The Mamlatdar Issue Exported

Chapter 5 traces the process by which purportedly criminal issues became political issues. The chapter therefore deals with the mechanics of mounting a successful political pressure campaign. The chapter examines the export through the slanted reporting to London by The Times of London correspondent in India. His negative opinions about the mamlatdar witnesses fed on the Bombay High Court’s efforts to get the mamlatdars fired. The ‘mamlatdar issue’ eventually came before the House of Commons and that in turn placed considerable pressure on the secretary of state for India to ‘do something’ about the mamlatdars who had confessed under oath that they had paid bribes. In fact, the ‘mamlatdar issue’ had become a thing in itself, a problem that vexed the government at all levels.

Bombay Government Opinions about the Report

Chapter 7 explores some of the contemporary criticisms of the findings, procedures, and precedents of the Crawford Commissioners’ report that set the scene for the ensuing chapters. The chapter also chronicles reasons for disagreement between several levels of the government. It focuses on dissent, mainly by the Government of Bombay officials, to the procedures and rationale of the commissioners who sat in judgment of Crawford. This chapter captures the frustration of local officials at seeing local savvy and understanding overcome by inappropriate ideas and procedures followed at a higher level of government.

The Stigma That Would Not Go Away

Chapter 4 deals with the ‘local’ aftermath of the Hanmantrao trial. Important here were attempts by Crawford’s friends to intimidate government witnesses to prevent them from testifying against Crawford before the special commission convened to advise the government on Crawford’s guilt or innocence. It also introduces attempts by Bombay High Court judges to incriminate mamlatdar witnesses who confessed under oath that they had paid bribes. Recourse to the High Court found judges recommending revisions to lower court decisions based on some justices’ interpretation of the rules as they might have been applied if the case were heard by a court in England.

Thrown to the Wolves?

Chapter 3 takes the corruption case to the primary court level. The aim was to convict Crawford’s chief agent, Hanmantrao, of corruption. Then, based on that trial record and evidence still being gathered, the government planned to go after Crawford, the big fish. The narrative follows events of the trial and reasoning that supported the verdict. The verdict is important because the local savvy behind the rationale for the verdict is in stark contrast to the way of decision making at higher levels of government.

Confessions and Aftermath

In Chapter 9, Indians speak out. First, we hear from the mamlatdars who overcame pre-trial intimidation and bravely promised to testify against Crawford. They did this less from loyalty to the British rule and more from a sense of duty. Then come the protests of the mamlatdar victims against the drive to fire Indian staff who confessed to paying bribe, irrespective of the pressures that forced them to stop resisting and to pay. Their writings demonstrate the strong sense of wrong they felt and the social inadequacy of the payments that the government offered them for breaking its promise of immunity. The final Indian voices come from voluntary associations in the Bombay Presidency, including ad hoc public meetings in rural towns where the populace requested the government to honour its promise of immunity.

Mamlatdar Ping Pong

Chapter 8 relates the negotiations between the Government of Bombay Presidency and the secretary of state for India regarding what to do about the inculpated mamlatdars. Bombay suggested that the issues were very complicated and required time to determine who had paid voluntarily and who was virtually extorted into paying. The secretary of state for India seemed content with this procedure, which would lead to depriving the most corrupt of their magisterial powers, but leaving them in charge of land revenue issues (which was only a slight change from the Bombay Government’s promised indemnity). However, the secretary of state eventually caved in to the London pressure and insisted that those who had not paid under conditions of extortion must be fired. At this point, the negotiations between Bombay and the secretary of state expanded to include the Government of India (the viceroy and his legislative council).

The Crawford Commission

Chapter 6 deals with the transactions of the Crawford Commission. Examined here are the juridical investigations that the commission made into the question of the guilt or innocence of Arthur Travers Crawford. The focus here is on possible ways in which the commissioners may have erred. There is no formal analysis of the very long tribunal held in Poona. Nor is there any effort here to uphold or deny the commission’s verdict about Crawford. Rather, the purpose of this chapter is to clarify some issues that the work and outcome of the Crawford Commission may not have addressed adequately.

Spreading the Net

Chapter 2 examines the manner in which the Government of Bombay, convinced of Crawford’s guilt, sought testimonial and documentary evidence, mainly through Indian officials called ‘mamlatdars’. Those officials had to confess under oath that they had paid money for career favours. At law, this constituted bribery of a government official. Confessing this in court under oath was contrary to their best interests, but the presidency government found a way to secure their testimony. Nevertheless, the process of making an evidentiary case was fraught with problems.

Background to a Scandal

Chapter 1 defines ‘mamlatdars’, important actors in the events the book covers. It also presents an overview of the Crawford scandal and an earlier scandal―both of which occurred in the Bombay Presidency. Public opinion, mainly in the local vernacular press, gives a courageous governor the impetus to investigate allegations of corruption. Vernacular press also presents outspoken, candid appraisals of government actions.

Conclusions

Chapter 10 explores some hanging questions. The issue of Crawford’s guilt or innocence is essentially moot today, but a number of points that never arose before the special commission merit consideration. The chapter comments on the practical difficulties that the Indian Penal Code of 1860 imposed on the task of successful prosecution of official corruption back in the colonial past. Beyond comments on the Penal Code of 1860, Chapter 10 also explores the relationship between decision making at various levels of governance, and certain qualities of the British imperial rule in the Bombay Presidency. This discussion stems from the facts that (1) the Crawford Tribunal found Crawford innocent of all counts of corruption, (2) the secretary of state for India concurred with the tribunal’s finding, and (3) even though Crawford was found innocent of bribery, mamlatdars were condemned as guilty. Guilty of what? Guilty of bribery. Bribery of whom? The presumption was that money had been paid for favours, but the tribunal found that Crawford had received none of it, and Crawford was found not to have done the mamlatdars any favours, so had bribery taken place at all?