As the title "From Faujdari to Faujdari Adalat: The Transition in Bengal" of this chapter suggests, the chapter mainly

focused on the transition of judicial system from Mughal period to Early Colonial period in Bengal. Through the regulations of 1772, dual Govt. system was abolished and Bengal was brought under direct control of the British. The colonial state claimed exclusive rights to judicial and punitive authority as the prerogative of sovereignty. Both Hastings and Cornwallis claimed that they were restoring the 'ancient constitution in justice' with mere changes. .They suggest that Mughal agencies of justice had decayed because of the laxity and venality of regional rulers, whose powers had been usurped by zamindars and farmers of revenue. Hastings mainly focused on faujdar as the centralist aspects of Mughal order structure. In Mughal period, though the Mughal Emperors had absolute power, they appointed a number of officers in the different departments of the Govt. for the transaction of its multitudinous affairs. The next judicial authority was the qazi, who was appointed by the emperor. Qazis were assisted by muftis, whose main duty was to interpret the law and issue a fatwa. In the districts or Sarkars, law and order were maintained usually by officers like the Faujddars. "The faujddar, as his name suggests, was only the commander of a military force stationed in the country. He had to put down smaller rebellions, disperse or arrest robber gangs, take of all violent crimes, demonstrations of force to overawe, opposition to the revenue authorities, or the criminal judge, or the censor". The police arrangements were in some respects effective, though the State of public security varied greatly from place to place and from time to time. Mannuci reported that the faujdar was held responsible for robberies on travellers during the but if the traveller was robbed at night it was ascribed to his own negligence. During Mughal period, Personal dishonour was considered a powerful weapon, particularly effective at the upper levels of society. But the ruler still upheld his support for rank and social status, because the corporal forms of pain were usually reserved for the lower orders. In contrast to Akbar, Aurangzeb's political strategy, particularly after 1666, favoured a more clear-cut association with Muslim orthodox opinion, and an effort to stress the special status of Muslims under the Mughal imperium. Aurangzeb's appointment of muhtasibs in 1659 could be characterized as an

earlier gesture towards Islamic orthodoxy. Farman issued by Aurangzeb in 1672, again indicates that the emperor was trying to extend the prosecutorial initiative of the state. There were obvious advantages to having a body of case law to regularize this endeavour. Aurangzeb's farman emphasized on the importance of regularity in the disposal of cases. The order did not insist that the kazi and mufti alone were to determine the punishment of every offender, but that 'what the Nazim of the Subah decides should be done in accord with the judges. The farman also orders the punishment of anyone who strangled people for their property, not only if his guilt was proved by sharia law, but also if he was 'notorious among the people for this misdeed', or 'if the Nazim of the Subah and the judges believed that the misdeed was committed by him'. By the 18th century the Mughal state was unable to maintain a balance between its own agencies on the one hand and local rural and urban notables on the other. As the faujdari network on the highways weakened, local zamindars and Mughal satraps positioned themselves as the dispensers of 'justice and protection', levying fees and fines in this capacity. The decline of Mughal agencies did not necessarily mean that no alternative arrangements for the dispensation of justice and the maintenance of order took shape. With the decline of Mughal period there were the rise in regional successor states. However, even under the Nawabs of Bengal and Awadh, kazis and muftis could lose their authority in urban administration to revenue farmers and other 'new men' favoured by the regime. Under all the successor states, however, kazis and muftis retained their significance as local notables who could speak on behalf of the resident Muslim community, and as members of the respectable landholding section of society. According to the Author, the position of the kazi, mufti and muhtasib in the administrative hierarchy was more vulnerable to these changes than that of the kotwal. The transition to Company rule in Bengal has been dealt with in formidable depth. The faujdari adalats established in each district by the regulations of 1772 were supposed to gather up the judicial powers 'usurped' by the zamindars and revenue farmers. The regulations prohibited commissions on money recovered, fees on the decision of causes, and all 'heavy and arbitrary fines'. The reforms of 1772 included one significant foray into substantive law, in the form of Article 35,

for punishing dacoits. In the Council of 10 July 1773, Hastings suggests that the kazis and muftis of the faujdari adalats were not using Article 35 very enthusiastically. Hastings, had argued that it was die natural right of Indians to be ruled by the laws and customs with which they were familiar and that these laws were not antithietical to reason, humanity and natural justice. In maintaining that the doctrines of Hinduism or Islam contained the same truths which made up the universal nature of man, Orientalist scholars provided arguments for the feasibility of establishing dominion on the basis of the laws and customs of die Indian people. The judicial plan of 1772 evolved by Hastings and the Council had its critics within the Bengal establishment. Thomas Law and Cornwallis also wanted to rehabilitate the zamindars as improving property owners, but without any feudal authority in the matter of criminal jurisdiction. CONCLUSION:The changes introduced to conceptions of sovereignty and property right had repercussions for the agencies of governance. The loose inter-dependency of official and non-official agencies which author have described for the Mughal and 18th century regimes gradually developed towards more bureaucrarized hierarchies which centralized military and judicial functions and separated them from property relations. The Hastings Plan of 1772 established a hierarchy of civil and criminal courts, which were charged with the task of applying indigenous legal norms in all suits regarding inheritance, marriage, caste, and other religious usages or institutions. Indigenous norms comprised the laws of the Koran with respect to Muhammadans, and the laws of the Brahmanic Shasters with respect to Hindus.