The Construction of the “Enemy” by Criminal Law: Feindstrafrecht and the Suppression of the Thuggee in Colonial India (1836–1848)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47152/ziksi2026021Keywords:
Feindstrafrecht, Thuggee, East India Company, colonial legislation, criminalization in the preliminary stage, combat legislation, restriction of procedural guarantees, construction of the “enemy”Abstract
This paper examines the Thuggee (and Dacoity) Suppression Acts, enacted by the East India Company between 1836 and 1848, through the lens of the contemporary theoretical concept of Feindstrafrecht (enemy criminal law), developed by the German legal theorist Günther Jakobs. Given that this concept is applied in the literature exclusively to the analysis of contemporary phenomena – primarily terrorism and legislation aimed at (or justified by) waging the “War on Terror” – the paper focuses on determining the extent to which the key characteristics of Feindstrafrecht – criminalization in the preliminary stage; the lack of proportionality between punishment and the perpetrator’s guilt; combat legislation; and the restriction of procedural guarantees – can be identified in 19th-century colonial legislation. The analysis of eleven acts shows that all four characteristics are present, in a manner indicating that contemporary control mechanisms have deep historical roots in colonial practice. This relativizes the thesis that contemporary theoretical concepts in criminal law and criminology can be applied exclusively in the analysis of current phenomena and processes, opening the possibility for drawing historical parallels. In this way, the paper could be situated within critical approaches in criminal law and criminology, and potentially more broadly in security studies, contributing to a better understanding of the relationship between the power to define, that is, to construct the ‘enemy’ in a broad historical context.
References
Act III Title or description: An Act for removing doubts as to the meaning of the words „Thug“ and „Thuggee“ and the expression „Murder by Thuggee“ when used in the Acts of the Council of India. Date of Enactment: February 26th 1848; Presiding Governor: Marquess Dalhousie. (1848).
Act V An Act to facilitate the execution of the sentences of Courts established by the authority of the Governor-General in Council for the administration of Criminal Justice in States or Territories administered by Officers acting under the authority of the East India Company. Date of Enactment: April 10th, 1847; Presiding Governor: Lord Henry Hardinge. (1847).
Act X Title or description: An Act for amending Act XXX. of 1836 relating to the trial and punishment of Thugs. Date of Enactment: June 19th 1847; Presiding Governor: Lord Hardinge. (1847).
Act XI An Act for the punishment of wandering Gangs of Thieves and Robbers. Date of Enactment: May 20th 1848; Presiding Governor: Marquess Dalhousie. (1848).
Act XIV An Act for regulating the proceedings of the Sudder Courts of Ft. William, Ft. St. George, Bombay, and at Agra in regard to sentences of Transportation for Life. Date of Enactment: July 6th, 1844; Presiding Governor: Edward Law, 1st Earl of Ellenborough. (1844).
Act XIX No person incompetent as a witness by reason of conviction for any offences. Date of Enactment: August 7th 1837; Presiding Governor: Lord Auckland. (1837).
Act XVIII An Act for the better custody of persons convicted of Thuggee and Dacoity. Date of Enactment: September 9th, 1843; Presiding Governor: Edward Law, 1st Earl of Ellenborough. (1843).
Act XVIII Provides for a trial of persons accused of murder by Thuggee. Date of Enactment: July 15th, 1839; Presiding Governor: Lord Auckland. (1839).
Act XVIII Provides for the trial of persons charged with Thuggee. Date of Enactment: August 7th 1837; Presiding Governor: Lord Auckland. (1837).
Act XXIV An Act for the better prevention of the crime of Dacoity. Date of Enactment: November 18th, 1843; Presiding Governor: Edward Law, 1st Earl of Ellenborough. (1843).
Act XXX Provides for the trial and punishment of Thugs. Date of Enactment: November 14th, 1836; Presiding Governor: Lord Auckland. (1836).
Ambos, K. (2020). Der Terrorist als Feind? Zugleich eine Besprechung von Andreas Kulick/Michael Goldhammer (Hrsg.), Der Terrorist als Feind? Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 15(5), 254–263. https://www.zis-online.com/dat/artikel/2020_5_1368.pdf
Bock, M. (2010). Pozitivna specijalna prevencija i nove tendencije u kriminalnoj politici. Crimen, 1(2), 139–167.
Dalrymple, W. (2019). The anarchy: The relentless rise of the East India Company. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Dalrymple, W. (Ed.) (2002). Begums, Thugs and White Mughals: The Journals of Fanny Parkes. Eland.
Donini, M. (2007). Das Strafrecht und der "Feind". Lit Verlag. ISBN 978-3-8258-0609-5 (Original work published 2006)
Hawickhorst, K. (2011). § 129a StGB – Ein feindstrafrechtlicher Irrweg zur Terrorismusbekämpfung: Kritische Analyse einer prozessualen Schlüsselnorm im materiellen Recht. Duncker & Humblot.
Jakobs, G. (1985). Kriminalisierung im Vorfeld einer Rechtsgutsverletzung. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 97, 751–785.
Jakobs, G. (2004). Bürgerstrafrecht und Feindstrafrecht. Ritsumeikan Law Review, 21, 93–107.
Jakobs, G. (2005). Terroristen als Personen im Recht? Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 117(4), 839–851.
Jakobs, G. (2006). Enemy criminal law? An investigation into the conditions of legality. HRRS, August/September, 289–297.
Lawson, P. (2013). The East India Company: A history. Routledge. (Original work published 1993)
Marković, I., Zdravković, M., & Vojnović, S. (2024). Pogled na teorijske osnove neprijateljskog krivičnog prava. U I. Milinković, B. Vlaški, & S. Petrović (Eds.), Međunarodni naučni skup „Izazovi i perspektive razvoja pravnih sistema u XXI vijeku”: Zbornik radova (God. IV, br. 4, Tom II, str. 255–272). Univerzitet u Banjoj Luci, Pravni fakultet.
Morguet, G. L. (2009). Feindstrafrecht: Eine kritische Analyse. Duncker & Humblot.
Mukhopādhyāya, A. (1974). The great famine of 1770 in Bengal. K. P. Bagchi & Company.
Phillips, A., & Sharman, J. C. (2020). Outsourcing empire: How company-states made the modern world. Princeton University Press.
Robins, N. (2012). The corporation that changed the world: How the East India Company shaped the modern multinational (2nd ed.). Pluto Press.
Saliger, F. (2019). Feindstrafrecht und Terrorismusbekämpfung. In R. D. Herzberg, H. Koriath, M. Pawlik, U. Stein, & K. Tiedemann (Eds.), Terror – Von der (Ohn-)Macht des Staates (pp. 97–124). Duncker & Humblot.
Sarkar, K. (2023). Criminalisation and colonial violence: Thuggees in the accounts of William Henry Sleeman. Postcolonial Interventions, 8(2), 14–33.
Singha, R. (1993). “Providential” circumstances: The Thuggee campaign of the 1830s and legal innovation. Modern Asian Studies, 27(1), 83–146. Wagner, K. A. (2014). “Thugs and assassins”: “New terrorism” and the resurrection of colonial knowledge. In C. Dietze & C. Verhoeven (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of terrorism (pp. 128–147). Oxford University Press.
Wilson, J. (2016). India conquered: Britain’s Raj and the chaos of empire. Simon & Schuster.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright over their published works and grant the publisher a non-exclusive right to publish the article, to be identified as its first publisher in cases of reuse, and to distribute it in all forms and media. The articles will be distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution International (CC BY 4.0) license, unless otherwise stated.
