Bibliographie
Anderson, D. M., Policing the settler state: colonial hegemony in Kenya, 1900-1952, in Engels, D., Marks S., Contesting colonial hegemony, London, 1994, pp. 248-266.
Anderson, D. M., Killingray D., Policing the empire: government, authority and control, 1830-1940, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1991.
Anderson, D. M., Killingray D., Policing and decolonisation, 1917-65 Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1992.
Arnold, D., Police Power and colonial rule: Madras, 1859-1947, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1986.
Basu, S., Strikes and ‘communal’ riots in Calcutta in the 1890s: industrial workers, bhadralok nationalist leadership and the colonial state, Modern Asian Studies, 1998, 34: 4, pp. 949-983.
Brogden, M., The Police: Autonomy and Consent, London, Academic Press, 1982.
Brown, M., Race, science and the construction of native criminality in Colonial India, Theoretical criminology, 2001, 5, 3, pp. 345-368.
Catanach, I.J., “Who are your leaders?”: plague, the raj and the communities in Bombay in Robb, P. (ed.), Society and ideology: essays in South Asian history presented to K.A. Ballhatchet, London, Oxford University Press, 1992, pp. 196-221.
Chakrabarty, D., Rethinking Working Class History, Princeton: New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1989.
Chandavarkar, R. S., The Origins of industrial capitalism in India: business strategies and the working classes in Bombay, 1900-1940, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Chandavarkar, R. S., Imperial power and popular politics: class, resistance and the state in India, c. 1850-1940, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Chaudhury, P., Labour migration from the United Provinces, 1881-1911, Studies in History, 1992,VIII, 1, NS, pp.12-41.
Douglas, J., Bombay and its ducks of 1882 by one of the latter, Bombay, 1882.
Edwardes, S.M., Gazetteer of Bombay City and Island, 3 vols., Bombay, Government Central Press, 1909.
Edwardes, S.M., By-ways of Bombay, Bombay, 1912.
Edwardes, S.M., The Bombay city police: a historical sketch, 1672-1916, London, 1923.
Edwardes, S.M., Crime in India, London, 1924.
Gatrell, V.A.C., Crime, Authority and the Policeman-State in Thompson, F.M.L. (ed.), The Cambridge Social History of Britain: Social Agencies and Institutions, Cambridge, Cambridge U.P., 1990, 3, pp. 243-310.
Gooptu, N., The Politics of the Urban Poor in Early Twentieth-century India, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Lüdtke, A., The role of state violence in the period of transition to industrial capitalism: the example of Prussia from 1815 to 1848, Social History, 1979, IV, 2, pp. 175-221.
Major, A.J., State and Criminal Tribes in Colonial Punjab: Surveillance, Control and Reclamation of the “Dangerous Classes”, Modern Asian Studies, 1999, 33, pp. 657-688.
Masselos, J.C., Power in the Bombay “Mohalla”, 1904-1915: an exploration into the world of the Indian urban Muslim, South Asia, 1976, VI, pp. 78-81.
Masselos, J.C., Social segregation and crowd cohesion: reflections around some preliminary data from 19th century Bombay City’, Contributions to Indian Sociology, 1979, NS, 13, 2, 145-167.
Masselos, J.C., Change and custom in the format of the Bombay Mohurram during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, South Asia, 1982, II, 2, NS, pp. 47-67.
Masselos, J.C., Spare time and recreation: changing behaviour patterns in Bombay at the turn of the nineteenth century, South Asia, 1984, VII, 1, NS, pp. 34-57.
Masselos, J.C., The city as represented in crowd action: Bombay, 1893, Economic and Political Weekly, 30 January 1993, pp. 182-188.
Masselos, J.C., Migration and urban identity: Bombay’s famine refugees, in Patel, S., Thorner A. (eds.), Bombay: mosaic of modern culture, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1996, pp. 25-28.
Nigam, S., Disciplining and Policing the “Criminals by Birth”, Part 1: The Making of a Colonial Stereotype- The Criminal Tribes and Castes of North India, The Indian Economic and Social History Review, 1990a, 27, pp.131-164.
Nigam, S., Disciplining and Policing the “Criminals by Birth”, Part 2: The Development of a Disciplinary System, 1871-1900, The Indian Economic and Social History Review, 1990b, 27, pp. 257-287.
McCracken, J., Coercion and control in Nyasaland: aspects of a colonial police force, Journal of African History, 1986, 27, pp. 127-148.
Pandey, G., The construction of communalism in colonial North India, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1992.
Reiner, R., The politics of the police, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000.
Spencer, E. G., Police and Social Order in German Cities: The Dusseldorf District, 1848-1914, DeKalb, Northern Illinois UP, 1992.
Upadhyay, S. B., Cotton Mill Workers in Bombay, 1875 to 1918: Conditions of Work and Life, Economic and Political Weekly, 1990, XXV, 30, pp. 87-99.
Yang, A. ‘Introduction’, in Yang, A., (ed.), Crime and criminality in British India, Tucson, University of Arizona Press, 1986, pp.1-25.
Haut de page
Notes
Reiner (2000, p. 170).
On policing and public order in nineteenth-century Europe, see especially Gatrell (1990); Lüdtke, (1979); and Spencer (1992). For explorations of this theme in the colonial context see, in particular, Arnold (1986); McCracken (1986, pp. 127-148); Anderson (1994); Anderson, Killingray (1991; 1992).
Yang (1986) and more recently Chandavarkar (1998, p. 181).
Yang (1986).
See, for instance, Chandavarkar (1998); Gooptu (2001).
Chandavarkar (1998, p. 181).
Arnold (1986).
Chandavarkar (1998).
Gooptu (2001, pp. 111-139).
Chandavarkar (1994, pp. 76-77).
Ibid., pp. 461-505.
Royal Commission on Indian Labour: Memorandum from the Government of Bombay (Bombay, 1929), p. 3.
Upadhyay (1990, p. 87); Chaudhury (1992, pp. 12-41).
On the widespread use of casual labour in Bombay’s industries, see Chandavarkar (1994, pp. 72-123).
Ibid., pp. 77-80.
Masselos (1979, p. 164).
Among those who were killed during the riots there were 46 Muslims and 33 Hindus and one Jew who died accidentally in police firing. While the occupations of thirty persons killed in the rioting could not be ascertained, of the remainder a majority were drawn from the labouring classes. These details are culled from The Bombay Riots of 1893: Reprinted from the Times of India (henceforth Bombay Riots) (Bombay, 1893) and The Mahomedan and Hindu Riots In Bombay, August 1893: From The Bombay Gazette (henceforth Mahomedan and Hindu Riots), Second edition, (Bombay, 1893).
Mahomedan and Hindu Riots, p. 1.
Times of India (henceforth TOI), 10 March 1898. Five members of the crowd were killed during the firing.
Commissioner of Police, Bombay to the Secretary, JD, Bombay, 1 April 1898, Government of Bombay (henceforth GOB), General Department (Plague Branch), 1898, Vol. 389, Compilation no. 298, para. 18, Maharashtra State Archives (henceforth MSA), Bombay.
Ibid., para. 27.
TOI, 10 March 1898.
Government Resolution on Report of Commissioner of Police, Bombay, GOB, Judicial, 1893, Vol. 194, Compilation no. 948, part I, MSA.
Bombay Presidency Police: Secret Abstracts of Intelligence (henceforth BPPSAI), VI: 38, 1893, para. 1716.
Indian Textile Journal (henceforth ITJ), III: 36, September 1893, p. 245.
Edwardes (1923, p. 85).
For instance, the police were out in force in the mill areas when workers in some cotton mills went on strike in June 1897. BPPSAI, X: 24, 1897, para. 899.Similarly, three years later, when the cotton mills resorted to working short time and reduced the wages of their workers, the police were regularly called in to break the strikes that followed. See, for instance, BPPSAI, XIII: 2, 1900, para. 123; BPPSAI, XIII: 3, 1900, para. 179.
For an account of the colonial stereotypes about the innate religious bigotry of some north Indian Muslim communities, see Pandey (1992).
Minute by Mr. Campbell in Report On Increase In Police Force Recommended by Commissioner of Police (10 September 1893), GOI, Home (Police), August 1894, nos. A. 117-146, p. 819, Oriental and India Office Collections (henceforth OIOC), British Library, London.
Chairman, Plague Committee, Bombay, to the Secretary, GD (Plague), 18 March 1898, GOB, General (Plague), 1898, Vol. 388, Compilation no. 297, para. 3, MSA.
Brogden (1982, p. 44).
Chandavarkar (1994, p. 76).
For a contemporary official account of aspects of this culture, see Edwardes (1912).
For instance, it was estimated in 1898 that ‘around 100,000 labourers usually slept on roads or footpaths’. TOI, 22 October 1898. Cited in Masselos (1996, p. 52). See also, Chandavarkar (1998, p. 103).
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 147; pp. 159-163. See also Gooptu (2001, pp. 111-112; 126-132).
See, for instance, the reports in Bombay Riots and Mahomedan and Hindu Riots; also Masselos (1993, pp. 182-188).
This perception was probably strengthened by some of the incidents of street violence that occurred during the early 1890s. See, for instance, Masselos (1984, p. 45). See also, Edwardes (1923, pp. 93-94).
Douglas (1882, pp. 24-30). See also Masselos (1982, p. 53).
Ibid., pp. 57-58. Hindus, especially the lower castes, participated in large numbers in the festival, which had come to be known amongst them as Imam jayanti. Native Opinion, 1 July 1894, RNNP, 27, 1894, para.26.
Edwardes (1923, p. 182).
TOI, 1 November 1884. Cited in Masselos (1982, p. 54); see also Douglas (1882, pp. 22-30).
Masselos (1982, p. 58).
On the colonial construction of ‘criminal tribes’, see Nigam (1990a, 1990b); Major (1999); Brown (2001).
Annual Report of Police for the Town and Island of Bombay (hereafter ARPB) for the year 1899 (Bombay, 1900), para. 107.
For an interesting discussion of this theme, see Masselos (1996, pp. 25-60).
GOB, General (Plague), 1899, Vol. 704, Compilation no. 622, p. 77, para. 3, MSA.
Commissioner of Police, Bombay, to Secretary, JD, Bombay, 23 July 1898, GOB, Judicial, 1901, Vol. 105, Compilation no. 1991, para. 7, MSA.
GOB, Judicial, 1901, Vol. 105, Compilation no. 1991, MSA. For a recent analysis, see Masselos (1996).
Gazetteer of Bombay City and Island, compiled by S.M. Edwardes (henceforth Gazetteer), 3 vols. (Bombay, 1909), II, pp. 238-245.
Chandavarkar,(1998, p. 185).
It was reported in 1906 that the rates of pay of the native constabulary had ‘practically remained stationary since the year 1865’. L.B. Souter, Acting Commissioner of Police, Bombay, to Under Secretary, JD, Bombay, 7 July 1906, GOI, Home (Police), February 1907, nos. A. 23-24, para. 3, OIOC.
On the reductions to the police force, see Acting Secretary, JD, Bombay, to Secretary, GOI, Home (Police), 16 June 1893, GOI, Home (Police), June 1893, no. A-199, pp. 3-6.
Gazetteer, II, p. 245.
GOI, Home (Police), February 1910, nos. 39-41, Accompaniment No.1, OIOC.
Commissioner of Police, Bombay, to Secretary, JD, Bombay, 22 February 1910, GOB, Judicial, April 1910, no. A. 9, para. 2, OIOC.
Ibid., para. 15.
For a detailed discussion of these structural constraints, see Chandavarkar (1998, pp. 184-207).
Ibid., pp. 1279-1305, OIOC.
Catanach (1992, pp. 200-201).
Masselos (1976, pp. 78-81). Many of these so-called ‘traditional’ leaders derived their status from the recognition bestowed upon them by the colonial administration.
Catanach (1992, pp. 200-201).
MCRP, 1899, I, passim.
Masselos (1976, p. 79). For an extended discussion of these social relations of the neighbourhood, see Chandavarkar (1998, pp. 100-142).
Commissioner of Police, Bombay, to Secretary, JD, Bombay, 24 September 1914, GOI, Home (Police), December 1915, nos. A. 96-108, para. 4, OIOC.
Chandavarkar (1998, pp. 192-193).
The demand for a new police act for Bombay had frequently emanated from the European officials who manned the upper ranks of the police force during the 1890s, but it was not until the end of the century that the proposal to draft a new city police bill finally received official sanction. See, GOB, Judicial, January 1902, Progs No. A-46, p. 221, OIOC.
Bombay Act No. IV, Chapter III, section 23.
Ibid., section 121.
Ibid., Chapter I, section 3.
Ibid., section 23 (3).
Ibid., section 23 (2).
Ibid., section 25 (1).
Ibid., section 27.
Ibid., section 22 (3).
Ibid., section 56 (1).
A contemporary official account of these riots is to be found in Edwardes (1923). For a more recent scholarly analysis, see Masselos (1976, 1982). Colonial officials and contemporary observers tended to attribute the riots to the timeless sectarian antipathy between the city’s Shi’as and Sunnis in the city. On the other hand, recent scholarly accounts, while cognizant of the culpability of the colonial state, have not located the police role in these riots within the wider context of their newly enhanced powers.
See, for instance, Commissioner of Police, Bombay, to Secretary, JD, Bombay, 5 July 1895, GOB, Judicial, Abstract of Proceedings, 16 July 1895, MSA.
Commissioner of Police, Bombay, to Acting Chief Secretary, JD, Bombay, 12 April 1904, GOB, Judicial, April 1904, no. 25, para. 3, MSA. The Bohras had a reputation for being ‘excellent businessmen’ who were ‘engaged in every branch of trade and commerce’, Gazetteer, I, p. 181.
Commissioner of Police, Bombay, to Acting Chief Secretary, JD, Bombay, 12 April 1904, GOB, Judicial, April 1904, no. 25, para. 3, MSA.
Ibid., para. 4.
The commissioner justified his decision by arguing that the Rangari moholla had a previous history of violence and that it was ‘notorious for being composed of turbulent persons ever ready and eager to have a fracas with other processionists on the slightest pretext’; ibid.,para. 9.
Ibid.,para. 11.
Ibid.,para. 14.
Ibid.,para. 15.
Petition from Vohra Mahomedan inhabitants of Doctor Street to S.W. Edgerley, Chief Secretary, Bombay, 27 February 1906, GOB, Judicial, 1906, Vol. 160, Compilation no. 555, para. 8, MSA.
Commissioner of Police, Bombay, to Secretary, JD, Bombay, 25 February 1908, GOB, Judicial, March 1908, no. A. 20, paras. 4-6, MSA.
Ibid., paras. 8-13.
Ibid., pp. 769-770.
TOI, 6 January 1909; BG, 7 January 1909.
Masselos (1976, p. 84).
Commissioner of Police, Bombay, to Secretary, JD, Bombay, 24 September 1914, GOI, Home (Police), December 1915, nos. A. 96-108, para. 5, OIOC.
Ibid.
Masselos (1976, p. 85).
Commissioner of Police, Bombay, to Secretary, JD, Bombay, 24 October 1911, Bombay Confidential Proceedings, Judicial Department, November 1910, no. A. 3, para. 3, OIOC.
Petition from Syed Yacub Mahomed and others of Rangari Moholla, Bapu Hajare Moholla, Kasai Moholla, and Mazagon, GOB, Judicial, Vol. 182, Compilation no. 571, 1910, p. 193, MSA.
Indu Prakash, 25 January 1910, RNNP, 5, 1910, para. 55.
Ibid., para. 8.
Ibid., para. 14.
Commissioner of Police, Bombay, to Secretary, JD, Bombay, 23 August 1911, GOB, Bombay Confidential Proceedings, Judicial Department, October 1911, no. A. 2, para. 6, OIOC.
Commissioner of Police, Bombay, to Secretary, JD, Bombay, 6 January 1912, GOB, Bombay Confidential Proceedings, Judicial Department, January 1912, no. A. 4, para. 6, OIOC.
Ibid., para. 2.
Ibid., para.7.
ARPB, 1892 (Bombay, 1893), para. 10; ARPB, 1899 (Bombay, 1900),para. 14.
ARPB, 1903 (Bombay, 1904), para. 17.
ARPB, 1909 (Bombay, 1910), para. 3.
ARPB, 1925 (Bombay, 1926), para. 5.
ARPB, 1903 (Bombay, 1904), para. 17.
See, for instance, Jam-e-Jamshed, 2 January 1904, RNNP, 1, 1904, para. 21; Indian Social Reformer, 11 June 1910, RNNP, 24, 1910, para. 38.
F.M. Gadney, Commissioner of Police, Bombay, to Municipal Commissioner, Bombay, 20 June 1913, GOB, Judicial, July 1914, no. A. 44, para. 2, MSA.
A.H.S. Aston, Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, to Under Secretary, JD, Bombay, 19 February 1914, GOB, Judicial, July 1914, no. A. 44, MSA.
ARPB, 1922 (Bombay, 1900), para. 5.
ARPB, 1921 (Bombay, 1922), para. 14.
BG, 13 January 1905.
BG, 19 May 1905.
S.M. Edwardes, Commissioner of Police, Bombay, to Secretary, JD, Bombay, 22 February 1910, GOB, Judicial, April 1910, no. A. 9, p. 543, para. 5, OIOC.
Chandavarkar (1998, pp. 181, 227). Undoubtedly, this was one of the reasons why police action against the so-called ‘low life of the bazaar’ often yielded meagre results. See, for instance, Edwardes (1924, pp. 118-119).
For an analysis of sectarian riots and labour strikes in Calcutta during the 1890s, see Chakrabarty (1989) and Basu (1998). On the growing challenges of urban policing in the Madras Presidency from 1900 onwards, see Arnold (1986).
Haut de page