Administrative System of the Marathas c27.s17: 2. Compensation for stolen property
Administrative System of the Marathas c27.s17
- Language
- English
2. Compensation for stolen property
c27.s17.1
We may also take note of a police rule of undoubted antiquity which was adopted by the Mughal rulers of India. Whenever anything was stolen it was the duty of the police officers of the place to recover the property or compensate the owner for his loss. This compensation was on rare occasions paid out of the state funds but more generally by the Policemen concerned. The Ain-i-Akbari lays down, "He (the kotwal) shall discover thieves and the goods they have stolen or be responsible for the loss." Manucci tells us that loss from robbery was compensated by the state during Shah Jahan's reign.⁵ The same writer, whose statement is based on actual observation, says of the Kotwal, "If any one is robbed within the bounds of his jurisdiction, he is forced to make good what has been taken."⁶ The Faujdars who supervised roads had similar responsibilities. Manucci informs us, "These *faujdars* have to supervise the roads, and should any merchant or traveller be robbed in day light, they are obliged to pay compensation. If robbed at night, it is the traveller's fault for not having halted earlier, and he loses all, without his complaints being heard."⁷ This practice survived in the Central Indian principalities till the middle of the 19th century. The Maratha policy towards such criminal tribes as the Kolis and the Bhils who infested their frontier was also an inheritance from the Muhammadan rulers they had replaced.⁸ 3. Mutilation:
c27.s17.2
⁵ Manucci, ed. Irvine, Vol. I, p. 204.
c27.s17.3
⁶ Manucci, ed. Irvine, Vol. II, p. 4.
c27.s17.4
⁷ Manucci, ed. Irvine, Vol. II, p. 451.
c27.s17.5
⁸ Bird, Statistical Hist. of Gujrat, pp. 409 ff.
c27.s17.6
From the Police let us turn to the punishment inflicted on thieves detected or arrested by them. Thieves often suffered capital punishment towards the close of the Peshwa period. Capital punishment for the same offence was by no means an exception under the Mughal days. Manucci tells us that Aurangzib decapitated no less than 500 thieves in order to "terrorise the perverse." 9 And again "Once when I was living in Lahor, fifteen thieves of this tribe were caught. They had robbed a house at midnight; they were seized and sentenced to death. When the officers of justice were taking them to be executed in front of that very house, they passed in front of my door." 10
c27.s17.7
Mutilation of criminals also was as common a practice under the Mughals as under the Marathas. Jahangir ordered his *amirs* "Not to punish any person by ordering him to be blinded or to have his nose or ears cut off." 11 But the Wakiat-i-Jahangiri gives at least one instance of the Emperor's inflicting a terribly cruel punishment on an unfortunate Hindu offender. "After conviction," says the Emperor, "I ordered that his tongue should be cut out, that he should be kept in prison for life, and that he should be fed at the same mess as the dog keepers and sweepers."¹² Nor was mutilation uncommon when Manucci wrote. The Emperor Aurangzib prohibited the sale of wine and other intoxicants and "he directed the kotwal to search out Mahomedans and Hindus who sold spirits, every one of whom was to lose one hand and one foot."¹³ Convicted offenders lost their limbs during the Pathan period also as we are informed by the benevolent and humane Firuz Shah Tughlak, who put a temporary stop to this practice. "In the reigns of former kings, the blood of many Musulmans had been shed, and many varieties of torture employed. Amputation of hands and feet, ears and noses; tearing out the eyes, pouring molten lead into the throat, crushing the bones of the hands and feet with mallets, burning the body with fire, driving iron nails into the hands, feet and bosom, cutting the sinews, sawing man asunder; these and many similar tortures were practised. The great and merciful God made me, His servant, hope and seek for His mercy by devoting myself to prevent the unlawful killing of Musulmans, and the infliction of any kind of torture upon them or upon any men."¹⁴ Mutilation was a common punishment in the Kingdom of Golkonda and Manucci says that a Persian lost his offending hand for giving a slap to a Hindu who had given him offence.¹⁵
c27.s17.8
⁹ Manucci, ed. Irvine, Vol. II, p. 421.
c27.s17.9
¹⁰ Manucci, ed. Irvine, Vol. II, p. 458.
c27.s17.10
¹¹ Elliot & Dowson, Vol. VI, p. 325.
c27.s17.11
¹² Elliot & Dowson, Vol. VI, p. 314
c27.s17.12
¹³ Manucci, ed. Irvine, Vol. II, p. 6.
c27.s17.13
¹⁴ Elliot & Dowson, Vol. III, p. 375.
c27.s17.14
¹⁵ Manucci, ed. Irvine, Vol. III, p. 131.