British Administrative policies

British Administrative Policies: In the subject of Modern History of India, British administrative policies were introduced to establish a centralised and efficient system of governance over India. Institutions such as the civil services, codified laws, judiciary, police system, and district administration strengthened colonial control while leaving a lasting impact on India’s administrative framework.

British Administrative Policies

Evolution of Civil Services in India

Origin of Civil Services

The East India Company introduced civil service system.
Initially meant to manage the commercial affairs of the Company.
Later transformed into a well-structured administrative machinery for governing Indian territories.
The term ‘civil service’ originally distinguished:
- Company servants engaged in civil/commercial work
- From those employed in military and naval services.
Over time, civil servants acquired greater authority and administrative responsibilities.

Role of Lord Cornwallis (1786–1793)

First Governor-General to organise and institutionalise civil services.
Introduced measures to check corruption, including:
- Raising salaries of civil servants.
- Strict enforcement of rules against private trade.
- Debarring civil servants from accepting presents and bribes.
- Promotion based strictly on seniority.
Charter Act of 1793 reserved all posts with salary above £500 per annum for covenanted servants.
Reasons for exclusion of Indians:
- Belief that only Englishmen could safeguard British interests.
- Belief that Indians were incapable and untrustworthy.
- High competition among Europeans for lucrative posts.
- Exclusion of Indians from Civil Services
- Cornwallis believed:“Every native of Hindustan is corrupt.”

Role of Lord Wellesley (1798–1805)

Established Fort William College (1800) in Calcutta for training civil servants.
The Court of Directors disapproved of Fort William College in 1806.
Instead, East India College at Haileybury (England) was set up.
Provided two years of training to new recruits.

Charter Act of 1833

Theoretically opened civil services to Indians.
Provisions were never implemented in practice

Charter Act of 1853

Ended the patronage system of recruitment.
Introduced open competitive examination for civil services.
However, Indians were excluded from higher posts in practice.

Queen’s Proclamation of 1858

Issued after the Revolt of 1857.
Declared British intention to include Indians:
Freely and impartially in civil services.

Indian Civil Service Act, 1861

Reserved key offices for covenanted civil servants.
Examination features:
- Held in England.
- Conducted in English language.
- Based on Greek and Latin classical learning.
Maximum age limit reduced:
- 23 years (1859)
- 22 years (1860)
- 21 years (1866)
- 19 years (1878)
Satyendra Nath Tagore became the first Indian ICS officer (1863).

Statutory Civil Service (1878–79)

Introduced by Lord Lytton.
One-sixth of covenanted posts reserved for Indians.
Indians to be nominated by local governments.
Subject to approval by:
- Secretary of State
- Viceroy
The system failed and was later abolished.
Congress Demands (Post-1885)
Indian National Congress demanded:
- Raising age limit .
Holding simultaneous examinations in India and Britain.

Aitchison Committee (1886)

Appointed by Lord Dufferin.
Recommendations:
- Abolition of terms ‘covenanted’ and ‘uncovenanted’.
- Classification of civil services into:
  - Imperial Civil Service (exam in England)
  - Provincial Civil Service (exam in India)
  - Subordinate Civil Service (exam in India)
- Raising age limit to 23 years.
1893:
- British House of Commons passed resolution for simultaneous exams.
- Resolution not implemented.
Secretary of State Kimberley stated:
- “An adequate number of civil servants must always be Europeans.”

Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms (1919)

Declared realistic policy:
- More Indians in public services essential for responsible government.
Recommended:
- Simultaneous examination in India and England.
- One-third of recruits to be appointed in India.
Indian recruitment to increase by 1.5% annually.

Lee Commission (1924)

Recommendations:
- Secretary of State to continue recruitment for:
  - Indian Civil Service (ICS)
  - Indian Forest Service
  - Irrigation branch of Engineers
- Provincial governments to recruit for:
  - Education
  - Medical services
- 40% British, 40% directly recruited Indians, 20% promoted from provincial services.
- Achieve 50:50 parity between Europeans and Indians in ICS within 15 years.
Immediate establishment of a Public Service Commission.

Government of India Act, 1935

Provided for:
- Federal Public Service Commission.
- Provincial Public Service Commissions.
Despite reforms:
- Real control remained with the British.
- Indianisation did not lead to transfer of political power.
Indian bureaucrats functioned as agents of colonial rule.

Evolution of Police System in Modern India

Police System in Pre-Colonial India

Pre-colonial Indian states (Mughals and other native states) were autocratic.
There was no separate or formal police system.
Village watch guards existed from ancient times to protect villages at night.
Under Mughal rule:
Faujdars
- maintained law and order.
Amils
- were revenue collectors but also dealt with rebels.
Kotwal
- was responsible for law and order in cities.

During Dual Government (1765–1772) in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa:
- Zamindars were responsible for law and order.
- They maintained staff including thanedars.
- Duties included maintaining peace and controlling crime.
Zamindars often:
- Neglected their duties.
- Colluded with dacoits.
- Shared loot with criminals.
Early British Reforms
1770:
- Offices of faujdar and Amil abolished.
1774 (Warren Hastings):
- Faujdars restored.
- Zamindars asked to assist in suppression of:
  - Dacoity
  - Violence
  - Disorder
1775:
- Faujdar thanas established in major towns.
- Supported by smaller police stations.
Cornwallis’ Police Reforms (1791) –
- Organised a regular police force.
- Modernised the Indian system of thanas (circles).
- Structure:
  - Daroga (Indian) in charge of a thana.
  - Superintendent of Police (SP) at district level.
  - Zamindars were relieved of police duties.
Mayo’s Reforms (1808) –
- Appointed one SP for each division.
- SP assisted by spies (goyendas).
- Spies often:
  - Harassed people.
  - Committed depredations.
Court of Directors’ Order (1814) –
Abolished appointment of:
- Darogas
- Their subordinates
Applied everywhere except Bengal.
Bentinck’s Reforms (1828–1835) –
- Abolished office of Superintendent of Police.
- Collector/Magistrate made head of police in district.
- Commissioner acted as SP at divisional level.
- Result:
  - Police system became poorly organised.
  - Heavy administrative burden on collector/magistrate.
- Presidency towns were first to:
Separate duties of collector/magistrate.
Police Commission (1860) & Police Act, 1861 –
- Led to enactment of Indian Police Act, 1861.
Recommendations:
- Creation of civil constabulary system.
- Village watchman retained but linked to formal police.
- Hierarchical structure:
  - Inspector-General → Province
  - Deputy Inspector-General → Range
  - Superintendent of Police → District
- No All-India Police was created.
- Uniform ranks introduced across provinces.
Curzon’s Police Reforms (1902–03) –
- Police Commission under Sir Andrew Frazer.
- Recommendations:
  - No promotion of junior officials to senior posts.
  - Senior officials to be recruited directly.
  - Establishment of police training schools.
  - Increase police strength in all provinces.
  - Allow village visits for investigation.
  - Increase salaries.
  - Creation of Criminal Intelligence Department (CID) at Centre.
  - Development of Intelligence Agencies
Department of Criminal Intelligence (DCI) attached to Government of India.
Became:
- Central domestic intelligence agency
- Foreign intelligence agency
CIDs established in all provinces.
1929:
- CID divided into:
  - Special Branch
  - Crime Branch
Police and National Movement
Police became:
- Tool of colonial repression
Assisted British Raj in:
- Suppressing nationalist struggles
Result:
- Loss of public empathy
- Seen as an agent of imperial rule.
Successfully curbed:
- Dacoity
- Thugee
Attitude towards people:
- Harsh
- Unsympathetic

Military Under the British

Importance of Military
- Military was the backbone of Company’s rule.
Military Structure Before 1857
Two military forces:
- Queen’s Army
  - Crown’s troops stationed in India
- Company’s Army
  - European regiments
  - Indian soldiers under British officers
Reorganisation After 1857 Revolt
Main objective:
- Prevent another revolt
As warned by Lord Dufferin (1888):
- Lessons of 1857 must never be forgotten
Other objectives:
- Defend empire from:
  - Russia
  - Germany
  - France
- Use Indian army for expansion in Asia and Africa.
- British troops as army of occupation.
European Domination
- One-third European soldiers ensured.
- Ratio fixed:
  - Bengal Army → 1 European : 2 Indians
  - Madras & Bombay → 2 Europeans : 5 Indians
Europeans monopolised:
- Artillery
- Tanks
- Armed corps
Indians:
- Given inferior rifles till 1900.
- Excluded from high-tech arms till World War II.
Higher ranks –
Indians were not allowed commissioned ranks till 1918.
Highest rank till 1914:
- Subedar
1926 Sandhurst Committee:
- Proposed 50% Indian officers by 1952.
Policy of Divide and Rule in Army
Based on balance and counterpoise.
1879 Army Commission:
- “Natives against natives.”
Martial race theory promoted –
Favoured communities:
- Sikhs
- Gurkhas
- Pathans
Declared non-martial:
- Awadh
- Bihar
Central India
South India
These areas had participated in the 1857 revolt.
Communalisation of Army –
Regiments organised on:
- Caste
- Community
- Tribe
- Region
Nationalist influence deliberately checked.
Isolation of Soldiers
Soldiers isolated from civilian society.
Measures included:
- Banning nationalist newspapers.
- Preventing political literature.
Charles Wood stated:
- Regiments should be rivals to each other.
Overall Evaluation
Indian Army remained:
- Expensive
- Politically controlled
- Anti-nationalist in orientation

Development of the Judiciary in British India

Judicial System in Pre-Colonial India
Judicial system lacked:
- Proper procedures
- Organised hierarchy of courts
- Regular gradation from higher to lower courts
- Proper territorial distribution of courts
Hindu disputes:
- Decided by caste elders
- Village panchayats
- Zamindars
Muslim judicial system:
- Based on the institution of Qazi
- Qazis were religious persons
- Located in:
  - Provincial capitals
  - Towns
  - Qasbas (large villages)
Kings were
- Considered the fountainhead of justice
- Justice delivery was often arbitrary
Beginning of Common Law System
Introduction of a common law system based on judicial precedents
Establishment of Mayor’s Courts by the East India Company in 1726.
- Locations:
  - Madras
  - Bombay
  - Calcutta
Expansion of judicial reforms followed Company’s transformation into a ruling power
Judicial Reforms under Warren Hastings (1772–1785) –
District Diwani Adalats –
- Established for civil disputes, presided by the Collector.
- Laws applied:
  - Hindu law for Hindus
  - Muslim law for Muslims
Appeals lay to Sadar Diwani Adalat
- Headed by:
  - President
  - Two members of Supreme Council
District Fauzdari Adalats –
- Tried criminal cases .
- Headed by an Indian officer .
- Assisted by: –
  - Qazis
  - Muftis
Supervised by the Collector .
Muslim law applied
Capital punishment and property confiscation:-
- Required approval of Sadar Nizamat Adalat
  - Located at Murshidabad
  - Headed by:
    - Deputy Nizam
    - Chief Qazi
    - Chief Mufti
Supreme Court at Calcutta (1774)
- Established under Regulating Act of 1773
- First Chief justice was Elijah Impey

Jurisdiction:
- British subjects in Calcutta
- Subordinate factories
- Indians and Europeans
Powers:
- Original jurisdiction
- Appellate jurisdiction
Jurisdiction often clashed with other courts

Reforms under Cornwallis (1786–1793):

Separation of Powers
Criminal Justice Reforms
District Fauzdari Courts abolished
Circuit Courts established at:
- Calcutta
- Dacca
- Murshidabad
- Patna
Circuit Courts:
- Had European judges
- Acted as appellate courts for civil and criminal cases
Sadar Nizamat Adalat
Shifted from Murshidabad to Calcutta
Placed under:
- Governor General
- Members of Supreme Council
Assisted by:
- Chief Qazi
- Chief Mufti
Civil Justice Reforms –
District Diwani Adalat renamed as:
- District Court
- City Court
- Zila Court
Placed under District Judge
Collector:
- Confined only to revenue administration
- No magisterial functions
Hierarchy of Civil Courts –
- Munsiff’s Court – Indian officers
- Registrar’s Court – European judge
- District Court – District Judge
- Four Circuit Courts – Provincial appellate courts
- Sadar Diwani Adalat – Calcutta
- King-in-Council
Cornwallis Code
Separation of:
- Revenue administration
- Judicial administration
Europeans brought under court jurisdiction
Government officials:
- Answerable to civil courts
Established:
- Sovereignty of law

Reforms under William Bentinck (1828–1833) –

Abolished four Circuit Courts
Their functions transferred to:
- Collectors
- Under supervision of Commissioner of Revenue and Circuit
Established:
- Sadar Diwani Adalat at Allahabad
- Sadar Nizamat Adalat at Allahabad
Objective:
- Convenience of people of Upper Provinces
Language reforms:
- Persian was official court language earlier
- Now:
Persian or vernacular languages allowed
English replaced Persian in Supreme Court
Law Commission and Codification (1833) –
- Law Commission set up under Lord Macaulay
- Objective:
  - Codification of Indian laws
Outcomes:
- Civil Procedure Code (1859)
- Indian Penal Code (1860)
- Criminal Procedure Code (1861)
Later Judicial Developments –
1860
Europeans:
- No special privileges in civil cases
- In criminal cases:
  - Could be tried only by European judges
1865
Supreme Court and Sadar Adalats merged
Formation of High Courts at:
- Calcutta
- Bombay
- Madras
1883 –
Illbert bill proposal in British India to allow Indian judges to try European defendants .
British community opposed this
Bill was later watered down , allowing europeans .
1935
Government of India Act, 1935:
- Provided for a Federal Court
Federal Court:
- Set up in 1937
- Settled disputes between governments
- Heard limited appeals from High Courts

Major Changes in Administrative Structure after 1857

Imperial Objectives –

Primary concern of colonial authority:
- Consolidation of British position in India
Objectives included:
- Securing British economic and commercial interests
- Protection against political dangers
- Expansion of British influence globally whenever possible
Reflected in reactionary policies during:
- Lytton
- Dufferin
- Lansdowne
- Elgin
- Curzon (most prominent).

Administration after 1857 – Central Government-

Government of India Act, 1858

Also called Act for Better Government of India
Transferred power from:
- East India Company → British Crown

Secretary of State for India –

Power to govern India vested in Secretary of State
Secretary of State:
- Member of British Cabinet
- Assisted by a Council of 15 members
- Answerable to British Parliament
Nature of authority:
- Secretary held all initiative and final decision-making powers
- Council was purely advisory
Result:
- Dual system of governance (Pitt’s India Act, 1784) ended
- Ultimate authority rested with British Parliament.

Governor General → Viceroy –

Government in India continued through:
- Governor General
Prestige increased, but Authority gradually reduced
Assisted by:
- Executive Council
Executive Council members:
- Heads of departments
- Official advisers to the Viceroy

Indian Councils Act, 1861 (Central Level) –

Added:
- A fifth member (jurist) to Viceroy’s Executive Council
For legislative purposes:
- Viceroy could nominate 6–12 additional members
- At least half were to be non-officials
- Non-officials could be Indians or Europeans.
Limitations of Central Legislative Council –
Council was advisory, not powerful
Major weaknesses:
- Could not discuss important matters without government approval
- Could not discuss financial matters at all without permission
- Had no control over the budget
- Could not discuss executive actions
- Bills required Viceroy’s approval
- Secretary of State could veto even approved legislation
Indian members:
- Drawn from elite sections only
Princes, landlords, diwans
Not representative of Indian public opinion

Provincial Government –

Indian Councils Act, 1861 (Provincial Level)

Restored legislative powers to:
- Bombay
- Madras
- Powers had been withdrawn in 1833
Later:
- Legislative councils established in other provinces

Administrative Structure of Provinces

Presidencies:
- Bombay
- Madras
- Calcutta
Enjoyed greater powers than other provinces
Presidencies governed by:
- Governor
- Executive Council of three members
- Appointed by the Crown
Other provinces governed by:
- Lieutenant Governors
- Chief Commissioners
- Appointed by Governor General

Financial Decentralisation –

Some decentralisation introduced in later decades
Nature:
- Administrative reorganisation
- Aimed at:
  - Increasing revenue
  - Reducing expenditure
Did NOT signify:
- Real provincial autonomy

Lord Mayo’s Financial Reforms (1870) –

Provinces given fixed grants from central revenues.
For administration of:
- Police
- Jails
- Education
- Medical services
- Roads
Provinces given discretion in administering these services
Marked first step towards:
- Separation of central and provincial finances.

Lord Lytton’s Reforms (1877) –

Transferred additional expenditure heads to provinces:
- Land revenue

Excise
General administration
Law and justice
Provinces entitled to fixed share of income from:
- Stamps
- Excise
- Income tax

Revenue Division (1882) –

All revenue sources divided into three categories:
- General:
  - Entirely to Centre
- Provincial:
  - Entirely to Provinces
- Shared:
  - Divided between Centre and Provinces

Limits of Provincial Autonomy

Central government remained supreme
Retained detailed control over provinces
Reason:
- Both Centre and Provinces subordinated to:
  - Secretary of State
  - British Government

Local Bodies under British Rule in India –

Purpose of Decentralisation

Administration was decentralised through municipalities and district boards
These bodies administered:
- Education
- Health
- Sanitation
- Water supply
- Roads
- Other basic civic amenities
Financed mainly through local taxes.

Reasons for Establishment of Local Bodies –

Financial difficulties due to excessive centralisation made decentralisation necessary.
Modern civic amenities developed in Europe had to be introduced in India due to growing economic contacts.
Nationalist movement demanded improvement in basic facilities.
Some British policymakers wanted to associate Indians with administration without weakening British supremacy.
Use of local taxes for local welfare helped counter criticism of British reluctance to:
- Spend from the imperial treasury.

Evolution of Local Government –

Period 1864–1868

First local bodies formed.
Mostly nominated members.
Headed by district magistrates.
Functioned mainly as tax-collecting agencies, not self-governing institutions.

Mayo’s Resolution (1870) –

Introduced financial decentralisation.
Based on Indian Councils Act, 1861.
Provinces allowed:
- Local taxation
- Annual imperial grants
Certain departments transferred to provinces:
- Medical services
- Education
- Roads
Marked the beginning of local finance.
Emphasised need for:
- Local interest
- Supervision
- Care in managing funds
Provinces like Bengal, Madras, NW Provinces, Punjab passed municipal acts.

Ripon’s Resolution (1882) –

Lord Ripon called “Father of Local Self-Government in India”
Key features:
- Local bodies as instruments of administration and political education
- Urban and rural local bodies with:
  - Defined duties
  - Independent revenue sources
- Non-officials to be in majority
- Introduction of elections wherever feasible
- Non-official chairpersons
- Minimum official interference
Official sanction required for:
- Loans
- Sale of municipal property
- New taxes
- Costly works
- Rules and bye-laws
Limitations after Ripon
- Elected members remained a minority.
- Limited franchise.
- District boards still headed by officials.
- Government retained power to:
  - Suspend
  - Supersede bodies
- Bureaucracy believed Indians were unfit for self-government
- Lord Curzon increased official control over local bodies.

Royal Commission on Decentralisation (1908) –

Major Recommendations:
- Strengthen village panchayats by giving powers:
- Minor judicial cases
- Village works
- Schools
- Fuel and fodder reserves
- Adequate income sources
Establish sub-district (taluka/tehsil) boards
- Separate duties
- Separate revenues
Remove restrictions on:
- Taxation powers
- Regular grants-in-aid (except for major projects)
Municipalities to manage:
- Primary education
- Optional middle vernacular schools
- Government to take charge of secondary education, hospitals, police, etc.

Government of India Resolution (1915) –

Reflected official response to 1908 Commission.
Most recommendations not implemented
Condition of local bodies unchanged from Ripon’s time.
Resolution of May 1918 –
Issued after August 20, 1917 Declaration (August Declaration)
Recognised local self-government as:
- First step toward responsible government
Suggested:
- More representative local bodies
- Real authority, not nominal powers

Local Self-Government under Dyarchy (1919) –

Local self-government became a ‘Transferred Subject’
Came under Indian ministers
Finance remained a ‘Reserved Subject’
Result:
- Lack of funds
- Limited development of local institutions.

Simon Commission (1930) –

Observations:
- Panchayats showed little progress except in:
  - United Provinces
  - Bengal
  - Madras
- Elected members reluctant to impose local taxes
- Financial management deteriorated after 1919 reforms
Suggested:
- Increased provincial control for efficiency (retrograde step).
Government of India Act, 1935 and After –
Introduced provincial autonomy
Finance portfolio transferred to popular ministries
Positive impacts:
- More funds for local bodies
- Removal of rigid demarcation between provincial and local finance
- New provincial acts increased authority of local bodies
Limitations:
- Financial powers remained weak
- New restrictions on:
  - Terminal taxes
  - Property taxes
  - Trade and profession taxes
Provinces ignored liberal taxation powers suggested in 1908
Conclusion –
Administrative changes after 1857:
- Strengthened British control
- Increased centralisation
- Expanded imperialist exploitation
Indian participation:
- Limited
- Elite-based
- Non-representative
British rule remained:
- Authoritarian
- Reactionary
- Alien in character

Policy of Divide and Rule –

British aimed to prevent united mass resistance.
Adopted a deliberate policy of divide and rule.
Divisions encouraged between:
- Princes and people
- Region vs region
- Province vs province
- Caste vs caste
- Hindus vs Muslims

Communal Strategy –

After 1857 Muslims faced initial repression.
After 1870 British sought support of educated middle and upper-class Muslims.
Result –
- Religious divide among educated Indians
- Strengthening of communal consciousness

Attitude Towards Zamindars and Princes –

British sought alliance with:
- Princess
- Zamindars
- Landlords
Consequences:
- Peasant interests ignored
- Zamindars became loyal supporters of British rule.

Attitude Towards Social Reforms –

British withdrew support from social reform movements.
Reason:
- Fear of antagonising orthodox and conservative sections.

Underdeveloped Social Services –

Major expenditure on:
- Army
- Civil administration
- Wars
Minimal spending on:
- Education
- Health
- Sanitation
- Physical infrastructure

British Policy Towards Princely States –

Basic Objectives of British Policy

British relations with princely states were guided by a two-point policy:
- Using and perpetuating princely states as bulwarks of the British Empire.
- Subordinating them completely to British authority.
This approach is known as the policy of subordinate union.
Abandonment of Annexation Policy –
- After the Revolt of 1857, the British Abandoned the policy of annexation.
End of Sovereign Status of Princely States –
- Queen Victoria adopted the title Kaiser-i-Hind (Queen Empress of India) in 1876.
This act emphasized:
British sovereignty over the entire Indian subcontinent.

Lord Curzon later clarified that:
- Indian princes ruled their states only as agents of the British Crown.
Contemporary View –
Historian F.G. Hutchins observed:

“The British and the princes needed one another; India’s need for either was highly doubtful.”

British Foreign Policy in India –

Nature of British Foreign Policy
- British foreign policy in India was guided by:
- Interests of British imperialism, not Indian welfare.
- It often led to:
Conflicts with India’s neighbouring countries.

Major Aims of British Policy in Asia and Africa
- The British government aimed to:
  - Protect the Indian Empire, the most valuable British colony.
  - Expand British commercial and economic interests.
  - Keep rival European imperialist powers (especially Russia and France) at a distance in Asia and Africa.
Burden on India –
- Although British interests were served, the cost was borne by India.
- Indian soldiers’ blood was shed.

White Racism –

British maintained ideology of racial superiority.
Indians excluded from:
- Higher civil services
- Military ranks
- Railway compartments
- Clubs, hotels, parks
Public display of racism:
- Physical abuse
- Beatings
- Murders reported as “accidents”
Purpose:
- Reinforce image of British as dominant race.
- Retain exclusive control of administration.