Administrative Changes After 1858 – Modern History Notes

The Act of Parliament in 1858, known as the Government of India Act 1858, transferred the power to govern India from the East India Company to the British Crown. Under this act, the authority over India was exercised by a Secretary of State for India, who was a member of the British Cabinet and responsible to Parliament. The Secretary of State was aided by a Council, initially known as the India Council, which was later reconstituted as the Council of India.
The Act established that the ultimate power over India remained with the British Parliament. The Governor-General of India, who was also given the title of Viceroy as the Crown’s representative, continued to carry out the government’s functions. However, with time, the Viceroy’s role was increasingly reduced to a subordinate status about the British government, both in policy-making and policy execution.
The Act also brought about changes in the composition and functioning of the Council. Initially, the Council consisted of retired British-Indian officials, but by 1869, it was completely subordinated to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State had control over the minutest details of administration and could constantly monitor and direct the government’s activities through improved communication systems like the submarine cable.
It is important to note that no Indian had a voice in the India Council, the British Cabinet, or the British Parliament. Indian opinion had little impact on government policy, while British industrialists, merchants, and bankers gained influence over the Government of India.
The Act of 1858 also expanded the Governor-General’s Council to include additional members for lawmaking purposes, known as the Imperial Legislative Council. However, this council had limited powers and served as an advisory body rather than a true legislative institution. It could not discuss important measures or financial matters without prior approval from the government. The Legislative Council had no control over the budget or the executive, and bills passed by the council required the approval of the Governor-General and could be disallowed by the Secretary of State.
The Indian members of the Legislative Council were few and were nominated by the Governor-General, often comprising princes, zamindars, merchants, or retired senior government officials. They were not elected by the Indian people, further limiting the representation of Indian interests in the legislative process.

Table of Contents

Provincial Administration

During British colonial rule, India was divided into provinces for administrative convenience. The three major provinces, Bengal, Madras, and Bombay, were known as Presidencies and were administered by a Governor and his three Executive Councils appointed by the Crown. These Presidencies had more rights and powers compared to the other provinces.
The remaining provinces were administered by Lieutenant Governors and Chief Commissioners who were appointed by the Governor-General. However, with the enactment of the Act of 1861, there was a shift towards decentralization. It was mandated that legislative councils, similar to the central legislative council, be established in Bombay, Madras, and Bengal, followed by other provinces.
The provincial legislative councils, like their central counterpart, were advisory bodies consisting of officials and a small number of non-official Indians and Englishmen. However, they lacked the powers and democratic representation of a true parliament.
One of the major issues resulting from extreme centralization was related to finances. Under the centralized system, revenues from all over the country and from various sources were collected at the center and then distributed to the provincial governments. The Central Government exercised strict control over provincial expenditure, but this system proved inefficient in practice. The central government found it difficult to supervise revenue collection by the provincial governments or effectively monitor their expenditure.
Constant disagreements arose between the central and provincial governments over minute administrative and financial details. Moreover, the provincial governments had no incentive to be economical in their expenditure. Recognizing these challenges, steps were taken to decentralize public finance.
In 1870, Lord Mayo initiated the first step by separating central and provincial finances. Fixed sums from central revenues were allocated to provincial governments for specific services such as Police, Jails, Education, Medical Services, and Roads, which the provinces could administer as they saw fit. Lord Lytton further expanded this scheme in 1877, transferring additional heads of expenditure such as Land Revenue, Excise, General Administration, and Law and Justice to the provinces.
To meet the additional expenditure, provincial governments were entitled to a fixed share of the income realized from specific revenue sources within their province, such as Stamps, Excise Taxes, and Income Tax.
In 1882, Lord Ripon introduced further changes. The system of fixed grants to the provinces was ended, and instead, a province was entitled to the entire income from certain sources of revenue within its jurisdiction, as well as a fixed share of the overall income. All revenue sources were categorized into three heads: General, Provincial, and those to be divided between the central and provincial governments.
The financial arrangements between the center and the provinces were subject to review every five years to ensure their effectiveness and appropriateness.

Local Bodies

Due to financial difficulties and the need for decentralization, the British government attempted to promote local government through the establishment of municipalities and district boards. However, the initial local bodies formed between 1864 and 1868 were predominantly composed of nominated members and were presided over by District Magistrates.
These local bodies did not truly represent local self-government, nor were they accepted as such by the Indian population. Instead, they were seen as mechanisms for imposing additional taxes on the people. The lack of genuine representation and democratic processes undermined their legitimacy.
In 1882, the Lord Ripon Government introduced a policy to administer local affairs through rural and urban local bodies, with a majority of non-official members. The intention was to gradually introduce elections wherever feasible, allowing the people to elect non-official members. The resolution also allowed for the election of a non-official as Chairman of a local body.
Provincial acts were passed to implement this policy, but elected members remained a minority in district boards and many municipalities. Moreover, the right to vote was restricted to a small number of individuals, further limiting the democratic nature of these bodies.
District officials continued to serve as presidents of district boards, although non-officials gradually assumed the role of chairmen of municipal committees. The government maintained strict control over the activities of the local bodies and retained the power to suspend or supersede them at its discretion.
As a result, the local bodies operated more like government departments rather than genuine examples of local self-government. They lacked autonomy and were subject to significant control and interference from the colonial administration.

Change in Army

After the transfer of power to the British Crown in 1858, significant reorganization took place in the Indian army, primarily aimed at preventing another revolt like the one that occurred in 1857. The British rulers recognized the importance of maintaining control over the army as a means to secure their rule.

To minimize the potential for Indian soldiers to revolt, several measures were implemented:

The dominance of the European branch of the army was ensured. The proportion of Europeans to Indians in the army was increased and fixed, with ratios of one European to two Indians in the Bengal Army and two Europeans to five Indians in the Madras and Bombay armies.
European troops were strategically placed in key military and geographical positions. Important branches of the army, such as artillery, and later tanks and armored corps, were exclusively manned by Europeans.
The policy of excluding Indians from the officer corps was strictly maintained. Until 1914, no Indian could rise above the rank of subedar.
The organization of the Indian section of the army followed a policy of “balance and counterpoise” or “divide and rule.” Discrimination based on caste, region, and religion was practiced during recruitment. Indians were categorized into “martial” and “non-martial” classes, with certain regions and communities deemed non-martial and excluded from significant recruitment.
Communal, caste, tribal, and regional loyalties were encouraged among the soldiers to prevent the growth of nationalist sentiment. The Indian regiments were intentionally mixed with various castes and groups to maintain a balance of power.
Efforts were made to isolate the army from nationalist ideas. Measures were taken to prevent newspapers, journals, and nationalist publications from reaching the soldiers.
Despite these attempts to control and manipulate the Indian army, nationalist sentiments eventually spread within its ranks. Over time, sections of the Indian army played significant roles in the struggle for India’s independence. These efforts to suppress nationalist sentiment ultimately proved unsuccessful in the long run.

Public Service

The Indian Civil Service (ICS) was the highest-ranking civil service in British India, and its members held all positions of power and responsibility in the administration. The ICS was recruited through an annual open competitive examination held in London, but in practice, the doors of the ICS remained barred to Indians for several reasons, including
The examination was held in London, which was inconvenient and expensive for Indians to travel to.
The examination was conducted in English, which was a foreign language for most Indians.
The examination required knowledge of Classical Greek and Latin, which was not part of the standard Indian curriculum.
The maximum age for entry into the ICS was gradually reduced, making it more difficult for older Indians to compete.
In addition to the ICS, other administration departments such as the Police, Public Works Department, and Railways also reserved their superior and highly paid posts for British citizens. This was done to ensure that British interests were maintained in India.
Although some Indians did eventually gain entry to the ICS and other administrative services, they were never given positions of real power. The British continued to control the levers of power in India, and Indians were largely excluded from decision-making. This led to growing resentment among Indians and eventually contributed to the Indian independence movement.

Here are some additional details that you may find interesting:

The first Indian to be admitted to the ICS was Satyendranath Tagore, the brother of the famous poet Rabindranath Tagore.
The Indian Civil Service was abolished in 1947 after India gained independence.
The Indian Administrative Service (IAS), the highest-ranking civil service in independent India, was modeled on the ICS.

Relations with the Princely States

Before 1857, the British took advantage of every opportunity to annex princely states. However, the Revolt of 1857 prompted the British to adopt a different approach towards these Indian States.
A majority of the Indian princes not only remained loyal to the British but actively aided in suppressing the Revolt.
In 1862, Canning declared that “the Crown of England stood forward, the unquestioned Ruler and Paramount Power in all India.” The princes were compelled to acknowledge British supremacy.
In 1876, Queen Victoria assumed the title of “Empress of India” to emphasize British sovereignty over the entire Indian subcontinent.
Lord Curzon later clarified that the princes ruled their states merely as agents of the British Crown. The princes accepted this subordinate position willingly, becoming junior partners in the Empire, as they were guaranteed their continued rule over their states.
As the paramount power, the British claimed the right to oversee the internal governance of the princely states. They not only interfered in day-to-day administration through the presence of Residents but also insisted on appointing and removing ministers and other high-ranking officials.
Beginning in 1868, the British government recognized the adopted heir of the deposed ruler, and in 1881, full control of the state was restored to the young Maharajah.
In 1874, the ruler of Baroda, Malhar Rao Gaekwad, was accused of misrule and attempting to poison the British Resident. Following a brief trial, he was deposed.

Event	Date	Description
British reverse policy toward Indian States	1857	After the Revolt of 1857, the British decided to stop annexing princely states. Instead, they wanted to make the princes their allies.
Proclamation of Canning	1862	Lord Canning declared that the British Crown was the paramount power in India. This meant that the princes were under British rule, but they were allowed to keep their governments.
Assumption of the title of Empress of India	1876	Queen Victoria assumed the title of Empress of India. This was a way of showing that the British were the supreme rulers of the Indian subcontinent.
Curzon’s statement	1899	Lord Curzon made it clear that the princes were only agents of the British Crown. This meant that they were not independent rulers, but they were still allowed to govern their states.
British supervision of internal government	1857- 1947	The British claimed the right to supervise the internal government of the princely states. They did this through the Residents, who were British officials who were stationed in the princely states.
Adoption of heir in Indore	1868	The Government recognized the adopted heir of the old ruler of Indore. This was a rare exception to the rule that the British could only recognize natural heirs.
Deposition of Malhar Rao Gaekwad	1874	The ruler of Baroda, Malhar Rao Gaekwad, was accused of misrule and of trying to poison the British Resident. He was deposed after a brief trial.

Administrative Policies

Following the revolt of 1857, the British underwent a significant change in their attitude towards India, leading to the adoption of reactionary policies.
A prevailing belief emerged that Indians were deemed unfit to govern themselves and must be ruled by Britain indefinitely. This reactionary approach was evident across various aspects.

Divide and Rule Policy

The British had initially conquered India by exploiting the disunity among Indian powers and pitting them against each other.
After 1858, they continued to implement a policy of divide and rule by creating divisions between the princes and the people, different provinces, various castes, different groups, and, notably, Hindus and Muslims.
The unity displayed by Hindus and Muslims during the revolt of 1857 unsettled the foreign rulers, prompting them to undermine this unity to weaken the growing nationalist movement.
Immediately after the revolt, the British repressed Muslims confiscated their lands and properties on a large scale, and openly favored Hindus. However, after 1870, this policy was reversed, and efforts were made to foster divisions between the upper-class and middle-class Muslims and the nationalist movement.
Due to the industrial and commercial backwardness of India and the lack of social services, educated Indians heavily relied on government employment. This created intense competition among them for the limited government positions available.
The British government exploited this competition to fuel provincial and communal rivalries and animosity. They offered official favors on a communal basis in exchange for loyalty, effectively pitting educated Muslims against educated Hindus.

Hostility towards Educated Indians

The Government of India had actively promoted modern education after 1833.
The establishment of the Universities of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras in 1857 marked the rapid spread of higher education.
Initially, many British officials praised the educated Indians for their refusal to participate in the revolt of 1857. However, this favorable official attitude towards educated Indians quickly changed as some of them began utilizing their newly acquired modern knowledge to analyze the imperialistic nature of British rule and advocate for Indian participation in governance.
As the educated Indians started organizing a nationalist movement among the people and founded the Indian National Congress in 1885, British officials became actively hostile towards higher education and educated Indians.
They took deliberate measures to restrict higher education and demean educated Indians, commonly referring to them as ‘babus.’
Thus, the British authorities turned against those Indians who had embraced modern Western knowledge and advocated for progress along contemporary lines. However, such progress directly contradicted the fundamental interests and policies of British imperialism in India.
The official opposition to educated Indians and higher education serves as evidence that British rule in India had already exhausted any potential it initially held for progress.

Attitude towards Zamindars

The British government sought to cultivate alliances with the most conservative segment of Indian society, including the princes, zamindars, and landlords.
Similar to the treatment of the princes, the zamindars and landlords were also appeased. For instance, the lands of many talukdars in Avadh were returned to them.
The zamindars and landlords were now glorified as the traditional and “natural” leaders of the Indian people. Their interests and privileges were safeguarded, and they were allowed to retain their land, often at the expense of the peasants. They were utilized as a counterbalance to the nationalist-minded intellectuals.
In return, the zamindars and landlords recognized that their position depended on the preservation of British rule and thus became its steadfast supporters.

Attitude towards Social Reforms

As part of their policy of aligning with conservative classes, the British abandoned their previous support for social reformers.
The British believed that their earlier social reform measures, such as the abolition of Sati (widow burning) and allowing widows to remarry, had been significant factors contributing to the 1857 revolt.
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, in his book “The Discovery of India,” noted, “Because of this natural alliance of the British power with the reactionaries in India, it became the guardian and upholder of many an evil custom and practice, which it otherwise condemned.”
It is worth noting, however, that the British did not always remain indifferent to social issues. By supporting the status quo, they indirectly protected existing social evils.
By promoting casteism and communalism for political purposes, the British actively fueled social reactions and divisions.

Restrictions on the Press

The British introduced the printing press in India, which led to the development of the modern press.
Educated Indians quickly recognized the press’s potential to educate public opinion and influence government policies through criticism.
Indian leaders such as Ram Mohan Roy, Vidyasagar, Dadabhai Naoroji, Justice Ranade, Surendranath Banerjee, Lokmanya Tilak, G. Subramaniya Iyer, C. Karunakara Menon, Madan Mohan Malaviya, Lala Lajpat Rai, Bipin Chandra Pal, and others played a crucial role in starting newspapers and turning them into a powerful political force.
The Indian press enjoyed freedom after Charles Metcalfe lifted restrictions in 1835. This move was enthusiastically welcomed by educated Indians and partly influenced their initial support for British rule in India.
However, as nationalists began using the press to awaken national consciousness and criticize the government’s reactionary policies, officials turned against the Indian press and sought to curtail its freedom. This led to the passage of the Vernacular Press Act in 1878, which imposed significant restrictions on Indian-language newspapers.
The Act faced strong opposition and was repealed in 1882, granting the Indian press considerable freedom for about 25 years. However, with the rise of the militant Swadeshi and Boycott movement after 1905, repressive press laws were reintroduced in 1908 and 1910.

Racial Antagonism

The British in India maintained a sense of racial superiority and kept themselves separate from the Indians.
The revolt of 1857 and the atrocities committed by both sides further deepened the divide between the Indians and the British, who openly asserted their racial supremacy and displayed racial arrogance.
Visible examples of racialism were evident in the segregation of railway compartments, waiting rooms, parks, hotels, swimming pools, clubs, etc., reserved exclusively for Europeans.

Extreme Backwardness of Social Services

The Government of India allocated a significant portion of its income to the military, wars, and administrative services while neglecting social services.
In 1886, out of its total net revenue of nearly Rs. 47 crores, the Indian government spent nearly 19.41 crores on the army and 17 crores on civil administration, but only about 2 crores on education, medicine, and public health, and a mere 65 lakhs on irrigation.
Any progress made in providing services like sanitation, water supply, and public health was usually limited to urban areas, particularly the British or modern sections of cities, leaving the majority of the population underserved.

Labour Legislation

In the 19th century, workers in modern factories and plantations faced harsh conditions. They were required to work long hours, typically between 12 and 16 hours per day, without a weekly day of rest. Women and children were subjected to the same grueling work hours as men, and wages were extremely low, ranging from Rs. 4 to 20 per month.
The factories themselves were overcrowded, poorly lit, lacking proper ventilation, and unhygienic. Working with machines posed significant hazards, resulting in frequent accidents.
The Government of India, generally favoring capitalist interests, took limited and insufficient steps to address the dire conditions in modern factories, many of which were owned by Indian industrialists. Pressure from British manufacturers influenced the government to pass factory laws, as they feared that cheap labor in India would enable Indian manufacturers to dominate the local market.
The first Indian Factory Act was enacted in 1881, primarily focusing on child labor. According to this Act, children below the age of 7 were prohibited from working in factories, while those aged 7 to 12 could not work for more than 9 hours a day. Children were also entitled to four holidays per month. The Act also mandated the proper fencing of dangerous machinery.
The second Indian Factory Act was passed in 1891 and introduced a weekly holiday for all workers. Working hours for women were limited to 11 hours per day, while daily work hours for children were reduced to 7. However, working hours for men remained unregulated.
It is important to note that neither of these Acts applied to British-owned tea and coffee plantations. On the contrary, the government supported foreign planters in ruthlessly exploiting their workers. Penal laws were passed in 1863, 1865, 1870, 1873, and 1882 to assist planters, and once a laborer signed a contract to work on a plantation, they were legally obligated to do so. Breach of contract was considered a criminal offense, and laborers could be arrested at the planter’s discretion.
In the 20th century, better labor laws were enacted under the influence of the growing trade union movement. However, the working conditions for the Indian laboring class remained extremely challenging and deplorable.

Organization of the Police

The police system established by Cornwallis during British rule in India had several key features:

Transfer of Police Functions: Cornwallis relieved the zamindars (landlords) of their police responsibilities and created a separate, regular police force responsible for maintaining law and order.
System of Circles or Thanas: Cornwallis introduced a system of circles or thanas, which were police stations headed by an Indian officer known as a daroga. Later, the post of District Superintendent of Police was established to oversee the police organization at the district level.
Limited Opportunities for Indians: Despite the involvement of Indian officers at lower levels, Indians were generally excluded from holding superior positions within the police force.
Village Watchmen: In rural areas, the duties of the police were often carried out by village watchmen who were supported by the local community.
The police force gradually achieved success in reducing major crimes, such as dacoity (banditry), and played a significant role in suppressing the activities of thugs who targeted and harmed travelers, particularly in Central India.
During the emergence of the national movement, the police were utilized to suppress and control activities perceived as threats to British control. Their role included preventing large-scale conspiracies against foreign rule and suppressing the nationalist movement as it gained momentum.
It is worth noting that the police system in India was established earlier than the development of a similar system in Britain, giving India an advantage in this regard during the colonial period.

Police Commission (1860)

During the pre-colonial period, various rulers, including the Mughals, had their systems of law enforcement. There were separate police forces for maintaining law and order, such as faujdars, mails, and kotwals, who performed different functions in different regions. Additionally, village watchmen were responsible for protecting villages during the night.

Police Reforms During the Colonial Period:

The first Police Commission was established in 1860, following an inquiry into cases of police torture that had taken place in 1855. The 1861 Police Act was enacted based on the recommendations of this commission, primarily in response to the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857. This act, which is still in effect today, placed the police force under the supervision of the state government. The appointment of the Commissioner of Police was made by the Chief or the Home Minister, and the police were not directly accountable to civil society or other democratic institutions.
Under the reformed system, the position of the Superintendent of Police (SP) was abolished, and the collector/magistrate took charge of the police force in their jurisdiction. Each division had a commissioner who acted as the Special Police Officer. This organizational structure led to disorganization within the police force and placed a heavy burden on the collector/magistrate.
The Police Commission’s recommendations included the establishment of a civil constabulary system that maintained the existing village setup with village watchmen, but with direct coordination with the larger constabulary. The hierarchy of the police force included an inspector-general at the provincial level, a deputy inspector-general at the range level, and a superintendent at the district level.

The Indian Police Act of 1861

The Indian Police Act of 1861 aimed to reorganize the police force to enhance its effectiveness and efficiency. It replaced the military police with a uniform civil police force under the control of provincial administrations. The Act introduced the Inspector-General as the head of the provincial police force, and the superintendent oversaw the village police. It also established a clear command and control hierarchy within the police force.
While the top ranks of the police force were primarily held by Europeans, Indians were predominantly recruited in lower ranks, although not exclusively. The Act emphasized improving village policing under the supervision of local magistrates. Efforts were made to enhance police salaries and bring them more in line with military services.
In conclusion, the British government’s efforts to reform and utilize the police force in India had mixed results. The establishment of the Police Commission and the enactment of the 1861 Police Act aimed to reorganize and improve the effectiveness of the police. However, various factors, including the haste of implementation and limited Indian representation in higher ranks, affected the outcome. The political and administrative situation during this time was complex, and the impact of these reforms varied.

Development of Judiciary

Hastings initiated the system, but Cornwallis made it workable.

Reforms To The Judiciary Under Warren Hastings

To settle civil issues involving both Hindu and Muslim law, district-level Diwani Adalats were set up.
The Sadar Diwani Adalat heard the appeal from the District Diwani Adalats.
The Sadar Nizamat Adalat in Murshidabad, which oversaw the death penalty and the purchase of land, was run by a deputy Nizam (an Indian Muslim) with assistance from the senior mufti and chief qazi.
A Supreme Court was established in Calcutta by the Regulating Act of 1773 with the power to hear cases involving all British subjects, including Indians and Europeans, who were present in Calcutta and its associated factories. It was a court with both original and appellate jurisdiction.

Changes Made By Cornwallis

Cornwallis dissolved the District Fauzadari Court, and Circuit Courts were set up at Calcutta, Decca, Murshidabad, and Patna.
European justices sit on its appeals court, which handles both civil and criminal issues.
He transferred Sadar Nizamat Adalat to Calcutta, where it was overseen by the Governor-General and Supreme Council members, with the help of Chief Qazi and Chief Mufti.
A district judge presided over the District, City, or Zila Court, which had been renamed from the District Diwani Adalat.

Alterations Made By William Bentinck

The four Circuit Courts were dissolved under William Bentinck, and the duties of the former courts were given to collectors who were supervised by the commissioner of revenue and circuit.
The Sadar Diwani Adalat and the Sadar Nizamat Adalat were founded in Allahabad.
He established English as the official language for Supreme Court sessions, Persian, and vernacular language for lower court proceedings.
Macaulay formed the Law Commission during his rule, which codified Indian laws.
This commission served as the foundation for the creation of the Civil Procedure Code of 1859, the Indian Penal Code of 1860, and the Criminal Procedure Code of 1861.

Development of Civil Services

The development of civil services in India during the colonial period went through several stages and reforms. Here is an overview of the key milestones:

Charter Act 1853: The Charter Act of 1853 ended the East India Company’s patronage system and introduced an open competition for future hiring. However, Indians were initially barred from holding prominent positions.
Indian Civil Services Act 1861: Under the viceroyalty of Lord Canning, the Indian Civil Services Act was passed. While certain positions were reserved for covenanted civil servants, the examination was conducted in English and based on classical Greek and Latin knowledge. The age limit for eligibility gradually decreased over time.
Statutory Civil Service: In 1878-1879, Lord Lytton introduced the Statutory Civil Service, allowing Indians of high families to fill one-sixth of covenanted jobs through local government nominations. However, this system was later repealed due to its ineffectiveness.
Aitchison Commission 1886: The Aitchison Commission, headed by Sir Charles Aitchison, was established in 1886 to devise a strategy for including Indians in government service. It proposed abolishing the Statutory Civil Service and dividing the civil services into three groups: Imperial, Provincial, and Subordinate.
Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms 1919: The Government of India Act on Constitutional Reforms of 1919 recommended three levels of service categorization: All India, Provincial, and Subordinate. All India Services provided special protections to employees in terms of dismissal, pay, pensions, and other rights. The Act also proposed the creation of a Public Service Commission to ensure impartial recruitment.
Lee Commission 1924: The Lee Commission, established in 1923, examined the racial composition of the superior Indian public services. It recommended that 20% of recruits come from the provincial service, with 40% being British and 40% directly recruited Indians.
Government of India Act 1935: The 1935 Act proposed the establishment of a Federal Public Service Commission and Provincial Public Service Commissions. However, positions of control and authority remained in British hands, and the Indianization of the civil service did not grant effective political power to Indians as they often acted as agents of colonial rule.
Throughout this period, the civil services played a significant role in administering India’s newly acquired territories. However, the exclusionary practices and limited representation of Indians in higher positions remained a source of discontent and became a focus of subsequent reforms during the struggle for independence.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What were the key administrative changes introduced in India after the year 1858?

Answer: After the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the British government in India underwent significant administrative reforms. The Government of India Act 1858 marked the beginning of direct British rule in India. The key administrative changes included the transfer of control from the East India Company to the British Crown, the appointment of a Secretary of State for India, and the establishment of the Viceroyalty with Lord Canning as the first Viceroy.

2. How did the administrative structure evolve during the British Raj in India?

Answer: The administrative structure underwent several changes during the British Raj. The Viceroy, representing the British Crown, became the highest authority. The Indian Civil Services (ICS) played a crucial role in governance. The provinces were reorganized, and a dual system of governance was introduced with separate powers for the Centre and provinces. The introduction of the Morley-Minto Reforms in 1909 and the Government of India Act 1919 further expanded legislative powers and introduced the concept of dyarchy.

3. What impact did administrative changes have on Indian society and politics after 1858?

Answer: The administrative changes had profound effects on Indian society and politics. The introduction of Western-style education, modern legal systems, and railways transformed aspects of Indian society. The establishment of representative institutions and legislative councils provided a platform for Indian political participation, although it was limited. The administrative changes also fueled nationalist sentiments, leading to the demand for greater self-governance and eventually independence.

In case you still have your doubts, contact us on 9811333901.

For UPSC Prelims Resources, Click here

For Daily Updates and Study Material:

Join our Telegram Channel – Edukemy for IAS

1. Learn through Videos – here
2. Be Exam Ready by Practicing Daily MCQs – here
3. Daily Newsletter – Get all your Current Affairs Covered – here
4. Mains Answer Writing Practice – here