Was Fingerprint Technology Stolen From India? The Forgotten History of Forensic Science

Before fingerprinting became a familiar crime-fighting tool in popular culture, Indian police officers made one of the most significant contributions to the field that shaped this technology. Thousands of fingerprints had to be organised and searched to quickly identify a person, and Indian police officers solved this problem that had perplexed their British counterparts for years. However, their names remain less familiar than the British official associated with it..

Now a fingerprint can help identify a suspect at the crime scene or confirm a person’s identity, or relate one record to another. While the uniqueness of a print makes it practically impossible to confuse one person for another, the challenge for investigators was to devise a way to record, categorize and compare these patterns. This is where the story of fingerprint science connects to colonial India.

The Origin of Fingerprinting 

In 1858, British administrator James Herschel began using handprints and fingerprints in Bengal to help verify documents and avoid disputes about people’s identities. Herschel was just one of several officials who saw the value of fingerprints, but he was not the only one experimenting with their use.

In 1880, a Scottish doctor named Henry Faulds published an article in Nature journal revealing how fingerprints could be used to identify individuals and solve crimes. Later, Francis Galton studied these patterns and their unique characteristics.

This is where the next step comes in, as there was a problem with how the police could classify these prints so that a specific fingerprint could be identified as fast as possible. And it is here that we meet the Indian officers, who paved the way for the system we know and use today.

Azizul Haque and Hem Chandra Bose: The Minds Behind the Method

In the 1890s, Azizul Haque and Hem Chandra Bose, two Bengal Police sub-inspectors, worked together with Edward Richard Henry to develop a method of classifying fingerprints.

They solved a problem of its time, one that allowed investigators to narrow down the search for a criminal, instead of having to go through each and every print in police databases. This method of classification is to this day known as the ‘Henry Classification’, after Sir Edward Richard Henry shrewdly, the Inspector-General of Police of Bengal.

A research article published by Gurvinder S. Sodhi and Jasjeet Kaur in the Indian Journal of History of Science in 2018, revealed how these two Bengal officers had contributed to the field of criminology and how they, until their work was published, had not gotten the recognition they were due.

The system was officially adopted for the purpose of criminal investigations in British India in 1897. A fingerprint bureau was established in the capital of Bengal, Calcutta (today Kolkata), the same year, making it possible to transform the method into a working system of identification. And so, the system was imported to Britain and became part of police forces across the world.

This brief history of the origin of fingerprint analysis reminds us of colonial history, and the way some of the most advanced science was performed under the British Empire by Indians but was not recognised as the work of Indians. At the same time, it also puts light on the problematic ways some fields of science and research have been attributed to British history and authorities.

Hem Chandra Bose’s Work on Fingerprint Communication

Bose’s work went further than just classifying. As fingerprinting became more widespread, there was a need for police departments to share information with one another. However, this did not always come easily, especially with regard to transmitting data. It was not always convenient to send documents to other institutions, especially when it was necessary to compare data.

In 1916, Bose invented a telegraphic code for fingerprints. According to the article written by Sodhi and Kaur and published, this and further research was compared to similar telegraphic codes developed by British police.

Researchers concluded that in 1921, five years after Bose published his work, Scotland Yard official Charles Stockley Collins presented his findings on fingerprint telegrams. They also argued that Bose had developed a single-digit fingerprint classification system before a similar system was attributed to Harry Battley.

These facts serve as a reliable basis for reconsidering Bose’s role in the history of fingerprint classification. However, they are not sufficient proof of his status as the creator of the entire system: while some of his contributions to the field of fingerprint classification may have been stolen, others were made independently.

Was Fingerprint Technology Stolen From India?

Calling it “stealing” would not be appropriate considering the contributions involved. However, the lack of credit and popularity of the two Indian pioneers leaves a gap of concerns and highlights how British India avoided applauding Indians for their innovations.  

Fingerprint technology was not invented in a single moment, but rather developed and improved upon by several different geniuses. Herschel experimented with fingerprints as a means of identification, Faulds suggested using them for investigative work. Galton studied their patterns, while Haque and Bose worked on a classification. Thus, although the names of the latter two scientists are less well-known than their British officer, they made significant contributions to the field of fingerprint classification.

The article Scientific Racism Faced by Indian Fingerprint Scientists During Colonial Rule: Need to Correct a Historical Wrong , published by Sodhi and Kaur in 2022, highlights the injustice suffered by Indian scientists, both in general and specifically in the case of Henry’s fingerprint classification. It demonstrates how colonial oppression affected the scientific community, pushing black people into subordinate positions as assistants to white people.

This assumption is reasonable given the context of colonial rule and the presence of Indians in the system as subordinates. However, it is no less true that such a theory obscures inconvenient truths about India’s role in the development of science.

Why This History Matters to Forensic Science

Fingerprint identification is a big and significant part of forensic science and crime investigation because it gives police a practical way to organize their records and compare them with new prints. The colonial-era classification system developed in India played a major role in making this process more efficient.

Modern fingerprint identification practices and their associated technologies were built upon this method and additional innovations, such as electronic databases and automated matching algorithms. But forgetting the true history of such crucial technology would be wrong especially when the names of pioneers are forgotten. 

Haque and Bose should be remembered as notable figures in the history of forensic sciences, and not just as minor characters in the biography of a larger innovation named after a British administrator, because they were the ones who did it. 

Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that fingerprint science and technology were stolen from Indian police. While India did not invent the science of fingerprints, it did contribute significantly to its progression and recognition as a valuable field of study.

Specifically, Indian police officers were the first to classify fingerprints and develop a system of communication necessary to share the information with the world, and this scientific exchange should be remembered and studied. And that is the part of fingerprint history worth bringing back into focus.