Bengal's Battle for Equality: The Ilbert Bill Legacy

In 1883, during Lord Ripon's tenure as Viceroy, the Ilbert Bill was introduced. The bill stated that the district magistrates and session judges in India, who were mostly Indian, would be allowed to hear and give judgment in cases involving British subjects.  The British subjected the Ilbert Bill to severe repression before it was ultimately rewritten in a way that was most favorable to the British. The acrimonious dispute intensified animosity between Indians and the British and served as a forerunner to the establishment of the Indian National Congress a year later.

Natives in support of the Ilbert Bill in Bombay Town Hall, 1883, Image source- Wikipedia

India experienced several tragedies and massacres under British rule, which resulted in both expansion and devastation over the years. The passing of the Ilbert Bill, however, stands out as a particularly significant event amid all of this upheaval. A turning point in India's history was ultimately brought about by the adoption of the Ilbert Bill, which sparked a surge of tension and disarray across the country.

Following the 1857 Rebellion, the crown seized control of India's administration. Britishers were prohibited from being tried in front of a court-supervised by an Indian magistrate under the terms of the Indian Criminal Procedure Act, of 1861, which was approved by the British parliament. Because Indians at the time were extremely qualified to try a British accused in court—which was prohibited—there was discrimination between the British and the Indians. To alter the situation and put an end to this prejudice, George Frederick Samuel Robinson, also known as Lord Ripon, who was the Viceroy, promoted the Ilbert Bill, which was drafted by Sir Courtenay Peregrine Ilbert, a legal member of the Council of the Governor-General of India.

Significant agitation was caused by the implementation of the Ilbert Bill among the British populace, not just in Britain but also in India. The very thought of the Ilbert Bill was enough to give the British a headache, with tea and indigo plantation owners in Bengal, led by renowned Calcutta barrister Griffith Evans, spearheading the opposition. The mere prospect of British citizens being tried in front of Indian judges, those who were viewed as inferior by the British, struck a deep chord of anger and indignation among the British. The Bengal Chamber of Calcutta held a town hall meeting on February 28, 1883, during which several stirring speeches were delivered, and this is when the intensity of the general protests peaked.

The notion that Indian judges were unreliable in dealing with cases concerning English women was a potent piece of propaganda that garnered significant support against the Ilbert Bill. When the Revolt broke out in 1857, there were many claims against Indians for inappropriate behavior with British ladies. The British exploited these accusations as justification for opposing the bill. British women argued that Bengali women, whom they classified as "ignorant," were highly mistreated by their men and, as a result, shouldn't have the authority to decide situations concerning English women.

The Bengali women stepped up and asserted that they were far more educated than the British women at that time and had more academic degrees to their names in reaction to the British women's claims that the former were ignorant. The Bengali women also asserted that the University of Calcutta had started admitting female graduates to its degree programs before any of the British universities, serving as a poignant reminder of the crucial role that women played in determining India's future. Bengali women from Pune, Bombay, and elsewhere ardently supported the bill and signed a petition in its favor.

The press on the other side played a crucial role in abolishing the Ilbert Bill, with its influence reaching far and wide. The political press set out to actively influence government legislation in India for the first time, and when the bill came to fruition, it was not taken lying down. ‘The Times’ immediately stated its disapproval and launched a full-scale assault on the bill's merits. Hands trembling in expectation, the story was telegraphed to India and sent to publications like the ‘Statesman’ and the ‘Pioneer.’ So, with the media in charge and the verdict hanging in the balance, the stage was set for an epic battle of words.

Lord Ripon was obliged to reconsider the bill and present an acceptable version as a result of the ongoing resistance and debate in 1883. The bill was revised to specify that if a British accused was to receive a verdict from an Indian judge, a jury composed of at least 50% Europeans was a prerequisite. Finally, a compromise was reached, granting European and Indian District Magistrates and Sessions Judges the same authority to try Europeans. Despite this, a defendant always had the right to a trial by jury, with at least half the members being European.

The Ilbert Bill was implemented by Lord Rippon because he wanted to put an end to the discrimination between Indians and the British. He may have found that Indians were equally or more qualified in some areas than the British, and hence they had the merit to judge the trial of a defendant of any origin. The British majority, by all means, successfully opposed the rule, fiercely guarding their power and keeping the situation under their authority. The bill's acrimonious controversy exacerbated animosity between the British and Indians and served as a precursor to the Indian National Congress' establishment the following year. And in the end, the British majority succeeded in derailing the bill, dealing a crushing blow to India's judicial system. Today, we look back on the Ilbert Bill and recognize how it exposed the deeply insidious bias within the British-Indian power dynamics, a significant reminder of how far we have come and how far we have left to go.