The Legacy of a Callous Force

BOMBAY MUSINGS

Corruption, Inefficiency...

The Legacy of a Callous Force

By Deepak Parvatiyar (in Bombay)

(This column was published in Free Press Journal, Bombay on 8th March, 1993)

If one ignores its dubious role during the recent riots, the Bombay police did enjoy a reputation which could make the famous Scotland Yard envy it.

But the recent riots and the emergence of a corrupt and partisan police force made one wonder about such an hyped-up image of the city police. And as the chroniclers recorded the latest events for posterity as a blotch on the face of the city police, one was tempted to flip the pages of history to find out whether the city police ever bore a semblance to the other three Ps -- profiteering, puissance and pomposity -- which have unceremoniously remained a hallmark of Indian police.

The modern police force in the city traces its origin to the Bhandari Militia, which had been established around 1672 mainly due to the efforts of the then Governor Gerald Aungier to protect this newly acquired Island of the East India Company from the menace of the Dutch, Portuguese, Mogul, Sidi and Marathas.

The "rude" Militia was not merely for military protection but performed the duties of civil police. Its three companies were posted at Bombay, Mahim and Mazagon, and service in it was compulsory for all owners of land, except for the Brahmins and Banias.

But, ever since its inception, the Militia remained divided on communal lines as the Britishers favoured the Muslims and Bhandaris over the Portuguese Eurasians.

Sordidly enough, it remained as inefficient. In fact it narrowly survived disbandment in 1679 after the senior authorities dismissed an ill-conceived policy of retrenchment of the then Governor, Sir John Child.

This was not enough, and in December1683, when Keigwin revolted against the Company, the Militia sided with him and his fellow mutineers.

Small beginnings make great endings. Unfortunately this dictum does not apply to the city police force for there is hardly any difference in the situation that was prevailing during its formative stages and now.

Lawlessness continued to increase while the duties of the police remained dictated by the political exigencies.

Even the strengthening of the force during the 18th century failed to check the volume of crime in the city and Lord Clive had to comment that "corruption, licentiousness and a want of principle seem to have possessed the mind of all the Civil servants".

Police arrangements were very unsatisfactory and crimes of violence, murder and robbery were so frequent outside the town walls that in August 1771, Brigadier General David Wedderburn had to submit proposals to the Bombay Government for rendering the Militia more efficient. Arrangements were made during night to cover the whole area between Dongri and Backbay.

"These Bhandari night patrols, as organised by General Wedderburn, were the germ from which sprang the later police administration of the Island," wrote S.M.Edwardes in his book, The Bombay City Police.

However, despite the steps to cure the evil of corruption being taken religiously, the volume of crime showed no diminution.

In the beginning there were no codes and justice was very arbitrary. From 1726, a system whereby criminal jurisdiction was vested in the Governor and Council, lasted till the close of the 18th century. Finally in 1778-79, James Tod was appointed the Lieutenant of Police "with ample authority to effect the end in view".

Tod was the first executive chief of police in Bombay and as if to set a precedence, his tenure was marked with controversies. The Grand Jury found the appointment little to their liking and termed Tod as a "public nuisance" and his office as "of most dangerous tendency". He was twice indicted for felony and was acquitted.

The Government allowed Tod to draft a new set of police regulations following which he got the office of Lieutenant of Police annulled and himself became the Deputy of Police.

However, in 1790, Tod's administration came to a disastrous close. He was tried for corruption but was only "reprimanded and suffered to resign his station".

The same fate was meted out to Tod's successor.

As Bombay continued to remain the scene of constant robberies by "armed gangs", the office of Deputy of Police was abolished and thus the office of Superintendent of Police (SP) was created with "very wide powers". Simon Halliday became the first city SP.

Later, however, in 1809-1810, the then SP, Joseph Briscoe, was charged for bribery and was imprisoned.

Due to "the prevalence of  crime and the notorious inefficiency and corruption of the police", the Bombay Government appointed a committee (the Warden Committee) in 1809 to review the whole position.

The committee suggested appointment on fixed salaries of the two executive magistrates for the criminal branch of the police with executive and judicial functions. They were also to perform municipal duties. Three Justices of Peace were appointed Magistrates of Police.

Yet the numbers of crime increased, the only silver lining being the tenure of Charles Forjett (1855-1863) as city SP, (later Deputy Commissioner of Police), who, in 1857, "by his energy, courage and detective ability saved Bombay from a mutiny of the garrison".

Still, an equiry by Forjett did show the existence of corruption among the European constables and a considerable number were summarily dismissed.

In 1865, Frank Souter became the first Commissioner of Police of Bombay.

It is interesting to note that prostitution took a firm seat in the city during the tenure of Police Commissioner W.H.Wilson (1888-1893).

The foreign prostitute from eastern Europe was practically unknown in Bombay till 1869 (the year when the Suez Canal was opened). Once, however, the large European shipping companies had established regular steamer communication with India, prostitution grew.

Coming back to riots, it is interesting to note the performance of the city police to tackle them in past.

And if historians have to be believed, the predecessors of our present bunch of policemen were in no way better in handling the riots.

During the Parsi-Hindu riots of July 1832, it was even said that sepoys of the 4th Regiment of Native Infantry, then stationed in the Island, joined the gangs of robbers and marauders. Fifty men of the Poona Auxiliary Force had to be brought down to aid the police and to patrol the roads at nights.

During the 1893 Hindu-Muslim riots too, the police found itself incompetent and military had to be summoned to assist the police. Even then, looting and rioting continued for three more days, and all business activities in the city came to a grinding halt for 10 days. Over 100 persons had died and nearly 50,000 had fled Bombay.

The advent of the 20th century made little impact on the inertia of the police force. While the constables struck work in 1907, demanding a hike in their pay, the first decade of the new century saw a steady increase in the volume of crime.

The annual average number of cases for the quinquennial periods ending in 1900 and 1905 was respectively 32,411 and 30,814. While in 1880, it had registered 19,900 cases, in 1908, the police dealt with nearly 41,000 cases.

So much so was the level of corruption that a notorious professional housebreaker Nanabhoy Dinsha Daruwalla, popularly known as Nana Masa, carried on his nefarious trade undetected for 20 years, by profusely distributing portions of his wealth to the police officers.

Much later, the Englishmen left the country. Yet their legacy remained.

In 1948, an English weekly reported: "Each day hundreds of innocent hawkers are taken up by the police and charged with the offence of hawking without a municipal license...the policemen earn illegal gratification from each hawker to the tune of Rs. 2 to 4 per day for allowing him to ply his trade."