Law as means of
Social Control
Micro and Macro Levels in
Operations
Module 3
• Law serves as one of the most fundamental mechanisms of social control,
guiding the behavior of individuals within a society to maintain order
and protect collective interests.
• Social control refers to the ways in which society regulates individual and
group behavior, ensuring conformity to established norms and values.
• Various forms of social control exist—such as family influence, education,
religion, and peer pressure—law represents a formal, institutionalized
approach to managing social conduct.
• Law functions through a structured system of rules, regulations, and
sanctions that are enforced by governmental bodies such as the police,
courts, and legal institutions.
• Law helps deter individuals from engaging in harmful actions and provides
consequences when those expectations are violated.
• Law promotes fairness, equity, and justice, which are essential for societal
stability and cohesion
Village Panchayat and Caste Council in Indian Society
• The traditional panchayat and caste council have played a significant role
in the Indian social structure for centuries, acting as both administrative
and judicial bodies.
• These councils addressed a variety of issues, including ritual violations,
land disputes, sexual misconduct, and factional conflicts.
• Most disputes were resolved within the framework of customs, though
sometimes external authorities, such as kings or chieftains, were called
upon for resolution based on legal texts.
• Village elders relied on oral testimonies, precedents, royal decrees, and occasionally,
ordeals in their decision-making.
✓Oral testimonies: Elders would listen to witnesses who verbally presented their version
of events, as written records were not common.
✓Precedents: Decisions made in previous similar cases were taken into account. If a
similar issue had been resolved before, they would follow the same solution as a guide.
✓Royal decrees: In some cases, the authority of a king or a higher ruler was used to
guide decisions, especially if the case was beyond the village’s capacity to settle.
✓Ordeals: Occasionally, trials by ordeal (e.g., physical tests or challenges) were used to
determine guilt or innocence, based on the belief that the innocent would survive or
succeed in the test.
• These councils continue to be effective, particularly among middle and lower-ranking
castes.
• For instance, the Jat's of western Uttar Pradesh, as studied by anthropologist M.C.
Pradhan, still rely on caste councils to resolve ritual, agrarian, and economic disputes
• Village councils, operating on a broader scale, wielded great authority in autonomous
villages.
• Judicial decisions were made publicly with participation from most adults, ensuring
transparency.
• The village council system provided a direct and accessible means for judicial resolution,
bridging daily life and the judicial process.
• When the British introduced formal courts, justice processes changed significantly.
Bernard Cohn, an anthropologist, identified four key discrepancies between
British law and indigenous traditions:
✓Equality vs. Hierarchy: British law promoted equality, while Indian society
operated on a hierarchical system. A lower caste person might win a case in
court but still face oppression in village power dynamics.
✓Contract vs. Status: British courts treated relationships, like that of landlord
and tenant, as contractual, but in Indian villages, these relationships were
more reciprocal, involving deeper social obligations.
✓Firm Decisions vs. Compromise: British courts favoured clear winners
and losers, while village and caste councils aimed to mediate and reach
compromises, preserving harmony.
✓Focus on Dispute: British courts focused solely on the legal case,
whereas village councils considered the broader, long-term
relationship between the parties.
• Post-independence, the Panchayati Raj system introduced new
structures, such as the Nyaya Panchayat for local justice, but financial
constraints and lack of trained members limited their effectiveness.
• Later, Lok Adalats (people's courts) were introduced, reviving the
compromise-based methods of village councils, and have shown success in
reducing alienation from the state’s legal system, particularly in Gujarat
and Delhi.
Tribal Judicial System in India
• India's tribal communities, primarily
located in the North-East, Central, and
South-Central regions, have long
maintained distinctive judicial systems that
differ from those of caste-based societies.
• Tribes in the North-East are largely of
Tibeto-Burmese origin, while those in
Central and South-Central India are of
Austro-Asiatic descent.
• Their religious beliefs are primarily
animistic, although some tribes have
adopted Christianity and Hinduism.
• Tribal societies are clan-based, organized horizontally without hierarchies, and
centered on kinship.
• This contrasts with caste societies, which include multiple non-kinship ties, and a
hierarchy based on ritual purity.
• Tribal justice systems are deeply rooted in local customs and taboos, shaped by
their interaction with the natural environment.
• Disputes within tribes were traditionally settled internally by tribal councils.
• If unresolved, they were referred to inter-village tribal councils, which acted as the
ultimate authority.
• Tribal autonomy was largely sustained by their geographical isolation from caste
groups.
• While caste councils were subject to the intervention of higher authorities, such as
kings, tribal councils operated independently, without the influence of overarching
religious or political systems.
• During British colonial rule, the influx of outsiders—such as forest contractors,
moneylenders, traders, and missionaries—disrupted tribal life.
• Forest depletion further eroded their way of life, and tribal councils lost much of
their judicial authority to British courts.
• In post-independence India, the introduction of statutory panchayats marked a
new era for tribal governance.
• While some disputes are still resolved through tribal councils, their role has
diminished.
• Reviving tribal councils could help restore their traditional functions, but tribal
integration into the national mainstream remains a gradual process.
• There is still lingering resentment among tribes against external exploitation, as
seen in their historical and ongoing resistance to outside interference.
• Key Features of Tribal panchayats :
✓Ritual and Social Disputes in Tribal Councils: Tribal
panchayats (councils) continue to handle ritual and social
disputes within their communities, preserving their
traditional role in maintaining social order.
✓However, when it comes to economic disputes, which often
involve property or financial matters, tribes increasingly
turn to modern legal systems, such as government courts.
✓No Clear Distinction Between Sacred and Secular: In tribal
societies, there is no strict separation between religious
and non-religious (secular) matters.
✓The head of a traditional panchayat, who governs village
decisions, often doubles as a religious leader, blending
spiritual authority with social governance.
✓Shift from Consensus to Majority Decisions: Traditionally,
tribal councils would reach decisions through consensus,
where all members agreed on the outcome.
✓However, with the influence of modern governance and legal
practices, majority voting has started replacing consensus,
reflecting a shift in decision-making processes.
✓Confusion Over New Judicial Practices: The introduction of
modern judicial systems in tribal areas has caused confusion
among tribes.
✓The unfamiliar procedures and formalities of modern courts
are often difficult for tribals to understand, leading to a sense
of disconnection from the new systems.
✓Emergence of Secular, Non-Hereditary Leadership: Tribal
leadership is increasingly becoming secular, moving away
from religious or hereditary forms of governance.
✓Modern tribal leaders are more likely to be chosen based
on secular qualifications and skills, reflecting a shift
toward more democratic or merit-based leadership
structures within tribal communities.
