DISCIPLINE AND PUNISHMENT IN THE MADRAS ARMY UNDER COLONIAL PERIOD, 1752-

1860
Author(s): Manas Dutta
Source: Proceedings of the Indian History Congress , 2011, Vol. 72, PART-I (2011), pp.
632-641
Published by: Indian History Congress
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44146756

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Indian History Congress is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress

This content downloaded from

27.59.230.9 on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 14:12:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 DISCIPLINE AND PUNISHMENT IN THE
MADRAS ARMY UNDER COLONIAL
PERIOD, 1752-1860
Manas Dutta

Successful administration of the government depends upon

efficiency and discipline of the civil and personnel. Discipline ens
an unquestioned leadership of the government and implicit obedie
of the Army. So a code of conduct becomes necessary for th
maintenance of discipline in thé Army. The military code is comm
more severe than the civil one and it is also essential. This article
explores the role of discipline and punishment parallelly in first ever
army establishment in Madras Presidency under colonial rule in India
during 1752 and 1 860. 1 Cases of day to day dissent were comparatively
rare in the Bengal Army and Bombay Army compared with the Madras
Army. Though the Madras Army seemed very disciplined, in reality it
posed more problems for the Colonial masters then the Bengal and
Bombay armies. If we take into account the court martial report index,
it would seem the Madras Army was more disobedient in terms of
following the Company administration in the Presidency.
In the early days of East India Company, there was no written
military code or law to govern the conduct of the army and to define
the offences. The commanding officers got complete freedom to make
laws and implement them according to the situation. For example,
kicking and abusing some one's wife, disrespect of places of worship
and absence from daily prayers were considered serious offences.
Contracting venereal diseases, extreme gambling, getting into debt,
fighting and drunkenness were also considered serious military
offences. Any officer involved in such offences were brought to trial
before a special military court called the court of request which tried
cases like debt and gambling.2
The soldiers who were given severe punishment in Europe, were
acquired by means of detachment, such units were largely composed
of undecided charters, convicts, criminals, drunkards and deserters.3
On the arrival in India, such recruits found it impossible to escape
since they were not able to escape from the clutches of there masters.
Due to there disobedient activities, these soldiers were harshly and
cruelly treated in India.
By a charter in 1661, the President and Council of each factory
were entrusted with powers of martial law for the governance of troops,

This content downloaded from

27.59.230.9 on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 14:12:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Modem India 633

the President was also the commander-in-chief of the forces.4

In the earlier days, severe punishment was inflicted upon soldiers

even for minor offences. Flogging and caning were the usual methods
of punishment for the erring soldiers. Due to such severity of treatment
and harshness of law, there was large scale of desertion. So flogging
and caning were abolished.5
Constitutional provision was first made for the discipline of the
company's troops by an Act of Parliament in 1754. The scope of the
Act was wide enough to cover both European and Native troops, but
the language of the Articles seemed to suggest that they were originally
intended for Europeans only. However, in the absence of any other
code, the Madras Government had no other option but to apply only
the provision made by the Act in case of the Native sepoys, Though
there was no clearly codified law to govern the Native army.6
In 1748 Major Stringer Lawrence organized the Madras European
Regiment and founded the Madras army by enlisting 2,000 sepoys. In
1752 a code of military law was prepared with the help of Article of
War, then enforced in England, under the denomination rules for Mutiny
desertion with the aim of maintaining discipline in the army. During
the Company's rule considered they were enlarged and revised on 27
May, 1823, and the following were considered offenders.7 It goes like
this "Any person who shall begin, excite, cause or join in any mutiny
or sedition, in the land forces... or shall not use his utmost endeavour
to suppress the same, or coming to the knowledge of any mutiny or
intended mutiny, shall not without delay give information tò these
Commanding Officer, or shall misbehave himself before the enemy;
or shall shamefully abandon or deliver up any garrison, fortress, post
or guard committed to his charge, or which he shall be commanded to
defend or shall compel Governor or Commanding Officer of any
garrison fortress or fort to deliver up to the enemy, or to abandon the
same, or shall speak or use any other means to induce such Governor
or Commanding Officers or others to misbehave before the enemy, or
shamefully to abandon or deliver up any garrison. ..at any of the
Presidencies, or without the license of the Governor of Chief
Commander, or shall strike or use violence against his superior officers,
begin the execution of his office, or shall disobey any lawful command
of his superior officer, or shall desert the said Company's service, all
and every person or persons so offended in any of the matters."8
These rules and regulations were modified from time to time. From
1759-1765 many rules were framed for the effective management of
the army. The rules framed for controlling Mutiny and desertion
were introduced in 1752. In January 17 66, these rules were properly

This content downloaded from

27.59.230.9 on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 14:12:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
634 IHC : Proceedings, 72nd Session, 2011

codified. Accordingly the soldiers who mutinied or deserted the army,

or who were guilty of crime were brought back to work by the military
court.9 The military court consisted of the commandeering chief and
other commanding officers of the force were also authorized to
constitute it. In fact, on some occasions the power was delegated to
offices up to the rank of Major. Then there was no other code of
discipline for the army. Consequently the Government of Madras often
sent out circulars, orders as well as regulations for the guidance of
soldiers conducting court martial.10
However, there was also another kind of court martial known as
Native Court Martial. This system was more similar to the old
conventional method called the Panchayat system, and comprised
mostly of the native officers. The Panchayat system referred to the
Village Council to settle the disputes of the villages. In the Company's
army the natives were authorized to constitute the Panchayat or local
court to settle disputes among the people. This was popularly known
among the European as Native Court Martial. Similarly the system
had an unwritten sanction behind it and the natives appointed a certain
member of Judges from their ranks. The Panchayat system was very
favourable and employed for some time among the natives for trial.
However, no native officer under the rank of Subedar could be its
President, and no one under the rank of Jamadar could be a member of
the native military court.11
But there were no ultimate rules guiding the Panchayat, other than
the rules of common 12sense and convention. This native code was
constituted with the approval of the Commanding Officers for the
settlement of disputes among the native sepoys. The Commanding
Officers had enormous power and the discipline of the troops largely
depended upon him. They had indeed the last word on the matter and
they could do anything which they thought to be permissible. They
could make new laws and unmake the old laws. If need arose many of
the offences were dealt with by him but some offences of serious nature
were referred to the court martial.13

At the same time the commanding officers who conducted the

proceedings enjoyed a good deal of power and influence in the court
martial. It was clear that the commanding officers had enormous power
to control the army and there was nothing to check them.
It became evident that the commanding officers were made
ineffective guard without the power to punish the offenders, the
commanding officers were not able to command the soldiers in the
real sense of the term. The only way an offender could be punished
was by a court martial and even in that case the commanding officer as

This content downloaded from

27.59.230.9 on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 14:12:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Modem India 63 5

presiding officers could exercise little i

officers became practically ineffective.1
The standard of discipline of the Mad
Thomas Munro, Governor of Madras. I
the native sepoys of the Madras Army
manageable. The native officers were ex
a rich legacy behind them. They were t
who helped Sir Eyre Coote extinguish F
for example in the Carnatic, on the ba
Novo. The courage and strength display
Mysore (Tipu Sultan) at Srirangapatnam in 1799 was equally
praiseworthy.
All the servants of the Company, civil or military, were liable to
dismissal. The Government of India Act of 1833 explained that it shall
be lawful for His Majesty, by any writing under his signed manual, to
remove or dismiss any person holding any office, employment or
Commission, civil, or Military under the said Company in India and to
cancel any appointment or Commission, of any person.15
Apart from that, the native sepoys sincerely cooperated with their
alien masters to eliminate the recalcitrant Poligar in the southern
provinces in 1801. Even during the Vellore Mutiny of 1 806, the sepoys
of the Madras Army still represented the 'elite' of the native army.
They also distinguished themselves in the battle of Assaye in 1 803 in
which General Arther Wellesley defeated the Marathas. This battle has
been praised as 'a monument of glowing glory' and also it was certainly
a tribute paid to the madras army.16
Similarly, at the time of great mutiny of 1857, the Madras Army
remained not only loyal to the government but also took an active part
the suppression of the revolt. In spite of such record of collaboration
with sepoys the history of the Madras army was marked by native sepoy
mutinies. Mutiny was caused sometimes by valid reasons such as non-
payment of salaries. Absolutely low level of pay also contributed to
such mutinies. While payment was made to European troops without
delay, it was not the same in the case of the natives. So in 1752, the
sepoys at Arcot mutinied for non-payment of salaries. Then the sepoys
at Masulipattinam refused to perform their duty until their arrears of
pay and prize money were paid. Similarly the Mutiny of Tellichery
and Vizagapattnam in 1780, the Mutiny of 1781-1784 in Nagapatnam,
Trichinopoly, Madurai and Palancottah showed sympotoms of
simmering discontent.
In 1784, the Governor in Council received information from Col.
Leger about the mutiny in the cavalry regiments. The Mutineers were

This content downloaded from

27.59.230.9 on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 14:12:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
636 I HC: Proceedings, 72nd Session, 2011
determined to go with their horses to Tipu Sultan, the immediate enemy
of the company in the south, if they were not immediately paid their
allowances and salary. In 1786, mutiny was due to non-payment of
salaries.

There were a number of local mutinies that took place before the
Vellore Mutiny and the colonial Government started to suppress these
mutinies with their every possible manner. The Vellore Mutiny was
considerably grave than any other mutiny till 1 805. It was sparked off
by the refusal of Indian troops stationed at Vellore, in May 1806, to
wear new turbans issued to them. The order for the turban had been
notified to the troops in garrison in May that year. One of the natives
infantry battalion resented the new turban as it was objectionable, firstly
because its shape resembled the European hat and secondly, because it
contained a leather cockade, which was objectionable to both Hindus
and Muslims. The grounds for mutiny had thus been prepared previously
and dissatisfaction increased when certain alterations in dress were
introduced in sepoy corps by an order of the Commander-in-chief, dated
the 13th March, 1806.
The Vellore mutiny was the first illustration of a mutiny by native
sepoys against the British East India Company. The mutiny occurred
during the formative stage of colonial rule in south India, particularly
the transition period from pre-colonial to the colonial mode of
governance. The Vellore mutiny was a multi-dimensional, but primarily
a military protest against a new Article of Clothing.
The immediate cause for this mutiny as noted earlier was the
introduction of a new turban (a head dress worn chiefly by the sepoys
consisting of a long cloth wound around the head) and dress regulations
based on the advice and superintendence of Col. Agnew, one adjutant-
general and Major Price, the deputy adjutant-general. The new dress
regulation, issued on 13th March 1806, is furnished here below:
"It is ordered by the regulations that a native soldier should not mark
his face to denote his caste or wear earrings, when dressed in his
uniform and it is further clean shaved on the chin. It is directed also
that uniformity shall as far as practicable be preserved in regard to
the qualification and shape of the hair upon the lip."17
While imposing this condition very little care was taken to respect the
sentiments of the native soldier. So these stipulations were viewed as
measures calculated to hurt the feelings of the native sepoys in their
most disposed part of their religious and race distinctions as well as in
social status and irritate them against the government. Since the old
turban was considered inconvenient, it was proposed to replace it by a
lighter one which was better suited to the military character.

This content downloaded from

27.59.230.9 on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 14:12:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Modem India 637

The new turban as approved by Lt.

Commander-in-Chief was made of bro
with the exception of a cotton tuft, m
leather cockade. It resembled the leath
of King's regiments. The native sepoy
dress regulation. Both Hindus and Mu
customs and manners, habit and opin
shave off his beard which was comm
Similarly, a caste Hindu had the ha
symbolise his religious sect. They
earrings.18
Apart from these grievances, the new turban was considered highly
objectionable in the first place. It was like a European hat and secondly,
it contained a leather cockade expected to be made from the skin of
cows, which was a taboo to Hindus. In India, hat was particularly
associated with Christians who were referred to as Topi- Wallahs or
Hat- Wearers. Consequently, the sepoy felt that the introduction of the
new regulations was the first step to convert them into Christianity.
According to the intelligence received by the Commander-in-Chief,
there was a feeling of alarm that the next attempt will be to Christianise
the sepoys. Sensing the mode of despair among the sepoys, the
Commander-in-Chief felt that there was almost universal objection to
the new turban.

Secondly, the son of Tippu Sultan of Mysore is also said to have a

hand in it. A conspiracy had been hatched long before the introduction
of the new turban. There was a powerful group at Vellore working for
the abolition of the Company's rule and restoration of the Tippu 's family
in the Carnatic. They were said to have induced the sepoys to challenge
the British by refusing to wear the new turban.
The dissatisfaction of the sepoy was not long concealed when the
orders regarding wearing the new turban came in May 1806. The 2nd
Battalion of the 4th Regiment of native infantry refused to wear the
turban sent for their use.

The rebellious sepoys were severely punished and it aggravated

the matter further. The actions of the second battalion were followed
by several other battalions. The Mutiny at Vellore broke out at 3 am on
Sunday, 10th July 1806.19
After the fight, casualties were counted and the damage was
assessed. The soldiers and coolies rounded the human corpses and
separated the dead Europeans from the sepoys and others who had been
killed. These bodies were pushed out from the fort with help of the

This content downloaded from

27.59.230.9 on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 14:12:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
638 IHC: Proceedings, 72nd Session, 2011

carts to a nearby burial ground, and a huge pile of burning wood was
used to burn the dead and the bones and ashes were later filled in a pit
The sepoys killed a large number of British officers. Fifteen British
officers were killed and three wounded. Eighty three other British were
killed and Ninety four were wounded, among them fifteen of the latter
mortally. One European child was killed and another one was wounded:
The climatic condition was such that huge piles of decaying bodies
could cause epidemics. Consequently, the British ordered that the dead
bodies should be disposed as quickly as possible. However, the accurate
figures of the Indians who had died remained a bone of contention
among the historians.
Nearly two lakhs pagodas worth of cash and goods were reported
to have been destroyed and several buildings were damaged and some
of them were completely destroyed. However, it was ruthlessly
suppressed by the European regiment and the ring leaders were
sentenced to death. The battalion involved in the Mutiny of Vellore
was disbanded. The princes of Tippu Sultan were transported to Bengal
from Vellore Fort. Finally, the dress regulations were withdrawn in
order to respect the religious sentiments of the native soldiers and the
old head wear was restored.

On 15 April 1 807, the Court of Directors sent out an order requiring

the removal of Lord William Bentinck from the post of Governor and
Lt. General Sir J.F. Craddock from the post of Commander-in-Chief
respectively for their mismanagement of the affairs. The failure of the
authorities to initiate prompt measure was felt to have been the cause
of the rebellion of the hitherto well behaved and distinguished corps.
So we may conclude that, the Vellore Mutiny occurred mainly due
to the disregard shown to the religious sentiments of the native soldiers.
Being foreigners, the officers on the spot were unable to appreciate
their sentiments. If only they had developed some sympathetic attitude,
the British could have averted this unpleasant episode. However, it
had happened. Albeit, the mutiny of 1806, the sepoy remained loyal
and earned the appreciation from the European officers. For example,
what Major General Macdowell had once observed about thè native
troops is "Our native troops have been and are likely to continue to be,
the most faithful army in the world"
The life of the European officers and the soldiers were different
from the natives who occupied the ranks of the Madras Army. The
natives were denied privileges whereas the European was entitled to
enjoy certain privileges. The climatic condition was much against the
European. So, they were provided facilities in accordance with the
customs that prevailed in Europe. But such privileges were not allowed

This content downloaded from

27.59.230.9 on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 14:12:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Modem India 639

to the natives in any circumstances. U

the military officers of the Company
Academy at Wodwick and later on
college at Addiscombe. Some of the o
were being purchased by their comm
much younger than the Company's
differences there were discontents an
officers of the King's and Company's
positions and promotions the offi
normally considered for distinguis
Commander-in-Chief. Apart from tha
were given preferential treatment
furnished buildings and garrison.
The British officers were allowed t
example a captain in garrison had a gr
personal work. Besides, while in the f
by 1 5 to 20 coolies to carry his persona
officers were lodged comfortably in
constructed with low varandhas and
were hung in the varandhas to keep t
The officers spent their nights in d
them spent their leisure in the libra
Besides, some of the European officer
with native women. Their children w
The Madras government also reserved
the Anglo-Indians later like drums an
and Bugle and Farrier Major.
Dancing was one of the chief am
hunting and shooting. The soldier's l
intense heat and unhealthy climate
susceptible to many diseases like feve
These diseases were responsible for t
several Europeans lost their lives due
liquor also. The unhygienic condition
soldiers were accommodated was anot
casualties. However, medical facilities
those days venereal diseases were c
hospitals at certain selected military s
women were treated. There were e
evacuation of casualties of wounded
European or native corps was attached
The plaques were assigned to remove

This content downloaded from

27.59.230.9 on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 14:12:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
640 IHC: Proceedings, 72nd Session, 2011

from the field without discomfort. There were also several praise-
worthy charitable institutions run by the army, like male orphan asylum,
the female orphan asylum, the infirmary and the native poor asylum in
the Madras Presidency. The asylums for the orphans were maintained
at Madras for the children of both European officers and soldiers.
Similarly, the native poor asylum gave relief to the native sick and
poor of all classes. Medical and surgical assistance were provided to
all the native sufferings from diseases.20
The status of native sepoys in society was very high. It was a great
privilege for him to be a sepoy in the Madras Army. But, the treatment
given to the natives in the army by the British officer was not very
humane. Abusing and striking the native sepoys were common practices.
The Europeans in the presidency were given complete freedom. Such
uncontrolled freedom of the Europeans led generally to acts of tyranny
and suppression of the natives. The authorities were very much worried
about the attitude of the officers towards the natives. It was safe for
the English to rule a foreign land if the natives gave respect to them.
One way of gaining respect from the natives was to speak their language.
So every officer who got commission was advised to give special
attention to the learning of native language. Hindustani was officially
recognised as the sepoy language since it was the general language of
Hindustan. Consequently, the Company ordered that all Commanding
officers of the sepoy battalion should be able to communicate in that
language. This should be deemed an essential qualification. Besides,
knowledge of Hindustani was made compulsory for the post of Adjutant
and other staff appointment. Similarly later the study of Hindustani
was declared to be a part of the duty of the European officers. It needs
to be mentioned here that the system of awarding gifts to the successful
candidates of the entrance examination was introduced during this time
in the Presidency.
The condition of the native officers was deplorable. The attitude
of the European soldiers towards the native officers was equally bad.
Even an English sergeant commanded the native officers of the highest
rank. The native officers were compelled to live in the same tents along
with the sepoys in the camp. Generally, the native officers acted as the
link between the sepoys and the commanding officers. As discussed
before, the British gentlemen were better paid than the native officers.
Tne European soldiers were accommodated in barracks, whereas the
native sepoys were made to live in huts.
In spite of these pit-falls and short comings, the system of discipline
in the Madras Army was quite good. The general spirit of the Army,
we could say was good. It was only under a particular set of

This content downloaded from

27.59.230.9 on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 14:12:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Modem India 64 1

circumstances that mutinies occurred.

that can be safely made about these mu
conflict between certain requirements of
sentiments of the sepoys sparked off a
Albeit having sufficient cause for d
remained well disciplined and loyal till
rule. During the time of troubles like
sepoy Mutiny of 1857, the Madras Ar
and extended their support to the Govern
the Company for which the Madras Ar

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1 . Major Madan Paul Singh, Indian Army under the East India Company , New
1976, p. 163.
2. C. W.E. Cornduff, Military and Cantonment Law In India , Calcutta, 1904, p. LXXX
3. Chesney George , Indian Polity: View of the System of Administation, London, 1894,
p. 221
4. Historical Records of the Honourable East India Company's First Madras European
Regiment, London, 1843, p. 2
5. Gautam Sharma, Indian Army through the Ages , New Delhi, 1969, p. 23 1
6. Peter Auber, An Analysis of the Constitution of the East India Company , London,
1826, p. 457.
7. Henry Dodwell, Sepoy Recruitment in the Old Madras Army , Calcutta, 1922, p. 34
8. Parliamentary Paper (Microfilm) Vol. 1, p. 309, Commons 392 of 1832.
9. Minute by Governor General dated 16 February 4835, vol. 40, p. 449, No. 319 of
1836.

10. James W. Hoover, Men without Hats , New Delhi, 2007, p. 107.
11. J. Talboys Wheeler, Madras in the Olden Time , Madras, 1861, pp.252-54
12. Military G.O. Madras, 1806, vol. 13, dated 17th July 1806.
13. Idib., 22 August 1806, TNSA
14. General Orders by the Commander-in-Chief of Madras Army, 13 March 1806, Tamil
Nadu State Archives, Chennai (Hereafter TNSA)
15. Amiya Barat, The Bengal Native Infantry : Its organization and Discipline , Calcutta,
1962, p. 65
16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.

1 8. Military Department Consultation , 24 September 1 806, TN A.

19. Ibid .

20. Military Department Consultation, 6 January 1809,TNA

This content downloaded from

27.59.230.9 on Sun, 20 Sep 2020 14:12:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms