The Lash of Empire: Corporal Punishment and the Dissonance of Colonial Rule in India

 

The Lash of Empire:  Corporal Punishment and the Dissonance of Colonial Rule in India

 

Aneesha Dutta

Independent Researcher

Daulat Ram College

Delhi, India

 

Abstract: This study analyses the discrepancies between the British Empire’s stated commitment towards liberal governance and the realities of imperial rule. Drawing on historical records, legal documents, and postcolonial theoretical frameworks, the study examines how physical violence became an essential yet contradictory method of colonial administration from the early 1800s through the British Raj. The application of Corporal punishment evolved into a strategy to establish cultural and racial dominance. The institutionalisation of corporal punishment is most clearly exemplified by the Indian Penal Code of 1860 and subsequent legislation like the Whipping Acts of 1864 and 1909 and the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871, which proclaimed humanitarian principles while perpetuating systemic violence. This offering is a crucial lens for comprehending the complex legacies of imperial rule in postcolonial India. The British legal system in India borrowed from Benthamite utilitarian ideas, particularly in its justification for corporal punishment, portrayed it as a cost-effective means of reforming subjects.

Keywords: Colonial violence, Flogging, Torture, British imperialism, Judicial sovereignty

 

Introduction

Crime has been an intrinsic part of human society since its inception and has eventually shaped itself as a social phenomenon. Crime follows punishments even though not in all cases but both are considered to be intertwined with one another closely and the latter happens as a consequence of the former. Crime is a behaviour that is not socially acceptable and despite the viciousness associated with it, crime is a transgression of the social rules as to how humans need to conduct themselves. The advent of the British as a colonial power introduced India to Western thoughts, ideals, and scientific and technological advancements

Corporal punishment is the infliction of physical pain as a penalty for an infraction. Implementation of corporal punishment in colonial India was not merely a disciplinary measure but corporal punishment served as a racial and economic strategy that reinforced the colonial hierarchy, disciplined the Indian population and minimised the administrative costs. Flogging, whipping and other forms of physical punishments were showcased as a deterrent and a morally superior alternative to imprisonment. This was disproportionately inflicted upon members of the lower caste and criminal tribes. David Arnold argues that colonial punishment was deeply connected to governance and knowledge acquisition, with prisons and penal codes as tools of empire. But as Clare Anderson and Radhika Singha point out, colonial administrators did not seek to reform still they used punishment to impose racial and class hierarchies, and physical discipline became inscribed on the colonised body. By situating corporal punishment within the broader framework of crime, punishment and colonial governance, this research shows how British disciplinary strategies were designed to uphold imperial hierarchies, not justice.

The early 19^th century marked a critical juncture for colonial legal authorities in India, as the British Raj sought to consolidate its political rule while formulating uniform laws and punishment systems, to strengthen and legitimise its authority, not just to enforce order. As Thomas Metcalf noted the idea of improvement and rule of law¹ were already central justifications for British rule by the end of the nineteenth century. They imposed their civilised standards of justice and humanity on a subject population and created ‘new human subjects’². To characterise British rule as a moral, “civilised’’ and“civilising” regime, of ‘liberal governance’ and ‘rule of law’, yet in their rule was structured around legal despotism rather than legal equality. As Guha argues, the colonial state in India was not a constitutional regime but an autocratic order that denied the colonised any recognition of citizenship or legal autonomy³ this fundamental absence of legal rights enabled the British to maintain dominance through coercion rather than consent, ensuring that the law functioned as tool of imperial control rather than a neutral arbiter of justice.

Building upon Elizabeth Kolsky’s characterisation of colonial violence as both ‘intrinsic’ and a ‘guarded secret’⁴.This study explores the use of flogging and whipping as tools for subjugating the Indian populace; the focus would be on how this brutality was often concealed beneath a façade of civilising rhetoric^5, which was fuelled by the racist ideologies to the deliberate cultivation of legal ambiguity in colonial governance, where laws were selectively enforced to ensure British control. Rather than adhering to a consistent legal framework, colonial authorities created spaces of lawlessness where punishment was used as an arbitrary tool of domination rather than a means of justice.

Civilising Mission

Before the arrival of the British East India Company (EIC), the Indian legal system was characterised by great diversity. However, with the imposition of British rule, these decentralised systems were replaced by codified colonial law, framed under the guise of rationalisation and legal modernity⁶,  creating a hybrid legal system that selectively adopted from these traditions while enforcing Western bureaucratic discipline.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) was framed as a means to standardise legal practices across colonial India. However, in practice, this was deeply racialised and hierarchical. The Whipping Acts of 1864 and 1909 codified the use of corporal punishment as a means of disciplining the colonised population⁷. Although IPC was introduced as a formal legal system, but these acts ensured that whipping remained a key disciplinary tool against colonial subjects, reinforcing racialised justice. The continued reliance on whipping reflected the British administration’s selective application of legal modernity. This duality of law and coercion reveals the contradictions of governance, where the IPC symbolised legal reform on paper, whereas acts such as the Whipping Act ensured that bodily punishment remained a core mechanism of state control.

The punitive measures under these acts included various brutal forms of corporal punishment, including flogging, beating branding, mutilation, hanging, blinding, and public shaming in stocks and pillories, which were made prevalent to maintain societal order⁸ and instill fear. Hussian conceptualises corporal punishment as ‘mythical violence⁹’ not just as a means of disciplining individuals but to inscribe British authority onto the bodies of the colonised. The frequent and theatrical nature of these punishments reinforced a historical memory of subordination¹⁰, ensuring that violence was not only felt but witnessed, internalised, and reproduced as a normalised aspect of colonial rule. As described in colonial records, “strong men habitually faint at the second or third crossed stroke, and men have died during the disturbances from the effects of fifty well-administered stripes”¹¹. These reinforced a system where physical coercion remained central to governance. Clare Anderson has interpreted this as ‘textualizing the Indian body¹²’, which is relevant to understanding how these punitive practices became relevant and were forcibly shaped into colonial ideas of morality and order. These practices did not merely serve as deterrents, but also functioned as the highly visible spectacle of power¹³, intended to instill submission and reinforce imperial hierarchies. The British police force became a crucial extension of state violence. As Tagore remarked, colonial law enforcement did not serve justice but functioned as a ‘messenger of death’¹⁴ for the natives. Far from being neutral actors, the police were used to sustain British dominance. These violent acts, rather than being anomalies, were integral to colonial governance. The brutality was so extreme that even within the British establishment, figures like Lord Truro condemned flogging as barbaric and urged for its abolition¹⁵.

The colonial administration’s gendered approach to punishment reflected the broader racial and moral hierarchies. The authorities framed ‘civilised’ womanhood through a Eurocentric lens, portraying British women as fragile and virtuous while casting Indian women, particularly those from lower caste communities, as sexually immoral, deceitful and in need of moral reform¹⁶. While flogging was primarily inflicted on men, colonial authorities implemented distinct punitive measures for women. The British government officially abolished flogging for women in Bengal in 1825, justifying the decision as an act of ‘delicacy and humanity.’¹⁷  However, this policy did not result towards genuine legal protection— women, particularly those from lower-caste and marginalised communities, remained highly vulnerable to other forms of punitive control, including prolonged imprisonment, forced labour, and confinement in reformatories. These institutions functioned as sites of both punishment and social regulation, reinforcing colonial efforts to discipline and exclude women deemed ‘deviant’ or ‘unruly’.

Beyond imprisonment, colonial police frequently used violence as an investigative tool. In Bengal, a woman was placed in a sack filled with dried chillies to force her to reveal information, while in Madras an elderly woman was suspended from a roof beam and flogged with nettle branches until she confessed to theft¹⁸. Caste further shaped the nature of gendered punishments- Brahmin women were often spared physical violence but subjected to public humiliation designed to degrade their caste status, whereas lower caste women endured harsher physical punishments. Despite colonial claims of introducing a ‘civilised’ legal system, British authorities did not systemically prevent custodial violence against women. Police officers accused of torturing female suspects were rarely prosecuted ensuring the continuation of systemic abuse.

However, this rationale faced criticism from within the colonial establishment itself. Frederick Broom Napier condemned the punishment as ineffective and morally indefensible¹⁹. Henry Cotton, questioned its moral defensibility. This exposed the internal contradictions of British imperial rule, on one hand, flogging was deemed essential for Indian subjects, but its use was increasingly discredited within Britain. The hypocrisy was further highlighted by Indian nationalists and editors such as the editor of Vrittanta Chintamony who pointed out how ‘Englishmen grind down the natives’²⁰, with impunity, while similar acts committed by Indians were met with severe punishments.

Public Display of Violence

These racial and class-based disparities in punishment were not merely incidental but were deliberately enacted as public spectacles of colonial dominance. The reliance on highly visible punishments, such as public floggings, mass executions, public branding, tashir²¹, and tattooing of convicts, which permanently marked their social exclusion²². Other instances of punishment included – ‘‘‘a rough rope charged with powdered chillies and mustard seed, and moistened with a solution of salt… tightly bound round his arm.’’, anundal23, kittee²⁴, Bastinado²⁵ and the placement of live insects on victims’ bodies²⁶. These displays were designed to instill fear and reinforce the absolute dominance of the colonial state. These spectacles were not just about punishing individuals, it was about communicating and showcasing their power. By publicly enacting brutality, the British sought to crush resistance, reaffirm colonial authority and embed the logic of such punishments contributed to collective anxieties around state authority, policing and caste- based oppressions, these elements that continued to shape India’s postcolonial legal and social structures.

With the widespread use of public flogging as a means of deterrence, an uproar of humanitarian criticism and administrative concerns²⁷ was seen about disorder prompted a shift towards concealed places rather than eliminating corporal punishment. These spectacles of brutal punishment were replaced with more covert forms of coercion, integrated into policing operations and prison discipline. This transition laid the foundation for the so-called ‘Age of Reform’ in the 1830s, where legal changes appeared to reduce state brutality but instead institutionalised it within colonial governance structures. As a result, in 1834, public flogging was officially abolished. Some alternatives included fines, imprisonment, and transportation (kala pani), each serving a specific function to minimise costs and maintain control. These mechanisms became fundamental pillars of modern disciplinary society, where the infliction of pain became a hidden process rather than a public spectacle. As Talal Assad explains, ‘modern torture as a part of policing is typically secret, partly because inflicting physical pain on a prisoner is uncivilised and therefore illegal’²⁸.This shift necessitated ‘rhetoric of denial’, where the modern state continued to employ coercive punishment while simultaneously denying its existence. Fines were often preferred as they generated revenue for the state. However, in cases where fines were uncollectible due to poverty, whipping remained the default punishment aimed at increasing state control and a strategic move to avoid public backlash while continuing coercive practices.

Transportation was used as an alternative punishment it was showcased as a moral alternative to flogging, but in reality, it was another form of social erasure and colonial control. The use of the Andaman Islands as a penal colony allowed the British to remove perceived threats from society without generating the same public spectacle.

Even as public flogging was condemned as barbaric, the colonial state continued to devise alternative forms of severe punishment. The Prison Discipline Committee’s recommendations did not reflect a shift towards humanitarian justice but rather a refinement of coercive techniques. By advocating for ‘negative severities²⁹’ such as restricted food and isolated labour, the Committee reinforced the logic of punishment as a too. Of control rather than rehabilitation. The legacy of these transformations is evident in postcolonial legal frameworks, where emergency provisions, preventive detention, and caste-based policing remain entrenched in contemporary Indian law enforcement³⁰.

The Role of the 1857 Revolt

The 1857 Revolt marked a decisive shift in British penal policy, intensifying the racialised and class-based application of punitive measures. The rebellion heightened colonial anxieties exposing the fragility of British legal and penal institutions, leading to a sweeping expansion of state violence. As Nijhar explains, the mutiny reinforced the British perception that Indians required ‘pre-emptive discipline³¹’. With overcrowding in the remaining jails and increasing difficulty in maintaining order, colonial authorities sought immediate and practical solutions. Flogging was reintroduced in 1858, not merely as a disciplinary measure but as a strategic response to the administrative crisis.

However, these were not simply reactive punishments; they were part of a broader legal transformation in which violence became central to governance rather than an exception to it. Military discipline also underwent a significant transformation in this period, leading to the racialised introduction of flogging in the Bengal Army. Initially abolished due to concerns that it was particularly after the widespread participation of Indian soldiers in the revolt³². This shift highlights how racial anxieties intensifiedpost-1857, with the British relying on increasingly coercive forms of punishment to maintain both civil and military discipline. The British dismantled many local legal structures and implemented sweeping legal changes through the 1858 Act. Most significant of these was the 1861 Code of Criminal Procedure, which created an explicitly racial legal hierarchy³³.

The punitive response to the revolt was not applied uniformly but was shaped by racial and class hierarchies. European officers and Indian elites were largely shielded from the harshest forms of discipline, while Marginalised communities, including lower castes and specifictribes labelled as ‘criminal’, bore the brunt of brutal punishments. As Kolsky aptly observes, ‘the goddess of British Justice, though blind, is able to distinguish unmistakably black from white³⁴’ , illustrating how colonial law functioned not as a neural system of justice but as an apparatus designed to shield European officers while disproportionately punishing Indians.

The Criminal Tribes Act (1871), enacted in the aftermath of British fears of rebellion, further codified this racialised criminalisation, ensuring that entire communities predominantly lower-caste and nomadic groups, remained under permanent suspicion and subjected to flogging, forced settlement, and heightened surveillance. Under the act, whole tribes were forcibly relocated to penal settlements, where they were subjected to forced labour in factories, quarries and plantations under constant police surveillance. Those who resisted were publicly whipped or imprisoned, and eve children were forcibly apprenticed under colonial supervision.

The institutionalisation of martial law after 1857, further reinforced these racial and class distinctions in punishment. Unlike in Britain, where emergency legal provisions were invoked only under extreme circumstances, in India, Martial law and exceptional legal frameworks became a routine strategy of control. The deliberate legal asymmetry between Europeans and Indians, what Kolsky terms ‘imperial whiteness³⁵’, ensured this violence was not only tolerated but also legitimised making flogging and extrajudicial punishments became defining features of colonial governance. The inherent racial bias of the colonial legal system was particularly evident in its treatment of marginalised communities.

Fines, Imprisonment, and Whipping as a Coercive Network

Whipping was strategically integrated into a broader coercive network of punishments. Judges in colonial India often substituted whipping for fines, disproportionately affecting lower castes and the poor, who lacked the financial means bore the brunt of corporal punishment, reinforcing caste and class inequalities in sentencing³⁶. As documented in legal records, financing privilege allowed Europeans and elite Indians to escape harsher punishments. As the Commissioner of Meerut has suggested that ‘high class people’ should be fined instead for being flogged³⁷. As a result, whipping became a default punishment for those unable to pay fines. In prisons to maintain control, there was the substitution of food for flogging. For example, ‘prisoners who failed to meet labour requirements were often placed on half rations’³⁸ , a practice that led to severe health consequences, including increased mortality from diseases such as dysentery and dropsy. These measures reveal the colonial administration's prioritisation of economic pragmatism over ethical governance in stark contrast to Britain’s evolving progressive taxation system. In British India, a brutal and extractive revenue regime was enforced, where torture techniques were designed to inflict severe pain without causing permanent injury. Methods such as whippings, anundal, kitte were commonly employed to ensure that peasants remained productive.

During the time of crisis, the British administration intensified corporal punishment instead of offering relief measures. As the state relied on land revenue as its main financial resource, harsh taxes were imposed, up to 50% of gross produce, compared to 30% under pre-colonial rule³⁹. Reports from the Bengal Famine of 1866 show that the Burdwan division recorded a sharp increase in crime, particularly thefts and grain robberies committed by starving individuals. In response, the colonial administration intensified the use of flogging as a punitive measure to maintain order. Statistical records indicate a surge in flogging sentences, with cases rising to 9,317 recorded in 1866-67⁴⁰ the highest recorded in the decade. Prison mortality rates in regions like Julpigoree (27%), Rungpore (17.6%), Gya (17%), Tirhoot (10%), and Chumparun (15%)⁴¹ , reflects how the punitive state apparatus mirrored broader economic crisis, criminalising survival strategies rather than addressing root causes. The same logic was applied in the Whipping Act of 1864, which explicitly targeted petty offenses like theft and trespassing, ensuring that minor infractions could be punished swiftly and economically.

Colonial officials justified whipping as a cheaper and more efficient punishment than imprisonment and viewed it as a means to reform individuals into productive members of colonial society. This approach reflected the regime’s paternalistic and coercive governance style, which saw physical discipline as necessary to create a docile workforce and submissive population. This preference reveals how colonial administrators justified flogging as a necessary ‘negative severity’⁴². Short-term imprisonment was largely avoided due to the financial burden of maintaining prisons⁴³, and flogging was promoted as a cost effective alternative to lengthy jail sentences. As Singha highlights flogging was particularly applied for petty crimes such as thefts under Rs. 50⁴⁴, reinforcing economic expediency as a central logic in colonial governance. This logic was applied in colonial industries and agrarian economies as flogging allowed offenders to return to the labour force immediately, not disrupting their workforce.

Newspapers such as Kesari, Rangalay, The Amrita Bazar Patrika condemned public floggings as state-orchestrated spectacles of humiliation designed to instill dear among Indian subjects. Colonial records indicate that in 1867-68 alone 4,180 individuals were sentenced to whipping, with many punishments carried out in public spaces⁴⁵. Nationalist responses framed these events as acts of humiliation and racialised violence, further fuelling anti-colonial sentiment. The partition of Bengal in 1905 led to an increase in juvenile arrests for political activity, with many subjected to whipping, prompting strong reactions from legal circles and nationalist media.⁴⁶ British Indian Association, the Eastern Bengal Landholders’ Association, and the Provincial Muhammadan Association would showcase their dissatisfactions. Many Satyagrahis who carried their civil disobedience movement into the jails were subjected to flogging⁴⁷. Urmila Shastri, recounted the brutal flogging of 13 Satyagrahis in Meerut jail, who each were subjected to between 30 to 80 lashes of a cane. Such events demonstrate how British authorities had weaponised punitive violence as a way of political suppression as well.

Subsequent legislation, like the Whipping Act of 1909, further refined the application, targeting specific offenses and groups. Notably, whipping wasn't solely aimed at adults ‘disruptive elements⁴⁸.’ The Whipping Act of 1909 authorised flogging for crimes such as theft and dacoity, particularly in 'wild regions,' underscoring its role as a tool for social control in areas perceived as rebellious. Colonial authorities believed juvenile delinquency stemmed from immaturity and the Whipping Act of 1909 integrated corporal punishment for both juveniles and adults into a single punitive framework. This conflation was rooted in the misplaced notion that whipping held a ‘pedagogical potential⁴⁹’ a tool to correct deviant behaviour and enforce conformity among perceived juvenile delinquents.

The widespread use of corporal punishment in colonial India wasn't a monolithic practice case like ‘Emperor v. Motha’⁵⁰ showcases that. This case involved a juvenile accused of committing a heinous crime of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused, found by the court to be approximately 15 years old, perpetrated a brutal rape on a girl of around 10 years. Despite the severity of the offense and the injuries inflicted upon the victim, the judge opted not to send the juvenile to jail due to his age, and he was sentenced to 20 strokes of caning on his hands. This decision underscores how whipping was viewed as an ideal instrument to quite literally 'beat' undisciplined subjects into becoming reformed, productive members of colonial society. The colonial regime's deployment of whipping for juveniles reflected its broader vision of punishment as a means of improvement and social engineering, extending from childhood into adulthood for certain marginalised populations.

Modern approaches to juvenile justice prioritise rehabilitation and reintegration into society, recognising the developmental vulnerabilities of young offenders. In this context, the court's decision to impose caning on a juvenile raises questions about the compatibility of punitive measures with contemporary principles of justice and child welfare.

Furthermore, the colonial administration's reliance on torture as a means of maintaining control and extracting confessions is evident in cases like the ‘Nashik Torture case’⁵¹, this case exposed how colonial violence operated at multiple levels, not just in courtroom, but in everyday policing. Despite the British government’s public condemnation of torture, native policemen routinely used it to extract confessions. As Rao argues, this was not an exceptional case but part of a broader ‘practice of policing’⁵², where bodily punishment—whether through flogging or police beatings—was normalised. Gunnoo’s inability to recount his torture underscores the silencing effect of colonial violence. His case, alongside the continued use of judicial whipping, demonstrates that violence was not just a disciplinary measure but a fundamental pillar of colonial governance, ensuring compliance through fear and public spectacle. This case illuminates the inherent intertwining of law and coercive force within colonial governance. Despite public denouncement, torture remained a fundamental tool in the regime's maintenance of control, relying on the constant threat of violence against indigenous populations. Rao contends that colonial law was deeply entrenched in racialised beliefs about the native population's susceptibility to corporal punishment, making torture a systematic practice rather than an isolated occurrence. Additionally, Kolsky's work underscores the prevalence of routine violence perpetrated by Europeans against natives, facilitated by a legal system fraught with racial bias⁵³.Special rights and privileges were granted to Europeans creating a legal basis for their dominance over Indians.

However, the use of corporal punishment did not apply to everyone, as certain groups were exempt from such practices. European men, elite Hindus and Muslims, property owners, criminals guilty of more serious offenses, males over the age of 45, and women were excluded from whipping in colonial India⁵⁴. This exclusion reflected recognition of a ‘civilised’ identity and privileged societal position, while the exemption for women dated back to 1825, earlier than other groups, due to gendered ideas and imperial aversion to state violence towards females⁵⁵. However, the efficacy and morality of corporal punishment were subject to debate. Critics raised concerns about its dehumanising nature and potential to exacerbate communal tensions. Moreover, the selective application of such penalties raised questions about equity and justice within the colonial legal system, with certain groups being targeted while others were excluded. While proponents argued for the necessity of deterrent measures to combat recidivism and maintain public safety, dissenting voices highlighted the risks of further alienating marginalised communities and perpetuating cycles of violence.

Justice and punishment were strategically deployed ensuring compliance with British rule. The Kiddu murder case⁵⁶ illustrates how legal mechanisms were manipulated for political expediency having realised their miscalculation in supporting Raja Ram Singh’s succession, the British used the murder charge as a pretext for his removal as the investigation into the case was flawed and incomplete, raising questions about its legitimacy This demonstrates the selective application of law, where justice was not blind but calculative, weaponised against Indian rulers when politically convenient. On the other hand, in the case of 1874 Baroda poisoning case, in which an Indian king was accused of attempting to poison a British Resident. This case was handled with procedural diligence, the king was granted formal trials .The difference in legal treatment underscored that British justice was not about fairness but about imperial expediency.

The legacy of corporal punishment extended beyond immediate physical suffering, leaving psychological and social scars. British disciplinary practises cultivated a climate of fear and humiliation⁵⁷, reinforcing colonial racial hierarchies.  Michel Foucault's analysis of the disciplinary mechanisms in Europe has been extended to the colonial context, where the shift from public executions to more bureaucratic forms of violence did not signal progress but merely transformed oppressions into an institutionalised form of coercion. Public flogging, for example, served a dual function: it was both a retributive act and a mechanism for instilling fear and enforcing conformity. This visible violence demonstrated the colonial state’s authority while embedding obedience within its subjects. Anupama Rao critiques this approach as inherently coercive, emphasising that the colonial state relied on the threat of violence to sustain control, normalising such brutality as a routine feature of governance.

Conclusion

Corporal punishment in colonial India was more than a tool of law enforcement—it was an instrument of racial and economic control, designed to enforce obedience, maintain labour discipline, and reinforce hierarchies. By codifying violence within legal frameworks, the British state normalised the subjugation of marginalised communities while shielding Europeans and elites from similar treatment. By the time flogging was formally abolished in 1955, its legacy had already shaped the evolution of policing and incarceration in India. While parliamentary debates framed abolition as aligning India with modern justice principles, the persistence of custodial violence, police brutality, and preventive detention laws suggests that colonial disciplinary structures were never fully dismantled.

Notes

1.      Thomas Metcalf, Ideologies of the Raj: The New Cambridge History of India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p.17.

2.      Talal Asad, “On torture, or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment‟ (1996) Social Research 1081, p.1102.

3.      Guha, Ranajit. A Rule of Property for Bengal. 1963. "Dominance Without Hegemony and Its Historiography." Subaltern Studies VI. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

4.      Philip Dwyer and Amanda Nettelbeck, Violence, Colonialism and Empire in the Modern World (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), 27.

5.      Dwyer and Nettelbeck, Violence, Colonialism and Empire, 112.

6.      V. DeSousa, "Strategies of Control: The Case of British India," Sociological Viewpoints, 2008. 68.

7.      Preeti Nijhar, Law and Imperialism: Criminality and Constitution in Colonial India and Victorian England (London: Pickering & Chatto, 2009), p.10.

8.      Sherman, Taylor C. State Violence and Punishment in India. Routledge, 2010,p 10.

9.      Nasser Hussain, The Jurisprudence of Emergency: Colonialism and the Rule of Law (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003), p.123.

10.  Dwyer Philip, Nettelbeck Amanda. Violence, Colonialism and Empire in the Modern World, p.126.

11.  Alastair McClure, "Archaic Sovereignty and Colonial Law: The Reintroduction of Corporal Punishment in Colonial India, 1864–1909," Modern Asian Studies  no. 5 (2020):8

12.  Anderson, Clare. Legible Bodies: Race, Criminality and Colonialism in South Asia. Berg, 2004, p. 3

13.  Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books, 1979, p. 9.

14.  Criminal Justice History: An International Annual. Vol. 12, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1991–1993.p30.

15.  "India—Criminal Law—Punishment of Flogging." HC Deb, 06 July 1883, vol. 281, cols. 30.

16.  Bej, Sonavane, and Bokil. “Constructions of Female Criminality: Gender, Caste and State Violence.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 56, no. 3, 2021, p. 3.

17.  McClure, Alastair. "Archaic Sovereignty and Colonial Law: The Reintroduction of Corporal Punishment in Colonial India, 1864–1909." Modern Asian Studies, vol. 54, no. 5, 2020, p. 5.

18.  Criminal Justice History: An International Annual. Vol. 12, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1991–1993, p.32.

19.  Roy, Kaushik. "Spare the Rod, Spoil the Soldier? Crime and Punishment in the Army of India, 1860–1913." Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, vol. 84, no. 337, n.d., p. 21.

20.  Kolsky, Elizabeth. Colonial Justice in British India. Cambridge University Press, 2010, p. 11.

21.  humiliation where offenders were paraded through towns with blackened faces, often forced to sit backwards on donkeys—ensuring their degradation was visible to all.
Singha, Radhika. A Despotism of Law: Crime and Justice in Early Colonial India. Oxford University Press, p. 231.

22.  Singha, Radhika. A Despotism of Law, p. 231.

23.  form of bondage in which the victim was doubled over backwards for an extended period.

24.  Which consisted of an instrument that bent the fingers back and caused excruciating pain.

25.  beating of the soles of the feet with clubs, was also used together with a host of rough and ready techniques such as pulling out of mustaches and twisting of ears

26.  Criminal Justice History: An International Annual. Vol. 12, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1991–1993, p.34.

27.  Nijhar, Preeti. Law and Imperialism: Criminality and Constitution in Colonial India and Victorian England. Pickering & Chatto, 2009, p. 57.

28.  Talal Asad, “On torture, or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment‟ (1996) Social Research 1081, p.1102.

29.  Prison Discipline Committee report of 1838.

30.  Kethineni, Sesha. "Crime and Punishment in India." The Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment, 28 Dec. 2015,p.2.

31.  Nijhar, Preeti. Law and Imperialism: Criminality and Constitution in Colonial India and Victorian England. Pickering & Chatto, 2009, p. 41.

32.  Singha, Radhika. A Despotism of Law: Crime and Justice in Early Colonial India. Oxford University Press, p. 251.

33.  Indian judges were prohibited from issuing arrest warrants against Europeans, and only British-born judges could try British offenders. Kolsky, Colonial Justice in British India,73.

34.  Kolsky, Elizabeth. Colonial Justice in British India. Cambridge University Press, 2010, p. 73.

35.  Kolsky, Elizabeth. Colonial Justice in British India. Cambridge University Press, 2010, p. 11.

36.  Kolsky, Elizabeth. Colonial Justice in British India. Cambridge University Press, 2010, p. 10.

37.  Sherman, Taylor C. State Violence and Punishment in India. Routledge, 2010, p. 51.

38.  Digby, William. The Famine Campaign in Southern India, Volume II: 1876–1878.Spottiswoode and Co., p. 201.

39.  Criminal Justice History: An International Annual. Vol. 12, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1991–1993.p40.

40.  "The History of Punishment in India | LMSAI Webinar Series | New Delhi Mittal Institute." YouTube, uploaded by Mittal Institute, Harvard University, 19 Oct. 2022, https://youtu.be/UwzfLpJyWpo.

41.  Digby, William. The Famine Campaign in Southern India, Volume II: 1876–1878.Spottiswoode and Co.,p257

42.  Singha, Radhika. A Despotism of Law: Crime and Justice in Early Colonial India. Oxford University Press, p. 257.

43.  Sherman, Taylor C. State Violence and Punishment in India. New York and London: Routledge, p. 81.

44.  Singha, Radhika. A Despotism of Law: Crime and Justice in Early Colonial India. Oxford University Press, p. 252.

45.  "The History of Punishment in India | LMSAI Webinar Series | New Delhi Mittal Institute," YouTube video, posted by "Mittal Institute, Harvard University," October 19, 2022, https://youtu.be/UwzfLpJyWpo.

46.  McClure, Alastair. "Archaic Sovereignty and Colonial Law: The Reintroduction of Corporal Punishment in Colonial India, 1864–1909." Modern Asian Studies, vol. 54, no. 5, 2020, p. 24.

47.  Sherman, Taylor C. State Violence and Punishment in India. Routledge, 2010, p. 49.

48.  Whipping Act of 1864.

49.  McClure, Alastair. "Archaic Sovereignty and Colonial Law: The Reintroduction of Corporal Punishment in Colonial India, 1864–1909." Modern Asian Studies, vol. 54, no. 5, 2020, p. 28.

50.  "AIR 1929 Allahabad 322." Indian Kanoon, 1929, www.indiankanoon.org

51.  Rao, Anupama. "Problems of Violence, States of Terror: Torture in Colonial India." Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 36, no. 43, 2 Nov. 2001, p. 4125.

52.  Rao, Anupama, and Steven Pierce. Discipline and the Other Body. Duke University Press, 2006, p. 158.

53.  Kolsky, Elizabeth. Colonial Justice in British India. Cambridge University Press, 2010, p. 16.

54.  McClure, Alastair. "Archaic Sovereignty and Colonial Law: The Reintroduction of Corporal Punishment in Colonial India, 1864–1909." Modern Asian Studies, vol. 54, no. 5, 2020, p. 17.

55.  McClure, Alastair. "Archaic Sovereignty and Colonial Law: The Reintroduction of Corporal Punishment in Colonial India, 1864–1909." Modern Asian Studies, vol. 54, no. 5, 2020, p. 31.

56.  Vanina, Eugenia. "Princely Crime and Colonial Punishment: A Murder Case in Historical Investigation." Indian Historical Review, vol. 47, no. 1, 2020, pp. 7–20.

57.  Rao, Jyoti M. "The Lasting Impact of Colonial Trauma in India: Links to Hindu Nationalism." Wiley, 7 Dec. 2020, p. 10.

 

 

 

Bibliography

Anderson, Clare. Legible Bodies: Race, Criminality and Colonialism in South Asia. Oxford: Berg, 2004.

Bej, Sonavane, and Bokil. "Constructions of Female Criminality: Gender, Caste and State Violence." Economic and Political Weekly 36, no. 43 (2021): 3.

DeSousa, V. "Strategies of Control: The Case of British India." Sociological Viewpoints (2008): 68.

Digby, William. The Famine Campaign in Southern India, Volume II: 1876–1878. London: Spottiswoode and Co.

Dwyer, Philip, and Amanda Nettelbeck. Violence, Colonialism and Empire in the Modern World. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.

Edmonds, Penelope, and Hamish Maxwell-Stewart. "‘The Whip Is a Very Contagious Kind of Thing’: Flogging and Humanitarian Reform in Penal Australia." Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History 17, no. 1 (Spring 2016): 8–10.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books, 1979.

Guha, Ranajit. A Rule of Property for Bengal. 1963 "Dominance Without Hegemony and Its Historiography." Subaltern Studies VI. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Hussain, Nasser. The Jurisprudence of Emergency: Colonialism and the Rule of Law. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003.

Kethineni, Sesha. "Crime and Punishment in India." In The Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment, edited by Wesley G. Jennings. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, 2016.

Kolsky, Elizabeth. Colonial Justice in British India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

McClure, Alastair. "Archaic Sovereignty and Colonial Law: The Reintroduction of Corporal Punishment in Colonial India, 1864–1909." Modern Asian Studies 54, no. 5 (2020): 5–31.

Nijhar, Preeti. Law and Imperialism: Criminality and Constitution in Colonial India and Victorian England. London: Pickering & Chatto, 2009.

Rao, Anupama. "Problems of Violence, States of Terror: Torture in Colonial India." Economic and Political Weekly 36, no. 43 (November 2, 2001): 4125.

Rao, Anupama, and Steven Pierce. Discipline and the Other Body. Durham: Duke University Press, 2006.

Rao, Jyoti M. "The Lasting Impact of Colonial Trauma in India: Links to Hindu Nationalism." [Wiley], December 7, 2020.

Roy, Kaushik. "Spare the Rod, Spoil the Soldier? Crime and Punishment in the Army of India, 1860–1913." Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research 84, no. 337 (n.d.): 21.

Sen Gupta, N.C. Evolution of Indian Law. Calcutta, 1954.

Sherman, Taylor C. State Violence and Punishment in India. New York and London: Routledge, 2010.

Singha, Radhika. A Despotism of Law: Crime and Justice in Early Colonial India. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vanina, Eugenia. "Princely Crime and Colonial Punishment: A Murder Case in Historical Investigation." Indian Historical Review 47, no. 1 (2020): 7–20.

 

Primary Sources

"India—Criminal Law—Punishment of Flogging." HC Deb, July 6, 1883, vol. 281.

"India—Corporal Punishment in Indian Gaols." HC Deb, July 1, 1880, vol. 253.

Whipping Act of 1864 (India Act XXV of 1864).

AIR 1929 Allahabad 322. Retrieved from Indian Kanoon.

Hunter, Sir William Wilson. Defects of the Settlement of 1793. In Bengal MS. Records: A Selected List of 14,136 Letters, vol. 1, 1782–1793. Oxford: 1894.

Prison Discipline Committee report of 1838.

Multimedia Source

Mittal Institute, Harvard University. The History of Punishment in India | LMSAI Webinar Series | New Delhi Mittal Institute. YouTube video, posted October 19, 2022. https://youtu.be/UwzfLpJyWpo.