General Will or Public Order? The Debate on Criminal Justice Policy in Early Colonial Himalaya, 1815–1816

Journal article

When the British East India Company (EIC) conquered the West Himalaya region in the 1810s, it faced a critical challenge commonly encountered by colonial empires: determining the extent of intervention in intracommunity criminal matters among colonized subjects. This article examines the archived correspondence of colonial officials regarding this challenge and scrutinizes the various arguments made for and against intervention. It shows that the alterity of the subject population was strategically employed by both sides of the debate, who simultaneously promoted contradictory agendas: for those advocating intervention, alterity rendered involvement in criminal matters necessary and just, whereas those averse to intervention employed the very same notion to justify the opposite stance. This dual usage is explained by exposing the contemporary ideas about criminal justice that underlay each of these positions: that criminal law should represent the general will of society, and that it must be executed by a centralized power so as to maintain public order. While these two tenets are commonly perceived as supporting one another, the analysis reveals their decoupling in colonial settings. The debates of EIC officials thus demonstrate how the colonial setting distorts ideas foundational to modern criminal law systems, casting doubt over whether they were ever truly in harmony to begin with.

Authors: Ballas, I; Moran, A

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: Cambridge University Press
• Journal: Law and History Review
• Volume: 43
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 387-408
• Publication date: 2025-04-14
• Acceptance date: 2025-02-26
• DOI: 10.1017/s0738248025000069
• EISSN: 1939-9022
• ISSN: 0738-2480
• Language: English
• Keywords: Colonialism; Order (exchange); Economic Justice; Public order; Criminal justice; Political science; Law; Criminology; Sociology; Economics