Malabar History journal

The carceral infrastructure in colonial Malabar was characterized by a blend of adaptation and innovation. Rather than embarking on new construction projects, the British administration repurposed existing fortifications for carceral purposes (Nair, 2018). Noteworthy among these was the St. Angelo Fort in Kannur, originally erected by the Portuguese in 1505, which underwent successive transformations under Dutch control, including the conversion of a segment into a carceral facility (ibid). Similarly, the Thalassery Fort, an exclusive establishment of the East India Company (EEIC), exhibited a bifurcated functionality, housing both administrative offices and a subterranean prison (Rajendran, 1979; Ward & Conner, 1995/1906). This trend extended even beyond colonial rule, as exemplified by the continued utilization of the Palakkad Fort for carceral purposes post-independence (Buchannan, 1807).

The historical documentation underscores the primitive nature of carceral infrastructure in Malabar, characterized by rudimentary structures like mud-built jails and karagrihams (Ward & Conner, 1995/1906). The advent of a modern penitentiary system by the East India Company led to the ad hoc attachment of prisons to existing fortifications (ibid). However, the ill-suited nature of many such structures for confinement due to their original architectural designs posed significant operational challenges (ibid). Overcrowding emerged as a recurrent issue, particularly evidenced by the inadequate spatial provisions of the Kozhikode jail (Letter from Malabar, 1805). Despite administrative endeavors to address these concerns through proposals for improved infrastructure, fiscal constraints impeded their materialization (ibid).

The latter half of the 19th century witnessed a transformative phase in Malabar’s carceral landscape, marked by the phasing out of archaic carceral facilities and the establishment of new, ostensibly modern institutions (Ward & Conner, 1995/1906). The Central Jail in Kannur, modeled on the architectural principles of England’s Pentonville Prison, epitomized this transition (Surveyor General of Prisons, 1844). Nevertheless, the persistent challenge of overcrowding underscored the disjunction between idealized models and practical realities (Arnold & Hardiman, 1994). By the dawn of the 20th century, Malabar boasted a proliferation of carceral establishments, encompassing a central penitentiary, a specialized sub-jail, and an extensive network of auxiliary facilities (Manual of Administration of Madras Presidency, 1885). This trajectory delineates the evolving contours of carceral governance in Malabar over successive epochs.

The early period of colonial imprisonment in Malabar encompassed a diverse array of detainees, ranging from debtors to individuals charged with offenses against the state, with the latter comprising a significant portion of the prison populace (Warden, 1804). This demographic composition underscores the colonial state’s utilization of prisons as a tool for quelling political dissent and safeguarding its interests (ibid). Furthermore, colonial carceral practices were intricately entwined with considerations of race, caste, and religion, as evidenced by the recognition of caste hierarchies within prison systems (Manual of Administration of Madras Presidency, 1885). The Madras Manual itself acknowledges the caste system’s influence, particularly in ensuring the provision of suitable cooks for all castes and exempting higher castes from certain tasks like scavenger work and shoe making (ibid). However, the prevailing focus on economic considerations precluded the adoption of solitary confinement measures, contributing to chronic issues of overcrowding (Sen, 2007). David Arnold’s analysis further links the swelling prison population to societal phenomena such as food scarcities and famines, a pattern mirrored in Malabar’s carceral landscape (Arnold & Hardiman, 1994). Indeed, the region’s susceptibility to famines exacerbated prison overcrowding, necessitating the reopening of facilities like the Palakkad Jail in 1876 (ibid). Consequently, epidemics and heightened mortality rates within prisons became grim corollaries of these socio-economic upheavals (ibid).

The administration of colonial prisons in Malabar vested significant authority in the hands of the superintendent, who wielded punitive measures for infractions of prison regulations (Manual of Administration of Madras Presidency, 1885). These punishments included forfeiture of remission, degradation to lower class status, solitary confinement, loss of privileges, reduction in diet, corporal punishment, and other forms of disciplinary action (ibid). While the judiciary addressed criminal offenses within the prison, internal discipline was primarily enforced by prison authorities (ibid).

Food emerged as a significant catalyst for resistance among prisoners in colonial Malabar, reflecting broader discontent with prison conditions (Shumais, 2019). In 1879, a decision to alter the diet in Kannur Central Jail triggered a hunger strike among prisoners, with over a hundred inmates participating (ibid). The substitution of rice with twelve ragi and two rice diets per week was met with opposition from prisoners accustomed to a rice-based diet (Shumais, 2019). The hunger strike escalated into a riot, resulting in severe consequences, including the death of a prisoner and injuries to many others (ibid).

Escape from colonial jails was viewed as a serious breach of discipline, inviting severe repercussions for both prisoners and jail officials (Shumais, 2019). Throughout British rule in Malabar, escape attempts were commonplace among both criminal and political prisoners, prompting punitive measures such as transportation and corporal punishment (ibid). The timing of escapes, often under the cover of darkness or during festivals, underscored the strategic nature of such attempts (ibid). Wardens were also held accountable for escape incidents, facing termination or punishment for their failures in preventing escapes (ibid).

In conclusion, colonial prisons in Malabar were emblematic of colonial authority and served as sites of both control and resistance (Logan, 1998). The study of these institutions is vital for understanding the dynamics of colonial governance and indigenous resistance during the period under examination. Moreover, delving into unexplored dimensions of Malabar’s carceral history, such as the socioeconomic ramifications of colonial imprisonment and the enduring repercussions of incarceration in post-colonial Malabar, presents promising avenues for future research. By broadening our scope to encompass the lived experiences of prisoners and the lasting legacies of colonialism in Malabar’s society, scholars can offer nuanced insights into justice, human rights, and the ongoing process of decolonization in the region.

References

Arnold, D., & Hardiman, D. (Eds.). (1994). Subaltern Studies VIII. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.

Barker, F. A. (1930). Imprisonment. Madras, India: Christian Literature Society.

Buchannan, F. (1807). A Journey from Madras through the Countries, Mysore, Canara and Malabar. London, UK: Publisher.

Logan, W. A. (1998). A Collection of Treaties, Engagements, and Other Papers of Importance Relating to British Affairs in Malabar. Thiruvananthapuram, India: Publisher.

Manual of Administration of Madras Presidency, Vol. I. (1885). Madras, India: Publisher.

Morris, N., & Rothman, J. D. (Eds.). (1998). The Oxford History of Prison. Oxford, UK; New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Nair, K. Sivasankaran. (2018). Keralam Dutchukarude Drishtiyil. Thiruvananthapuram, India: State Institute of Languages.

Rajendran, N. (1979). Establishment of British Power in Malabar. Allahabad, India: Publisher.

Sen, M. (2007). Prisons in Colonial Bengal. Kolkata, India: Thema.

Shumais, U. (2019). State as an Oppressive Instrument: The Jail Experiences of Political Prisoners in Malabar, 1921-1947 (Unpublished master’s thesis). Department of History, University of Calicut.

Surveyor General of Prisons. (1844). Report of the Surveyor General of Prisons on the Construction of Ventilation and Details of Pentonville Prison. London, UK: Publisher.

Ward, A., & Conner, B. (1995). A Descriptive Memoir of Malabar (Original work published in 1906). Thiruvananthapuram, India: Publisher.

Warden, T. (1804, September). Letter from Thomas Warden, Principal Collector of Malabar, Secretary to Government Judicial Department, Fort St. George Madras. In Extract from Malabar Commissioners’ Report.