About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

34 Law & Hist. Rev. 783 (2016)
The Rare Infliction: The Abolition of Flogging in the Indian Army, circa 1835-1920

handle is hein.journals/lawhst34 and id is 801 raw text is: The Rare Infliction: the Abolition of Flogging in the Indian Army, circa 1835-1920 RADHIKA SINGHA the very rarity is argument for retention' On September 2, 1920, an amendment to the Indian Army Act abolished corporal punishment for the Indian soldier and follower and introduced field punishment as a substitute on active service.2 This emancipation 1. General Charles C. Egerton, insisting corporal punishment be retained in the Indian Army, June 6, 1907, India Office Library and Records, British Museum (hereafter IOR) IOR/L/Mil/7/13738. Corporal punishment was inflicted with the cat-o-nine-tails on the back, although menial followers could also be caned with a rattan. In the civil sphere, whipping was usually inflicted with a rattan on the posterior. 2. Act XXXVII of 1920. On active service the CO could award Field Punishment No.1 and No. 2 of up to 28 days to enrolled ranks. In the first case, the prisoner in irons was se- cured to a fixed object, in the second case he was not secured. Indian Army Act (hereafter IAA) (Act VIII of 1911) section (hereafter s) 24. Indian soldiers and followers were also exempted from a judicial whipping for any criminal offence (IAA, s 45) although this Radhika Singha teaches at the Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India <singha.radhika@gmail.com>.The author thanks Apama Balachandran, Neeladri Bhattacharya, Rashmi Pant, Janaki Nair, and Bhavani Raman for the opportunity to present this article at their lively conference, Thinking through the Law: South Asian Histories and the Legal Archive, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, April 25-27, 2013. The author gratefully ac- knowledges the insights they provided, as well as those of other scholars: Pratiksha Baxi, Mark Brown, Nonica Datta, Isaac Land, Gerald C. Oram, Philippa Levine, Douglas Peers, William Pinch, and Poorva Rajaram. The author also thanks Elizabeth Dale of Law and History Review, who nudged and tugged until the author sharpened her arguments. Finally, the author thanks Ravi Vasudevan for helping her to redraft this essay. Law and History Review August 2016, Vol. 34, No. 3 C the American Society for Legal History, Inc. 2016 doi:10.1017/SO73824801600016X

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most