Merit and law in colonial India

Corruption is nothing new

In most political conversations with older relatives, two wildly inaccurate concepts are bound to pop up almost every single time. The first is ‘siyasat mein achay log nahee hain, iss liyay mulk ka bura haal hay’ (there are no good people in politics which is why Pakistan is in such a bad state), and the second, perhaps less common but equally inaccurate, ‘angrezon kay waqt mein merit aur qanoon ko maana jaata thaa’ (rule of law and merit were followed during the colonial era). Both assertions serve as important reminders as to why our urban middle classes are as apolitical as they are, and secondly, why I prefer to stay away from extended family gatherings.

If one ever makes the mistake of questioning the depth and validity of these concepts, which, by the way, are put forth as ultimate Truths, it would result in a number of (mostly) incoherent buzzwords being thrown your way. Corruption! Nepotism! Bribery! Sifarish! Personal Interest! Waseeh-tar-quomi-mafaad! Safe to say, this is an argument one should never get into, simply because there’s very little you can say in the space of a few minutes that could change the way people have been thinking for decades.

That said, however, from the comfort of this column, I want reproduce a couple of excerpts from a book, written by Tan Tai Yong, titled ‘The Garrison State: The Military, Government, and Society in Colonial Punjab, 1849-1947’, that go a considerable way in explaining how political power is structured in Pakistan today and just how untrue pervasive ideas about colonial rule actually are. For starters, politics is a phenomenon closely tied to history. Decisions taken at a particular point A in time have repercussions at point B. Similarly, legal frameworks, and ‘methods’ of politics that evolve in one era, can continue to influence the practice of political power in later eras as well – regardless of whether or not the original conditions remain.

After World War I broke out, several divisions of the British Indian Army were sent to Europe and North Africa to bolster the war effort. Given that the primary task of the Indian Army, up till then, had been to maintain internal security, many of the soldiers were ill equipped to fight elongated trench battles against a vastly superior opponent. Consequently, many were killed, increasing pressure on recruitment efforts back home to send in more troops.

During the course of the war, Sir Michael O’ Dwyer, Lieutenant Governor of Punjab, who had previously served as Deputy Commissioner of Shahpur (modern day Sargodha), decided to establish a system that would reward local notables and elites based on the number of recruits they could produce for enlistment. Rewards ranged from titles and honours, to land grants, and most importantly, government offices.

“Many of these lower echelon posts in the administrative structure of British India were filled by ‘the natural leaders’ of rural society, who were co-opted by the British. The best example was the zaildar, a provincial service government appointee in charge of a group of villages formed into an administrative unit known as the zail. He was usually appointed from amongst the leading men of the tribe or locality, and the social authority, which he already possessed, was reinforced by his official authority as a representative of the government. As a result, the zaildar exercised tremendous authority amongst villagers, many of whom looked to him for patronage and assistance. The zaildar was therefore able to use ‘threats and blandishments’ to induce men under his influence to promise to enlist.” (Yong, 2005: 118)

It’s worth keeping in mind that many of these rural notables mentioned in the preceding paragraph are forefathers of the very same people who dot our political spectrum in and out of parliament in the 21st century. They were patronised by the British, given specific offices and tasks, (none of which had anything to do with rural welfare, uplift or development), and were co-opted based on the perceptions of the Deputy Commissioner. Even if one were to squint really, really hard, it would be impossible to see any semblance of ‘Merit’ and ‘Rule of Law’ in such a system.

“…the civil government had the means to apply pressure on local officials to take their recruiting tasks seriously. It was made known that for future appointments for posts such as honorary magistrates and district sub-registrars, the recruiting services of the prospective candidates would be taken into account. The Deputy Commissioner of Shahpur, for example, openly made known that vacant posts in his district would be rewarded to those who produced the greatest number of recruits.” (Yong, 2005: 119)

Patronage, corruption, nepotism, and elitism were entrenched by the British over the course of 150 years, primarily to maintain internal stability, and generate maximum profit from their colonies. To comprehend Pakistan’s existing situation, a thoroughly objective, and unblemished understanding of our own history is urgently required and, perhaps, only then will we be able to get rid of such widely pervasive, yet completely ahistorical and inaccurate ideas.

The writer blogs at http://recycled-thought.blogspot.com. Email him at [email protected], or send a tweet @umairjava