HL Deb 05 August 1925 vol 62 cc751-61

LORD OLIVIER had given Notice to ask the Secretary of State for India—

1.Whether he can give the House any information in supplement of a Report (headed "Inhuman Punjab Jailors") which appeared in the Morning Post newspaper of July 24, of a judgment given in a defamation case brought by an Indian jailor in Multan jail, in which the Judge is stated to have held that grave allegations of inhuman treatment of prisoners were proved, and to have expressed his opinion that two officers of the Jail Department, in giving evidence, showed a bias in favour of the plaintiff;

2. Whether the recommendations of the Indian Jails Committee, 1919–20, with respect to the appointment of unofficial visitors, have been carried out at Multan Jail and other Indian prisons generally;

3. Whether any complaint of ill-treatment of prisoners had been made to any visitors of Multan Jail and reported by them, and, if so, with what outcome; and

4. Whether he will invite the Government of India to make further investigation into the experiences of prisoners in Indian jails:

and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, should like to set before you the text of the 'report out of which my Question arises. I will read a quotation from the Morning Post of July 24, which says: Considerable interest has been aroused by the judgment given in a defamation case brought by an Indian jailor in Multan jail, one of the largest in India, with accommodation for 1,400 prisoners, against Lala Lajpat Rai's paper Bande Mataram, of Lahore, for publishing an interview with a political prisoner in the jail, alleging that most inhuman treatment was meted out to the prisoners. The Judge held that the graver part of the alleged facts was proved. He therefore awarded only nominal damages. The Judge held that it was proved by overwhelming evidence that during the plaintiff's tenure of office prisoners were punished with ear holding' and with shoe beating. It had also been proved that indiscriminate beating with the fists and kicking were practised by the head convicts. I think the word "convicts" must be a mistake, and I shall give your Lordships my reasons for saying so later. Moreover, it had been shown that the jailors extorted money by maltreating the prisoners till they received illegal payments irons the prisoners' relatives. The Judge expressed his opinion that Major Trutter"— whose name should be Truter— and Major Wadia, a superintendent in the Jails Department, in giving evidence showed a certain bias in favour of the plaintiff. Lala Lajpat Rai, writing in the Press, declares that the malpractices complained of are not even a fraction of those in vogue in the Punjab jails, and offers his full co-operation to the Government in the task of uprooting such abuses.

I have been able to obtain rather fuller information regarding the actual evidence given by some of the witnesses and I will read to your Lordships a very short extract:— Witness C. Ram, ex-prisoner in Multan Jail, deposed that 'Gidar Kut' had been inflicted on him. He explained that 'Gidar Kut' was a punishment in vogue in the jail, in which ten or fifteen convict warders were let loose on a convict and thrashed him indiscriminately. Witness had been thrashed for protesting that the food given was improperly cooked and the bread below weight. Witness had also received another punishment called 'Kan parade,' in which the prisoner was forced to pull his own ears by passing his hands through his legs, and was then thrashed while in this position. Another witness corroborated this evidence, and described also how the most unnatural crimes were committed by the warders against the prisoners. Another witness said he had 'Gidar Kut' inflicted on him, after which he was kicked and thrown into a refuse tank, where he was forced to remain for half an hour. On his refusing to apologise, the warders again thrashed him. He testified that neither the non-official visitors nor the European officers ever listened to the convicts' grievances. There have been many other complaints of Indian prison administration, more especially in regard to the treatment of some of the political prisoners who were imprisoned after the Akali disturbances in the Punjab, but I am not going to deal with the whole of these. I am only putting before your Lordships matters which were given in evidence in the Courts and which the Judge held to be completely proved. Those are incidents, I think your Lordships will agree, which prove how extraordinarily inefficient must be the administration and control in the prison in which they occur.

I have felt myself under some personal obligation to bring this matter to the notice of your Lordships and to urge the noble and learned Earl, the Secretary of State, to make some further inquiry into it. Mr. Lajpat Rai, the editor of the paper against which proceedings were taken, was in England last summer and I saw a good deal of him. I was discussing with him and getting from him his views with regard to the Indian Government and Indian public affairs generally. Towards the end of his stay here he asked me if he might put before me certain points upon which he felt very strongly, which were not political questions but matters in which the Government of India was incurring grave criticism from Indian public opinion, and which he thought might be remedied if attention were called to them in a judicious manner. One of the things to which he called my attention was the treatment of prisoners in jails, with regard to which he gave me many particulars, which I will not rehearse to your Lordships because they are matters of hearsay. But there were particulars with regard to the accommodation, the close and fetid confinement to which political prisoners are subject, and so on, matters of physical experience which could be easily proved by an inspection by unofficial persons, even if they might not be admitted or taken cognisance of by the official people responsible for them.

The facts he put before me so impressed me that there was a case for inquiry that I promised him that I would take means, without publicity, after the Recess, to draw the attention of the Viceroy of India to these representations and to ask him to look into the matter. After the

Recess I was not in a position to do this, and Mr. Lala Lajpat Rai apparently has taken the alternative course of according publicity in his newspaper to these complaints, or some of them, with the result that a very damaging judgment has been passed upon the administration of Indian prisons and one which, I think your Lordships will agree, calls for some further inquiry and explanation. I am not bringing any kind of general indictment against the Indian prison administration. Indeed, in many respects for many years it was very much better than the prison administration in our own country. But it is a very surprising thing to me that these abuses should exist even if only in one jail—the Multan jail—such a very short time after the very efficient Report which was drawn up by a very strong Committee on the Indian jail system and which reported in the year 1919, only five or six years ago.

I must say that the defect of that Report, as it appeared to me, was that it still proceeded rather too much from the point of view of the official machine; that is to say, what is the best way of administering a prison, what are the best rules, and so on, and not quite sufficiently from the point of view to which all prison reformers are now devoting their attention—what is the psychological effect on the individual prisoners themselves and what are their own experiences in prison. Speaking generally, however, it was a very enlightened and excellent Report, and from it I wish to quote only one passage. The Report says— A sufficient number of official and nonofficial visitors should be appointed for every central and district jail and for such subsidiary jails as the Local Government may direct. All Local Governments should consider the question of bringing the number of non-official visitors in their Province up to the Bengal standard, viz, two for subsidiary jails, three for district jails and six for central jails. Then they go on to say— It should be clearly understood (1) that no visitor can be allowed to go round a jail without an escort, which is necessary for his personal safety and should consist of at least two warders.… No prisoner should be punished for any complaint or statement made to a visitor unless that visitor concurs. It is most unfortunate that this recommendation that no unofficial visitor should go round a jail unless accompanied by two warders should have been of a character which inevitably renders the provision of unofficial visitors entirely nugatory.

Even if the unofficial visitor goes round with one warder, he will not get a complaint from any prisoner under normal circumstances in an English jail, and certainly not in an Indian jail, where we are told that the warders are more corrupt than they are in the English jails. He will not get any complaint if there is one warder only and certainly not if there are two, who are in a position to know what the complaint is and will concert together to refute it. I am not surprised to see that the provision for unofficial visitors, so guarded, appears to have been practically, so far as any good effect is concerned, a dead letter. The provision that no prisoner should be punished for any complaint or statement made to a visitor unless that visitor concurs is, again, a provision which is likely to increase the very great suspicion and timidity of prisoners of making any kind of representation on account of which they know that the warders can, and will, get back on them. When I put my Question I asked whether non-official visitors have been appointed. I now see from this further Report that certain nonofficial visitors apparently have been appointed, but it was testified by a witness that neither non-official visitors nor European officers ever listen to the convict's grievances.

So we have two facts. First of all, a very grave and scandalous lack of discipline on the part of the warders in these prisons, and abuse and ill treatment of prisoners are proved. We also have, apparently, proved in evidence that the non-official visitors and the European officers do not pay attention to the representations made by the prisoners to them. The Judge is reported to have expressed his opinion that Major Truter and Major Wadia, a superintendent, in giving evidence, showed a certain bias in favour of the plaintiff. Of course they did. Everybody who has had anything to do with public administration generally in many Departments, and I have had a great deal to do in the way of personal responsibility with prison Departments, knows that, of all public Departments, the Department concerned in the administration of prisons is the most self-righteous and most obscurantist and most confident that no outside person can make any reason- able criticism upon its administration, They are so now; they always have been so. They are more so even than the police because the police, although extremely self-righteous and obscurantist, do come from time to time under the healthy discipline of such inquiries as the one which has been proceeding lately with regard to certain occurrences at Vine Street. I do not want to say that these prison officials were sinners above all other prison officials. I myself, as a result of my own experience and responsibility in various grades during my life of prison administration, learnt very thoroughly to sympathise with any responsible prison officer, who is irritated by and resents criticism of prison administration.

The whole system of our prison administration, the whole method by which we attempt to deal with crime and to suppress it, and the systems which have been in force in our prisons and which are only gradually being reformed are so ridiculous, so stupid, so inhuman and so disheartening to any one who has had any kind of responsibility for them, that that branch of administration, to any sensible and reasonable man, is a source of perpetual distress, I might almost say of despair. He has to do with an inefficient and ill-trained staff, a staff for which he cannot get enough money to pay properly, a staff which is imbued with the old traditions of prison administration which are now entirely superseded in the minds of enlightened persons. Having to combat all these things, any person in responsible control of a prison feels very great sympathy with those of his officers under him who are attempting to deal with the difficulties of the prison system. Consequently, it is only to be expected, and it is almost a venial and pardonable phenomenon, that a prison superintendent should show a bias in favour of exonerating his own subordinates, and it is fortunate that from time to time these questions come before a Judge, who is bound to express, simply from the point of view of justice, equity and public interest, what his opinion is of such proceedings as have been disclosed in this case.

What I want to press upon my noble friend the Secretary of State for India is that he will give me answers to the definite questions I have asked him, and also say whether he will invite the Government of India to make a fresh investigation into the experiences of prisoners in Indian jails. I want those investigations to be made from the point of view of the prisoners themselves. There is at present great conflict between two theories of prison administration. One is the mechanical theory and the other the humanitarian theory, for which we are very largely indebted, as the Indian Prison Commission of 1919 themselves admitted, to the United States of America. The line on which at present reform is now proceeding is to attempt to deal, not so much with the mechanism of the prison and rules for warders, but with the personality of the prisoners or the effect of the prison. It was only when we began to get into our prisons the suffragettes and conscientious objectors that we began to get really reputable testimony as to certain evils which the prison authorities had persistently refused to admit. I must say that the suffragette movement and the conscientious objector movement have done a great deal to fortify public opinion and to promote that tendency to improve our own prison system which, I am glad to say, I now recognise is actuating our Prison Commissioners.

But the same kind of criticism and approach is evidently necessary in India. You ought to approach the question of Indian prison conditions from the point of view of the many political prisoners you have there. Those are people whom you may say are seditious, but they are mostly honourable and humane men and they can give definite and good critical evidence as to the things which go on in the prisons. I want to have the challenge of Lala Lajpat Rai taken up. He declares that the malpractices complained of are not even a fraction of those involved in the Punjab jails and he offers full co-operation to the Government in the task of uprooting such abuses. I want to have that offer taken up. I know him well enough to know that that offer is made in good faith. I know that he and many others are able to give the Government a tale of prison administration which they cannot get from superintendents or from the best meaning prison administrators, who are inclined to look upon the administration of prisons from what I might call the mechanical point of view. It appeared to me when I was in office that there was a case for inquiry into the management of Indian jails, not necessarily with publicity.

The publicity has now come. I suggest that such an incident as this gives cause for thought and that there is reason for urging the Government of India to make further inquiries generally, from such unofficial witnesses as they can get, as to what are the conditions of the prisoners in Indian jails, and, further, to take in hand the amendment of the regulations in regard to unofficial visitors so that they may be withdrawn. It is a ridiculous and quite unnecessary provision that every non-official visitor to the prison must be accompanied by two warders. That is bound to render his visit entirely nugatory. I beg leave to put my Questions and to move.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD)

My Lords, I have not yet received by mail copies of the judgment and other papers regarding the Multan libel case, but, according to the information which is in my possession, the facts are as follows. An article was published in the Bande Mataram dated 3rd October, 1923, purporting to be an interview with a prisoner recently released from Multan jail, in which allegations were brought against Jamna Das, a first-grade jailer in Multan Central Jail, who has since retired on pension after service in the jail department of more than thirty-five years. These allegations were, in the judgment delivered in the ensuing libel case, as follows: (a), doing things against the rules;(b), shaving the beard and moustache; (c), prisoner caught by the moustache and spat at in the mouth; (d), holding the ear accompanied by shoe-beatingthis— this, I believe, is called the "Kan Parade," to which the noble Lord referred; (e), stopping prisoner's food and drink; (f), subjecting prisoner to "Gidar But"—this is what I believe is known as jackal parade, in which the convict is beaten and kicked by convict warders; (g), ducking prisoner in cistern of dirty water; (h), abusing prisoner.

The Government of the Punjab, on the publication of the article, ordered investigation by the Inspector-General of Prisons, who, after inquiry, reported that the allegations were without foundation and were false. The Government of the Punjab were advised that if the facts were as reported by the Inspector-General, the article was libellous, and the jailor, on being consulted, desired to bring a suit which was filed in the Court of the Sub-Judge claiming Rs. 5,100 as damages. The Local Government bore the cost of the suit. A large number of witnesses were examined, and it appears that the evidence was, to a considerable extent, conflicting. Judgment was delivered on July 9, and the conclusion of the Court was that allegations (d) and (f) were substantially true and correct, that is the allegation that the prisoner was held by the ear and beaten with shoes and also indiscriminately beaten by warders. The Court found that the allegations of spitting at the prisoner and withholding food and drink were not substantiated, and for various reasons the Court also discarded the other allegations mentioned.

The Court held that the graver portion of the libel had been proved to be true, and that the portion not proved did not constitute libel of a very grave nature. The Court was of the opinion that the plaintiff was only entitled to claim nominal damages. The damages were therefore fixed at Rs. 100 and half the costs. I have just been informed that the plaintiff jailor, Jamna Das, has asked the Punjab Government to file an appeal on his behalf, and that the Government of the Punjab have decided to give him the same assistance as in the original suit. As an appeal is pending, I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that it is undesirable either to enter into any further discussion of the details of the evidence produced in the case or as to the inferences which may be drawn therefrom.

The noble Lord asks me specific Questions with reference to unofficial visitors. I understand that the recommendation if the Indian Jails Committee of 1919–20, for the appointment of unofficial visitors, has been accepted by the Local Governments in all the Provinces in India, and has been put into effect in most, if not all, of the jails. Multan jail has been visited by unofficial visitors. The Government of the Punjab report that all the notes recorded by unofficial visitors from April 26, 1923, up to date have been carefully examined. Only three suggestions of ill-treatment are recorded. One was of a somewhat indefinite nature regarding hard work, which is not imme- diately relevant; the second, on April 27, 1923, mentions that out of all the prisoners one only made complaint, and he alleges that a jail official had beaten him last month but not subsequently. A third note, dated January 21, 1925, records that one convict complained of being beaten by a convict officer; some Akali prisoners supported him in his tale, but others expressed doubt as to its truth. The Government of the Punjab state that none of these reports recorded in the visitors' book indicated any necessity for special inquiries and none were made.

It is obvious that the findings of the Court are disquieting, and whether or not they are materially modified as a result of the appeal, it is clear that the matter requires, and will certainly have, the closest consideration by the Local Government, the Government of India and the Secretary of State in Council. But the noble Lord will not expect me to express any opinion either on the facts or as to any action to be taken by the Government until the result of the pending appeal is known.

The noble Lord referred to one matter which is not specifically raised in his Question, and that is as to the practice of unofficial visitors being accompanied by warders. I am not aware of the facts, but I will be very careful to ascertain them. In a matter in which I have not examined the facts I do not go quite to the length of the noble Lord and dismiss as entirely useless the presence of visitors attended by warders. To me it is plain that either the visitor has been wisely selected or he has not. If the visitor has been wisely selected the idea that the presence of a warder would really in any way disable him from discharging his duties efficiently seems to me not to be reasonable. If I were paying a visit to a prison and a warder walked round with me, or two warders, I should ask myself: "What is the duty I have to discharge? What scheme have I prepared in order to discharge it?" I have to see so many prisoners, and I should not think that the presence of a warder would make any great difference. In some of these jails, where the prisoners are very violent, the task of visiting them and eliciting complaints would not be one to excite great enthusiasm. We might elicit something besides complaints if we went round without a warder. However, the noble Lord has made me quite aware of his wishes, and I will make the inquiries which I have promised.

LORD OLIVIER

I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his reply, and I recognise that as the judgment of the Court is under appeal it is difficult for hint to give me a fuller answer at the moment. I should like to say one word with regard to his criticism on the presence of unofficial visitors who are not to go round prisons except accompanied by two warders. I do not suggest that the presence of two warders would paralyse the judgment of the non-official visitor, but it would paralyse communications on the part of prisoners, who are supposed to be able to make complaints. From what I know of prison systems I know that prisoners are afraid of making complaints because of the effect it might have on them.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

I did not understand that to be the noble Lord's point, but I still adhere to my view that there are many cases in which it would be unsafe for unofficial visitors to go round prisons without warders.

LORD OLIVIER

I have known a good many dangerous prisoners, but if you have a well-selected visitor he will be well able to judge whether lie can go round without fear of violence, and I never heard in all my experience of any prisoner, unless he was a lunatic, showing any disposition to assault the non-official prison visitor. And he is still less likely to assault him if he knows that he is a sympathetic man who is prepared to listen to his complaints with consideration.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.