1.1 Background
In the year of 1871, the Colonial Government of British India notified certain nomadic, pastoral and traditional trading communities as âborn criminalsâ and passed the âCriminal Tribes Actâ (CTA). CTA defined criminal tribes as âa tribe or caste whose occupation is committing non-bailable offencesâ. Booth Tucker, a British officer, defined it as âthose sections or groups of people who traditionally follow or commit criminal acts like stealing, robbery, dacoity and other such commission of non-bailable crimes in order to obtain a livelihoodâ. The inspiration for CTA came from the Habitual Offenders Act of England, which was passed in 1869 to control and monitor the movements of the Gypsies in England. In the colonial India, the British had claimed to find all those criminal characteristics easily in the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) and other marginalised groups. In other words, the British-Raj government notified criminals based on physical attributes, castes, tribes, habits, appearance, way of living, hygiene, dressing and occasional offences. Such compartmentalisation made their task much easier. However, in the Indian sub-continent, such wandering or tribal groups were essentially cattle grazers, traditional singers, religious priests, medicinal healers, traders, acrobats and other communities who would entertain to earn living. Among them, many of them either resisted and/or assisted the freedom fighters against the British aggression from time to time. These nomadic groups lived in the forests, and according to the British administration, only criminals and mysterious people would dwell in the jungles (Mullay 1912).
The Criteria for Notifying Criminals Under the Criminal Tribes Act, 1871
Examples of some of the tribes that got notified by the British-Raj Government under CTA, 1871:
- The petty traders who used to carry their merchandise on the back of animals and supplied villages with varied items like salt, grains, fruits, vegetables, seasonal items, forest produces, and so on.
- The communities that entertained the general public through the performing arts. Among these were musicians, dancers, singers, story tellers, acrobats, gymnasts, puppeteers and tightrope walkers.
- The communities that use performing animals such as bullocks, bears, monkeys, snakes, owls, birds, and so forth to entertain the general public.
- Pastoral groups, hunting, gathering and shifting cultivator communities within the forests that traded not just forest produces, but animals as well. They were also herders and traded in meat and milk products with the outlying villages.
- The artisan communities who made and repaired a variety of useful articles, implements and artifacts with the bamboo, iron, clay, and so forth, which they would sell to the settled villagers.
- Nomadic individuals who subsisted on charity either in cash or in kind for their âspiritualâ services rendered to the traditional Indian society. They include Sadhus, Fakirs, religious mendicants, fortune tellers, genealogists and traditional faith healers. They all had a low but legitimate place in the social hierarchy of the settled people.
- Nomadic individuals who carried medicinal herbs and provided healing services to the needy.
The colonial British had sought to control and contain the movements of a variety of landless and nomadic âcriminal tribesâ through a series of Criminal Tribes Acts propagated throughout the different geographical and administrative units of the British India. Thus, CTA had undergone several amendments from 1871 to 1944, so as to include new geographical territories, communities and newer and stringent rules. However, in the year of 1924, the CTA was consolidated into one law and applied to the whole of India. The CTA gave absolute powers to the local governments to recommend that certain âtribes, gangs, or classesâ be declared as being âaddicted to the systematic commission of non-bailable offencesâ (Kumar 2004).
One of the major reasons behind classifying nomadic, semi-nomadic tribal and pastoral groups as criminals was to stop them from working as informants to the freedom fighters. These groups were providing food, supplying money, ammunition and joining in the fighting groups during the freedom struggle and became a threat to their local administration. By using the Act, the government not only cut their power, but also made them vanish from the mainstream society (Dandekar 2009). Some of these groups from the princely states, albeit small kingdoms, were actually notified to deprive them from ruling power and identity, so as to rule out any threats or attacks from them in the future (Joshi 1998).
In fact, whoever opposed the British governance or control was suppressed by them and non-sedentary or nomadic communities who normally preferred free movements rather than a restricted way of life, were the ones affected the most by British oppression (DâSouza 2001). At one point, the British rulers, in order to wipe out the crimes, wanted to exterminate all the criminals or criminal communities, as they believed that criminal tribes practice crime as their religion (DâSouza 2001). Some British scholars mentioned that the British always believed that the origin of such criminal groups, tribes, castes and classes lied in the very structure of Indian society (Bonington 1931).
Since many of these marginalised sections and groups had no records of their own history, culture, social norms, traditional practices and occupational past, it became easier for the British-Raj to notify them as criminal tribes from their forefathers or time immemorial. For instance, the Banjara tribe used to trade salt, grains and transportation of goods and was never involved in any criminal activities, but they would manage their trade by travelling from one place to another on bullock carts making them notified under the CTA. They had served the Mughals and other kings before the British arrived in India. The arrival of railways and modern technology affected their profession adversely, making them opt for âa settled lifeâ with agriculture, livestock rearing, and trade. Some of them may have committed crimes for survival during the transformation period, after losing their livelihood. It doesnât mean that every Banjara or whole community committed the crime (Varady 1979). On the contrary, of course, there were few communities that had criminal records that were included in the CTA of 1871. Nonetheless, notifying the pastoral, nomadic traders and religious communities into its criminal tribes fold is the major debacle with this Act (DâSouza 2001).
It should be noted that prior to the CTA, the government of British India booked the individuals or collectives under the regulation of XXVI of 1793, thereafter under the Act of XXX of 1836 and later under the Indian Penal Code of 1860. Until 1871, there was no concept of criminal tribes or instances of criminal cases being dealt based on group of individuals or a whole community (Nigam 1990). Thus, the practice of keeping SCs and STs at the bottom of the social hierarchy by terming them âcriminalsâ had begun in the colonial British India. Earlier, the caste system of Hinduism and caste construction was keeping them at the bottom of the society and dehumanising them. This social construct also kept them away from the socio-political and administration of society or governments, but still never treated or linked them with criminals (Sandra 1991). Therefore, many scholars raised questions on certain communities being categorised and/or treated as criminals by birth. It was further argued there could be a few individuals committing unlawful acts, but notifying the community as a whole criminals was nothing but ridiculous and had a clear agenda to exterminate them (Kannan 2007).
Chaman (1962) stated that several theories cropped up about the origin of criminal tribes and one such school of thought claimed that they had been descended from the Gypsies found all over the world with a common origin. The other school of thought held that the criminal tribes owe their origin to the aboriginals, who were displaced by the invasions of the inhabitants of the central Asia from time to time. Radhakrishna (1989) highlighted the fact that criminal acts against Gypsies in England were used to protect sedentary white class from Gypsies and same strategy was adopted by the British in colonial India to capture tribal dynasties and strip them of power without resistance. Clarence Darrow (1934) stated that the act of crime had existed in all societies, countries, state, and so on in one or another form at different points of time a...