British rule is no more, and the British themselves are no longer in this country. Yet the legacy of British rule remains present in every sphere of national life. The extent of its influence on our administrative structures and political landscape scarcely requires explanation today. The Commonwealth was formed by the states that were once part of the British colonial empire. In essence, it is an association of independent states. The Commonwealth is an international institution created during the colonial era and now voluntarily sustained by its members to promote cooperation among countries on the basis of the common values, ways of thinking, habits, laws and institutions that developed through their long experience of British rule. Clearly, the Commonwealth is a legacy of the colonial past. Moreover, Bangladesh still constitutionally recognises a Westminster-style parliament and government. There has been little change in the civil and military bureaucracies. Colonial influence is also firmly and permanently entrenched in the police service. Even today, police officers from Commonwealth countries receive training at police training institutions in Bramshill, Hendon and Wakefield.

Many of us, however, do not know how the colonial police originated or how this system was introduced in different countries during the early stages of the colonial era and has survived to this day within the police structures of independent countries freed from colonial rule. Ireland was the birthplace of this colonial policing system. Through numerous upheavals and reversals, Britain consolidated its rule over Ireland. To consolidate that rule, it became necessary to establish a powerful police force. Thus, between 1814 and 1836, the Royal Irish Constabulary was formed. The word ‘Royal’, however, was not initially part of the force’s name; it was added later, in 1867.

The organisational, structural and functional differences between the Metropolitan Police established in Britain and the Irish Constabulary were unmistakably clear. The London Metropolitan Police was an unarmed civilian police force, whereas the Irish Constabulary was a paramilitary organisation resembling a gendarmerie. The force was continually engaged in maintaining law and order, while the population may have been directly or indirectly vocal in its opposition to the overall administration and enforcement of the law. During Robert Peel’s time, however, the force played a significant role in handling law-and-order situations without military assistance and in suppressing public disorder with a firm hand. This characteristic can still be found in many Commonwealth countries.

Robert Peel was the architect of this force. In 1841, Peel was Chief Secretary for Ireland. He was, on the one hand, a Member of Parliament and, on the other, responsible for the Irish Business Committee in the House of Commons. In the day-to-day conduct of state affairs, he was effectively the true ruler of Ireland. Following the brutal suppression of the Irish rebellion of 1798, no comparable open rebellion occurred; this did not, however, mean that peace always prevailed throughout the country. After 1813, widespread public discontent once again created disorder in Ireland. Ireland had maintained its own salaried police force since 1784, but its members were not equipped like those of a modern police force. They were also involved in public welfare activities. The grand jury of each barony appointed sub-constables. In 1787, a chief constable was appointed in each barony, and the constables serving in the baronies became known as baronial constables. The Irish Constabulary was therefore essentially created through the enactment of the 1814 Act for Better Execution of the Laws in Ireland. Its preamble stated:

“Disturbances have from time to time existed in Different Parts of Ireland, for the Suppression whereof the ordinary police hath been found insufficient.”

Under the provisions of the Act, the Lord Lieutenant could appoint a salaried magistrate in any area officially declared to be disturbed. The appointed magistrate administered local criminal justice and ensured that the law was properly enforced. A chief constable was also appointed in each disturbed area. He was placed in charge of the locally constituted police force known as the Peace Preservation Force. In matters of law enforcement, this force obeyed the orders and directions of the magistrate. Once the law-and-order situation returned to normal, the force was disbanded. It should be noted that the salaries of both the magistrate and the police were paid by the local population. Consequently, the people did not readily accept the force. Nevertheless, it was capable of dealing with any emerging law-and-order situation and of suppressing local rebellion with severity. There were no statutory rules or regulations governing its activities. Its members patrolled in the manner of a military force. No standard uniform was prescribed, although some members wore red or blue clothing. All members carried arms. Carbines, bayonets, pistols and swords were commonly used. The force was undoubtedly organised along military lines. Its ordinary members were former military personnel, and its chief constable was also known as a captain. As a result, the overall conduct and operations of the force strongly reflected military practices.

The Peace Preservation Force proved so successful as a model of policing that Peel decided to establish it permanently throughout Ireland. Accordingly, the Irish Constabulary Act of 1822 abolished all baronial constables and established a police force as a permanent component of the administrative structure in each of Ireland’s thirty-two counties. To preserve uniformity in the structure of the force, an Inspector-General was appointed in each of the four provinces. He served both as the head of the provincial police force and as the principal adviser to the grand jury. The status of these police Inspectors-General should not, however, be regarded as equivalent to that of the Inspectors-General appointed in England and Wales in 1856.

The activities of the new force were similar to those of the Peace Preservation Force. Every day, its members assembled on parade in uniform and carrying arms, while the constable in charge of the police station inspected the parade. A barrack orderly was appointed each day and was not permitted to leave the barracks. During his twenty-four-hour period of duty, he did not remove his uniform. Married constables and sub-constables were also provided with facilities to live at the police station with their families. Generally, however, for reasons of security and out of concern over contact with the public, they were not permitted to mix with the local population. Despite this, the Peace Preservation Force continued to be deployed in many disturbed areas.

From 1822 onwards, the number of police personnel in Ireland increased considerably. After fourteen years of experience, the law governing the constabulary was repealed, and the Peace Preservation Force and other police bodies were merged and consolidated. An Inspector-General of Police was appointed as the commander of this unified force. The grand juries lost all their authority and power over the police. Similarly, magistrates no longer exercised administrative control over the police; their authority was confined solely to the issuing of warrants.

Two notable features of this force deserve attention. First, for the first time, an Inspector-General of Police became the executive head of a force, possessing supreme authority and power. Whatever occurred within the internal administration of the force was carried out under the orders of the Inspector-General. In England, a constable independently performed the duties conferred upon him by law. Under the Irish Act of 1822, however, the position of a constable was different. The Act stipulated that all constables and sub-constables in counties, baronies and towns were required to obey the orders of their commanding officer and to receive his directions from time to time concerning the execution of court orders and warrants. In practice, all the activities of the Irish Constabulary were conducted under the direction of the Inspector-General of Police.

Second, although the Inspector-General was the executive head of the force, his control over it differed from that exercised by the head of a British police force. His relationship with the appointing authority and with other organs of government was different. Constitutionally, a British chief constable occupied such a position that he was not answerable to any particular elected individual or organisation – not even to the Home Secretary, a borough council or a watch committee. Judicial control over him was also limited. In identifying the fundamental differences between the police forces of the two countries, John J. Tobias observed:

“English Policemen from the earliest days of the Metropolitan Police thought of their force as separate from the rest of apparatus of the state, and would have hotly denied any responsibility to the government; an English policeman of today will still distinguish between the government and the law, and will declare that he obeys the latter and not the former. To an Irish policeman these distinctions did not exist. His force was part of the apparatus of the state, and he was not really in any different position from any other public servant.”

In Ireland, by contrast, the Inspector-General of Police was answerable to the Lord Lieutenant and was required to obey government orders issued through the Chief Secretary. As an integral part of the administration, the Royal Irish Constabulary consistently functioned as an instrument through which political leaders carried out their directives. Under the patronage of Under-Secretary Thomas Drummond, it developed into one of the most powerful police forces in Europe. It was said:

“It became under his hands an almost perfect machine, which, like a delicate musical instrument, responded at once from the remotest part of Ireland, to his touch in Dublin Castle.”

The historian Charles Jeffries rightly observed that a government seeking to impose the laws of its own country upon another must possess a well-organised force. Without such a force, it would have been impossible to establish its rule in a foreign land and maintain law and order there.

Undivided India was the first territory in which the Irish model of policing was introduced. The policing system established in India was subsequently introduced in Sri Lanka as well. Indeed, during the twentieth century, Sri Lanka acquired a reputation as a centre for colonial police training. Sir Charles Napier was responsible for introducing this policing system in India. In 1843, he conquered the province of Sindh. A paramilitary police force was then established on the model of the Irish Constabulary. This relieved the army of responsibility for maintaining law and order. Officers were generally recruited from the army. A European lieutenant was appointed in each district and was answerable to a captain. The captain, in turn, was accountable to the Commissioner, the administrative head of the province. In 1852, the Governor of Bombay abolished the former magistrate-controlled policing system and introduced the system that had been established in Sindh. The same system was later introduced in Punjab. Through the Madras Police Act of 1859, the police force in Madras was also consolidated in accordance with this model.

After numerous experiments, the police administration of the Subah of Bengal – the Mughal province of Bengal – was consolidated. With the acquisition of the diwani (revenue and civil-administrative authority) in 1765, the merchant’s scales were transformed into the ruler’s sceptre. During the administration of Warren Hastings, a regulation dated 15 August 1772 established two types of courts: diwani courts dealing with civil matters and faujdari courts dealing with criminal matters. This arrangement, however, also failed to produce satisfactory results. On 7 December 1792, Lord Cornwallis issued the ‘Police Regulation for the Collectorates of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa’. This brought an end to the practice under which zamindars maintained police forces within their respective territories. The country was divided into several police jurisdictions, and a daroga – a local police officer – was appointed to each area under the supervision of a magistrate. The regulation was subsequently re-enacted as Regulation XXII of 1793. Even this failed to improve the situation.

Thereafter, under Regulation X of 1808, an officer bearing the title of Superintendent of Police was appointed for Dhaka and other cities. The position was abolished in 1829, and the duties of the Superintendent of Police were transferred to the Commissioner of Revenue and Circuit. The position was revived in 1837, but Dalhousie abolished it once again in 1854. It was subsequently reintroduced through the Police Act of 1861 with greater status and authority. Regulation XX of 1817 consolidated all laws relating to police administration, and the first Police Manual in Bengal was compiled. Its thirty-four sections codified the rules governing the duties of darogas and other police officers.

In 1813, a committee was formed under the leadership of Mr Bird. Bird’s Committee recommended strengthening the old chowkidari (village-watch) system, increasing the salaries of darogas and providing them with adequate security of tenure. Halliday, another member of the committee, proposed a comprehensive reform of the entire policing system. He recommended the appointment of one Superintendent-General for the province, twenty-three Superintendents in the districts, thirty-two Assistant Superintendents, 888 darogas, 888 Sub-Inspectors, 4,440 jamadars – subordinate police functionaries – and 66,600 barkandazes, or armed guards and constables. These proposed reforms also failed to produce results.

Following the Great Rebellion of 1857, reform of the police force became unavoidable. During the rebellion, numerous armed police units had been temporarily formed. The growing financial burden, the need to improve the public image of the police, the suppression and prevention of crime, the improvement of the quality of criminal investigations and, above all, the need to ensure the proper administration of criminal justice led to the establishment of the Police Commission in 1860. The Commission’s report and recommendations were presented to the legislature in September 1860. With minor modifications, the proposals were enacted as the Police Act of 1861. The Act was immediately brought into force in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. It was then gradually introduced into other provinces, although Calcutta, Bombay, Madras and Sindh remained outside its operation.

Another Police Commission was formed in 1902. In accordance with its report, police training colleges were established for officers. Further changes were introduced on the basis of the 1937 report of the Blandy-Gordon Committee. The Police Act of 1861 nevertheless remained the fundamental basis of the system. For this reason, the Act of 1861 is regarded as a milestone in the history of policing in the subcontinent.

The police administration of Sri Lanka was consolidated through a long process of change and reconstruction. The first regular police force was established in 1834. T. Thomson was appointed Superintendent of Police in 1845, followed by W. I. Macartney in 1848. Both continued their efforts to consolidate the police force on the model of neighbouring India. In 1866, however, G. W. R. Campbell, a member of the Indian Police, introduced fundamental changes to the prevailing system. The head of the force was given the Indian title of Inspector-General. Suitable accommodation for officers, service rules, police regulations, examinations for assessing merit, a quarterly police gazette, a reward fund, procedures for preserving records and leave registers were introduced.

The nature of police work, however, did not change. Police activities remained confined to armed guard duties, escorts and patrols. As in India, the principal responsibility of the police was the maintenance of law and order. Sir H. Dowbiggin, who served as Inspector-General from 1913 to 1937, subsequently transformed the force into a civilian police organisation. Every police officer was trained in the use of firearms, and firearms were kept in every police station. Police personnel generally carried batons while performing duties outside their stations. The new reforms placed greater emphasis on crime control and investigation. Consequently, a Criminal Investigation Department and a Photographic Department were established in 1915. A police training school was also established in 1925. Character-building and theoretical subjects were included in its curriculum. In Sri Lanka after the Second World War, the police participated in various socioeconomic and developmental activities. Many officers who acquired policing experience in Sri Lanka later assumed leadership positions in the colonial police forces of other countries.

At this stage, two general characteristics of colonial policing may be identified. The formative role of the Royal Irish Constabulary did not end with the establishment of the Indian and Sri Lankan police forces. Until 1922 – particularly until the Irish force was formally abolished – colonial police officers continued to receive training in Dublin. From 1922 to 1930, the Royal Ulster Constabulary continued this role as its successor. Former membership of the Royal Irish Constabulary was regarded as a basic qualification for joining the colonial police service in any British-ruled colony. Later, European police officers serving in Palestine were considered for appointment to other colonies. In 1926, arrangements were made under the supervision of the London Metropolitan Police to provide refresher training at Peel House for officers serving in various colonies. Police officers from independent Commonwealth countries were later trained at these institutions. Through this training, a bridge was created between colonial policing and policing after independence. We continue to nurture that tradition carefully even today.

The Colonial Police Service was established in 1936. This facilitated career planning for officers and made it possible to deploy them rapidly to any colony as required. Local citizens were gradually appointed to gazetted posts on the basis of merit, although they remained more numerous in non-gazetted positions. Local officers nevertheless had to perform their duties under constant psychological pressure and in disregard of the hopes and aspirations of the local population. Their loyalty was always directed towards the appointing authority, and their primary responsibility was to protect British interests. Despite behavioural, cultural, religious and linguistic differences between local officers and the British, the local officers were required to work alongside their foreign colleagues. Consequently, even when British actions were contrary to the public interest or offended their personal feelings, they had no opportunity to express their reactions immediately. Many joined the force as ordinary constables and, through exceptional ability and perseverance, were eventually promoted to gazetted posts. As independence from colonial rule approached, increasing numbers of local citizens were appointed to different ranks. Even after independence, however, colonial policing practices continued in a similar manner in many countries.

In Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, the British colonial legacy continues to be reflected in the administrative structure and conduct of the police, in statutory laws and regulations, and in criminal justice procedures. We have carefully nurtured this legacy. The Police Act of 1861, together with subsequent amendments based on the recommendations of the Indian Police Commission of 1902-03, remains in force in the subcontinent. The civilian character of the police under this law and its subordination to the civil authorities also remain firmly preserved.

Md. Motiar Rahman

Selected Bibliography

1. Encyclopaedia of Police in India, Vol. 1.
2. Pioneers in Policing – P. J. Stead.
3. Police Administration – S. Kapse.
4. Police and Political Development in India – D. H. Bayley.
5. The Indian Police – J. C. Curry.