- When India gained independence in 1947, the British-era Criminal Tribes Act exposed 13 million individuals in 127 communities to arrest if found outside designated areas.
- Originated in 1871 as a response to the aftermath of the 1857 revolt, targeting wandering criminal tribes perceived as a societal menace.
- Progressed through amendments, culminating in the 1924 Act, categorizing castes, imposing movement restrictions, and facilitating social engineering.
- Extended beyond tribes, adversely affecting transgender communities with categories like “eunuch,” perpetuating discrimination and unjust treatment.
- Repealed in 1949, but social stigma persists, necessitating ongoing efforts for upliftment and redress for affected communities.
At the dawn of India’s independence in 1947, there were 13 million individuals across 127 communities who were at risk of search and arrest if any member of their group was found outside the designated area. This outrage was the result of the Criminal Tribes Act enacted during British colonial rule in India, serving as a grim chapter in the nation’s history. Enacted in 1871, this law represented a systematic effort to label certain communities as habitual criminals, subjecting them to discrimination, surveillance, and restrictions on their movements. Persisting until 1949, the act had a profound and enduring impact on the affected communities, influencing their social identity and perpetuating stereotypes. Indeed, for those seeking to understand the roots of the contemporary Dalit issue in India, there’s no need to look beyond this shameful remnant of the British era.
This article explores the origins, impact, and eventual repeal of the Criminal Tribes Act, shedding light on its historical context and enduring consequences.
Origins of the Act
The Criminal Tribes Act originated as a response to the aftermath of the 1857 revolt, where many tribal chiefs were labeled traitors and rebellious.[1] The British colonial government, facing challenges in managing diverse groups like wandering criminal tribes, vagrants, itinerants, and eunuchs, grouped them as a “law and order problem.” These tribes, living on society’s fringes, were perceived as a menace to 19th-century societal standards, leading to the need for control and surveillance.
The Islamic rulers’ presence in India led to significant social and population dislocation. Beginning in the 8th century, their conquests resulted in forced migrations due to military campaigns, temple destruction, mass killings, and enslavement. The imposition of religious policies and discriminatory taxation further contributed to community migrations. The fluid Hindu social order began to fray in the face of these brutal challenges, leading to massive social upheaval and economic hardships. The consequences of Islamic rule shaped the demographic mosaic of the Indian subcontinent, leaving a lasting impact on cultural and social dynamics, evident in the historical echoes that resonate in contemporary India.
Legislative Evolution
The first iteration, the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871, primarily applied to North India but later extended its reach to other regions. Subsequent amendments, culminating in the Criminal Tribes Act of 1924, consolidated and expanded the legal framework. The colonial government compiled lists of “criminal castes,” subjecting them to restrictions on movement, compulsory registration, and surveillance by local police.
Once a community was officially notified, its members had no avenue to challenge these notifications within the judicial system. Subsequently, their activities faced strict monitoring through mandatory registration and passes. These passes dictated permissible travel and residence locations, with district magistrates obligated to uphold comprehensive records of all individuals subjected to such restrictions.[2]
The Act was part of a broader social engineering attempt, categorizing castes as “agricultural” or “martial” to facilitate property distribution or identify groups loyal to the colonial government.[3] Applicable to Indians based on their religion and caste identification, the Act affected numerous communities, resulting in the stigmatization of certain segments of society as “born criminals.” [4] By 1931, 237 criminal castes and tribes were listed under the Act in the Madras Presidency alone. The legislation’s impact persisted even after its repeal, as denotified tribes continued to face social stigma, economic hardships, and denial of legal rights.
The British government garnered public support by framing the Act as a social reform measure to rehabilitate criminals through work.
Impact on Transgender Community
Though primarily targeting tribal communities, the Act also had severe implications for transgender and gender non-conforming individuals in India. It created the category of “eunuch” to encompass various gender non-conforming communities, such as hijras, khwajasarais, and kotis. Despite the diverse identities within these communities, the label “eunuch” became a catchall term, reflecting the Act’s attempt to force conformity to traditional British ideals of masculinity.
Under this Act, eunuchs were classified as either “respectable” or “suspicious.” Respectable eunuchs, refraining from activities like “kidnapping, castration, or sodomy,” were deemed acceptable. However, suspicious eunuchs engaging in public performances or wearing clothes classified as female by British officials faced arrest and fines. The legislation criminalized any behavior considered “suspicious,” including traditional hijra activities like public dancing or dressing in women’s clothing.[5]
Colonial authorities justified the registration of eunuchs under the Act by claiming it was necessary to prevent kidnapping and sodomy. However, official evidence supporting these claims was scarce. The few children adopted by the transgender communities were removed from their care even though the majority of these children were either orphans or rejected by their biological families. Such unjust treatment persisted under the guise of maintaining order, highlighting the discriminatory impact of the Criminal Tribes Act on gender non-conforming communities in India.[6]
The Act was extended to the rest of India in 1911, with subsequent amendments increasing punitive penalties and making fingerprinting compulsory. Many tribes were resettled in villages under police guard, and punitive police posts were established in areas with a history of “misconduct.”
Post-Independence Reforms
The Criminal Tribes Act was repealed in 1949 to rectify injustices brought on by this draconian symbol of British colonial rule. However, social stigma has endured well past the Act’s shelf-life. Concerted governmental and non-governmental efforts will be required to uplift these marginalized communities.
Conclusion
The Criminal Tribes Act, a product of colonial prejudice and misguided social engineering, has left a lasting imprint on India’s social fabric. Its repeal in 1949 did not erase the deep-seated discrimination faced by affected tribes. The enduring consequences highlight the need for comprehensive reforms, legal redress, and societal awareness to address the historical injustices perpetuated by this draconian legislation.
Citations
[1] Radhakrishna, Meena (2001). Dishonoured by History: “Criminal Tribes” and British Colonial Policy. Orient Blackswan. p. 161
[2] Muzammil Quraishi, The Criminal Tribe Act (Act XXVII of 1871) Muslims and Crime: A Comparative Study, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2005
[3] Radhakrishna, Meena (2001). Dishonoured by History: “Criminal Tribes” and British Colonial Policy. Orient Blackswan
[4] Bates, Crispin (1995). “Race, Caste and Tribe in Central India: the early origins of Indian anthropometry”. In Robb, Peter (ed.). The Concept of Race in South Asia. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
[5] Khan, Shahnaz (2016). “Trans* Individuals and Normative Masculinity in British India and Contemporary Pakistan.” Hong Kong Law Journal. 46
[6] Hinchy, Jessica (3 April 2014). “Obscenity, Moral Contagion and Masculinity: Hijras in Public Space in Colonial North India”. Asian Studies Review. 38 (2)