Contextualizing the Historical Archive Essay Example

The court record of the Madras Light Cavalry is a written record of the trial proceedings in 1843, in which 17 sepoys from the 6th regiment in Arcot were tried for instigating and participating in a mutiny. They had been accused of mutiny for refusing to go to the parade field and writing letters of petition out of chain of command due to the discontinued payment of batta (field allowance) and being asked to move their families without assistance (1844 Trial Transcript 4). The trial took place in a British Military Court. In the time the trial took place the Indian legal system worked in plural court system with three courts: a British system, a Muslim system, and a Hindu system. These systems had different laws and rules based on religious legal practices and case precedents (Benton, 563). People were able to “forum shop” by trying to pick the court system their case would be heard in. People did this to get what they thought would be the best outcome for their trial. The Madras Light Cavalry was able to use British Common Law and pluralism to defend themselves. While their points were strong, this case led to laws that made it more difficult for people like Mangal Pandey to defend themselves later in the British Military court.

The outcome of the trial was not great for the members of the Madras Cavalry. While only two of them were executed for being the worst “agitators”, most of them were sentenced to death and then pardoned to do harsh labor (1844 Trial Transcript, 14). One of them was not found guilty because he had been found to be acting as a government informant. 

The main defense in their trial utilized British common law: case precedent.  Case precedent involves the use of the outcome of one case to influence or decide the outcome of future cases. The defendants argued that because they had been forgiven by their commanders before their trial had taken place, that they shouldn’t have gone to trial (1844 Trial Transcript, 9). The defendant’s used precedent, part of British common law to their advantage by presenting a case that had occurred in Britain that ended up not going to trial due to being pardoned by their commander before the trial had taken place. The British case that the Cavalry presented was very similar to their own. The defendants use of this case in their defense to establish precedent is a great example of the Madras Light Cavalry using the customs of the British court to their advantage.   

The Madras Light Cavalry also used pluralism as a tactic in their defense. Pluralism in India was not only observed in the plurality of having three different court systems. It was also in the mixture of, “…colonial law and the persistence, protection, and invention of indigenous legal practices”, being used in each of those courts (Benton, 563). The Cavalry not only referenced British Common Law (precedence) in their defense but described Indian customs to defend their writings of the petitions as a form of respect, with out the knowledge that petitions could be seen as objectionable by the British officers (1844 Trial Transcript, 11). Their use of customs from multiple legal systems allowed the Madras Light Cavalry to appeal to British norms, while explaining their actions so that the British Jury may understand their intentions. 

After the Trial of the Madras Cavalry, two new laws were made in the British Military Court that made it harder for future defendants to obtain a speedy and just trial. The Court decided that the Madras Light Cavalry had not waited too long to go to trial, extending trial dates to three years after the initial incident. There was another, more incendiary law that allowed commanders to execute any soldier for instigation of a mutiny or the like, without a trial. These new laws, as well as a turn to a more totalitarian system overall, made the British legal system in India more difficult to maneuver as a defendant after this trial.

While the members of the Madras Light Cavalry did not get the outcome they were looking for, due to their full use of the legal system, their sentencing was better than that of Mangal Pandey’s trial in 1857. Mangal Pandey was put on trial for attempting to insight a mutiny and was executed. His trial took place in a Military court with an Indian Jury that had been “reused” from another trial in which they presumably favored the British (Trial of Mangal Pandey, 113). The Madras Light Cavalry had a British Jury. This may have been more promising for the Cavalry as there would be a lesser probability of the Jury being threatened as with an Indian Jury. The Madras Light Cavalry followed and utilized the typical British trial proceedings, applied the outcome of previous British cases, and used Muslim customs to explain their actions to defend themselves. Mangal Pandey did not defend himself (Trail of Mangal Pandey, 126). This could have been for many reasons. Mangal Pandey’s trial took place while he was injured and was favorable to the British in both Jury and witnesses (Trial of Mangal Pandey ,113). It may have seemed hopeless for a good outcome for Pandey with all the changes to the legal system in India between 1844 and 1857. He may have decided that it was not worth defending himself because he believed that the outcome was predetermined. The Madras Light Cavalry was able to defend themselves, and the final verdict of their trial was preferable to that of Mangal Pandey’s due to their ability to use the legal system to their limited advantage. 

The Madras Light Cavalry was able to use British case law and Muslim customs in their defense. In Lauren Benton’s Journal Article, Benton discusses the plural legal system the East India Company employed in India during 19th century and how Indians were able to make use of it to their advantage. Later, in Mangal Pandey’s trial of 1857, most these abilities to maneuver the court system were no longer available to Indians making it difficult, if not impossible to have a speedy and just trial.