs to be explicitly stated, indicating why the “British Museum” and stolen artefacts like the Kohinoor remain to be painful reminders, restatements of the same British Raj.

Furthermore, the Arms Act of the same year imposed stringent restrictions on the possession of firearms by Indians; serving to disarm the populace, and preventing any organised resistance against British authority — cementing the curbing of freedom of association. However, it is notable to mention that the act was pointedly discriminatory in practice, since it was primarily enforced against Indians, whilst Europeans faced no restrictions on their right to bear arms. This law further exemplified the racial and cultural discrimination inherent within British policies, unsurprisingly fostering deep resentment among Indians.

Legal and social implications

The British legal system in India established a bifurcated edifice of justice, privileging Europeans and relegating Indians to the margins of their own society. Indian litigants further faced biased judicial processes, which further exacerbated social and legal inequalities. This had profound social repercussions, fostering a sense of injustice and alienation amongst Indians. The denial of basic rights coupled with the systematic suppression of basic civil liberties fuelled nationalist sentiments, and united diverse groups in their struggle against colonial oppression. The repressive legal measures galvanised revolutionary movements, with notable leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and Subhas Chandra Bose spearheading campaigns for independence.

Resistance and Legal Reforms

Spurred by the repressive legal landscape, Indian nationalists, guided by the philosophy of leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, ignited a fervent quest for Indian sovereignty through non-violent resistance and civil disobedience. The non-cooperation movement, the civil disobedience movement, and the Quit India Movement were direct responses to such oppressive legal frameworks, mobilising mass support; demonstrating the collective resolve of the Indian populace to achieve self-governance.

The Government of India Act 1935 was a significant step towards self-governance, introducing provincial autonomy, and expanding the franchise. However, it fell short of the demands for Indian independence, since there was still significant legal, social, and political control wielded by the British, which led to continued agitation. This act nonetheless laid the groundwork for the administrative structure of independent India, despite retaining many elements of colonial governance.

Ongoing legacy

Post-independence, India grappled with the remnants of colonial jurisprudence, striving to forge a legal system which rejected its newfound democratic ethos. India ergo retained much of the British legal framework, but reformed it to align with democratic principles. The Indian Constitution, adapted in 1950, incorporated elements of British law, while emphasising equality, justice, and individual rights. The new legal system sought to rectify the injustices of colonial rule and promote inclusive governance. Whilst many colonial-era laws have been repealed or amended, the structure and principles of the legal system bear the imprint of British rule. Indeed, for decades post-independence, India’s recovering economy reflected this same imprint.

Conclusion

The imposition of English laws in India was a tool of colonial domination; not merely an administrative act, but a calculated strategy to cement British hegemony and quash the aspirations of an entire nation. These laws were not only discriminatory, but also sparked resistance that ultimately led to India’s partition and eventual independence. Ensuring that colonial legal history is taught, is arguably crucial in appreciating the complexities of colonialism and the enduring impact of British imperialist rule upon Indian society and governance.

Mihika Chopra is a final-year law student at the University of Southampton, serving as president of the University of Southampton Law Society. She has a keen interest in the legality and ethicality of the British Raj.