Administrative Organisation under British India pre 1857

From Supervision to Direct Control

When the Company got Diwani rights in Bengal in 1765, it initially kept the old Mughal system running. Indian officials handled daily administration; the Company simply “supervised” and collected revenue.

But over time, British leaders like Warren Hastings and Lord Cornwallis realised that traditional methods didn’t fully serve British aims. So they:

• Dismantled large parts of the Mughal framework.
• Introduced a new administrative system, heavily influenced by English models.
• Ensured that control rested firmly with British officials.

Purpose of British Administration in India

The British were not here to develop India. Their primary goal was to maintain British rule — and everything else followed from that. This meant:

1. Maintenance of law and order — but in a way that protected British interests, not Indian rights.
2. Perpetuation of colonial rule — the system was designed to keep power concentrated in British hands.

Because they were foreign rulers, the British knew they could never rely on the love or loyalty of the Indian people. So instead of public support, they relied on force and control.

Three Pillars of British Power in India

1. Civil Service – The administrative “brain” of the Raj, collecting revenue, implementing laws, and maintaining records.
2. Army – The “muscle” of the Raj, ensuring internal order and defending territory.
3. Police – The everyday enforcement tool, controlling the population and suppressing dissent.

Core Objectives of the Company’s Administration

Even though policies and methods changed between 1757 and 1857, the main objectives remained constant:

1. Maximise the Company’s profits.
2. Enhance the economic value of Indian possessions for Britain.
3. Strengthen British control over Indian territories.

The Reality of British Governance

The Government of India designed every administrative institution — whether courts, police stations, revenue offices, or armies — with these ends in mind:

• Efficiency not for public service, but for extracting resources.
• Law and order not to protect Indian society, but to safeguard British economic and political dominance.
• Modernisation only where it suited colonial profits.

Alright — now we’re stepping into one of the most important pillars of British rule in India — the Civil Service, often called the “steel frame” of the Raj.
This section explains how it evolved from a corrupt trading bureaucracy into a formal administrative service, yet remained deliberately closed to Indians at higher levels.

Civil Service

From Company Servants to Administrators

• Early phase: The East India Company’s “servants” were originally commercial agents, paid low wages but allowed to trade privately.
• When the Company became a territorial power after Plassey and Buxar, these same men took over administrative duties — but they were highly corrupt.
• Leaders like Robert Clive and Warren Hastings tried to curb corruption, but their success was only partial.
• The big turning point came with Lord Cornwallis (Governor-General, 1786–93), who laid the foundation of a formal civil service system.

Main Function of the Civil Service

• Implement laws.
• Collect revenue.
• Over time, it shifted from being purely a commercial operation to functioning as a public administration — though its real aim was to serve colonial interests.

Cornwallis’s Reforms — “Father of the Indian Civil Service”

Lord Cornwallis introduced structural reforms to reduce corruption and increase efficiency:

1. Higher Salaries — to attract “gentleman” officials and discourage bribery.
   • Civil Service became the highest-paid service in the world.
   • A District Collector earned ₹1,500 per month + 1% commission on revenue from his district.
2. Ban on Private Trade & Gifts — strict rules against:
   • Trading privately.
   • Accepting presents or bribes.
3. Seniority-Based Promotion — to prevent promotions being influenced by political or commercial interests.

⚠️ Result: Despite reforms, corruption and inefficiency continued.
Note: The Regulating Act 1773 had already prohibited gifts and private trade — Cornwallis just enforced it more rigorously.

Training Civil Servants

Problem: Young recruits sent from England had no training in governance, Indian society, or local languages.

Solution (Lord Wellesley, 1800):

• Established the College of Fort William, Calcutta (24 Nov 1800).
• Provided 2 years of training in:
  • Literature
  • Science
  • Indian languages

Opposition: The Court of Directors disliked the cost and Wellesley’s initiative.

Replacement (1806):

• The East India College, Haileybury (England) replaced Fort William College as the main training centre.
• Training included Oriental languages, literature, and history — but from a Eurocentric perspective.

Covenanted vs. Uncovenanted Services

British Indian Civil Services were divided based on rank, pay, and appointment method:

1. Covenanted Services —
   • Higher administrative posts.
   • Exclusively British until Charter Act 1853 (opened in theory to Indians through competitive exams).
2. Uncovenanted Services —
   • Lower administrative posts.
   • Many Indians employed here in large numbers (cheaper and more easily available).

Policy of Complete Europeanisation

From the very start:

• All high-level posts were reserved for Europeans.
• Indians only in subordinate positions.
• Charter Act of 1793: All posts with salary over £500/year reserved for Englishmen.
• Applied across other government branches — Army, Police, Judiciary, Engineering.

Now let’s move on to the story of how appointments to the Civil Service evolved from a cosy, family-run patronage system to a theoretically open competitive examination — and why this “openness” was, in reality, still stacked against Indians.

Early Appointment System — Patronage and Nepotism

From the start:

• All appointments to the Civil Service were made by the Court of Directors of the East India Company.
• They freely nominated sons, nephews, and friends — creating a closed club of elite British families.
• This meant entry was based on connections, not ability.

Push for Open Competition

By the early 19th century:

• Reformers in Britain started demanding merit-based entry through open exams.
• Resistance came from the Company’s Directors and the British elite, who wanted to preserve lucrative Indian jobs for their own children.

First Step — Limited Competition (1833 Act)

• Charter Act of 1833 introduced the idea of competition, but only in a controlled form:
  • The Court of Directors would first nominate 4× the number of vacancies.
  • These nominees would then compete in an exam.
  • Only about one-fourth would be selected.
• This was basically nomination-cum-competition, not truly open access.
• 1837: Preliminary exams were introduced at Haileybury College (England), where Company recruits were trained.

Major Shift — Charter Act of 1853

This was the turning point:

• Removed the Directors’ power to make nominations.
• Provided for open competitive examinations (at least in theory).
• Open to Indians and British alike, without legal discrimination.

Macaulay Committee (1854)

• Sir Charles Wood (President, Board of Control) appointed a five-member committee headed by Lord Macaulay to design the system.
• Recommendations:
  • Permanent civil service based on merit, not patronage.
  • Annual competitive exams in London.
  • Age limit: 18–23 years.
  • Subjects: Broad “liberal” studies — but heavily based on Greek, Latin, and European classics.
• Civil Service Commission set up in 1854; first competitive exam held in 1855.
• Haileybury College abolished in 1858 — training no longer separate from recruitment.

Why Indians Were Still Excluded in Practice

Despite legal access, very few Indians got in. The barriers were:

1. Location — Exam only in London (travel expensive and time-consuming).
2. Language — Conducted entirely in English.
3. Syllabus bias — Heavy focus on Classical Greek and Latin literature, alien to most Indian education.
4. Age limit manipulation — In 1878, Lord Salisbury lowered the maximum age from 23 to 19, making it harder for Indians to qualify.

Racial Discrimination in Higher Services

• High-paying, strategic posts were deliberately reserved for Europeans.
• Cornwallis had earlier stated: “Every native of Hindustan is corrupt.” — a sentiment reflecting the colonial mindset.
• British argued:
  • Only Englishmen could uphold “British institutions” in India.
  • Indians lacked “sympathy” with British interests.
  • Jobs had to be preserved for Britain’s elite families.

Limited Indianisation of Lower Posts

• After 1813, financial strain (especially post-Anglo-Burmese War) forced gradual Indianisation of lower judiciary and subordinate offices.
• Indians were cheaper and more available for these roles.
• Higher covenanted posts remained overwhelmingly British.

Early Indian Successes

• Satyendranath Tagore (brother of Rabindranath Tagore) became the first Indian to clear the ICS in 1864.
• Only 1–2 Indians entered per year in the late 19th century.

Open Competition — Timeline

• 1813: Lord Grenville proposes open competition — not implemented.
• 1833: Limited competition introduced (nomination + exam).
• 1853: Full open competition announced (Charter Act).
• 1855: First competitive exam held.
• 1878: Age limit reduced to 19 — further limiting Indian entry.

Alright — now we come to the second major pillar of British power in India: the Army.
If the Civil Service was the “brain” of colonial rule, the Army was its “muscle” — the tool that made British authority possible, both inside India and across Asia.

Role of the Army in the British Raj

From the very beginning, the British realised that without a strong military force, they could neither conquer nor hold India.
The Army served three crucial purposes:

1. Conquest of Indian powers — defeating regional kingdoms like Mysore, Marathas, and Punjab.
2. Defence of the Empire — protecting British India from external threats (e.g., Afghans, Burmese) and internal uprisings.
3. Imperial expansion beyond India — sending Indian troops to fight British wars in Asia and Africa.

Formation of the Company’s Army

• It began with the Bengal Army under the Calcutta Presidency.
• Later expanded into three Presidency Armies:
  1. Bengal Army
  2. Bombay Army
  3. Madras Army
• Funding sources:

• Monopoly trade profits
• Diwani revenues from Bengal (post-1765) — which financed large-scale modernisation.

Composition of the Army

• Predominantly Indian:
  • By 1857, 86% of the soldiers were Indians.
  • Only 14% were British.
• Reasons for high Indian proportion:
  • Cost — Indian soldiers (sepoys) were cheaper than British troops.
  • Manpower — Britain’s population was too small to supply the numbers needed.
• Command Structure:
  • All higher officer posts exclusively British.
  • Highest rank open to an Indian = Subedar (a junior officer rank).

Why a Handful of British Could Control India

It seems paradoxical — a small group of British officers ruling through a huge Indian army. This was possible because:

(a) Absence of Modern Nationalism

• In the 18th–early 19th century, Indian soldiers didn’t think in terms of national identity.
• A sepoy from Bihar or Awadh didn’t feel solidarity with Marathas or Sikhs — he saw them as just another employer’s enemy.

(b) “Loyalty to the Salt”

• A long tradition in Indian military culture: loyalty to whoever paid the soldier’s “salt” (salary).
• Service was personal and professional, not ideological.

Ok — now we move to the third pillar of British administration in India — the Police.
If the Civil Service was the “brain” and the Army was the “muscle” of the Raj, the Police was its everyday grip on the population — the instrument for maintaining order, suppressing dissent, and enforcing colonial law.

The Police

Origins of the Colonial Police

Before the British reforms:

• Zamindars maintained law and order in their estates through armed retainers.
• Village watchmen (chowkidars) handled basic security at the local level.

This was a decentralised, community-based arrangement — not a uniform, state-run police force.

Cornwallis’s Police Reforms

Lord Cornwallis (Governor-General, 1786–93) introduced a modernised police system:

• Organised into thanas (police stations).
• Each thanā headed by a daroga (Indian officer).
• Cornwallis’s model actually put India ahead of Britain in terms of having a structured police force — Britain didn’t yet have a fully developed system at the time.

Administrative Structure

• Initially, District Judges supervised the thanas.
• Later, a District Superintendent of Police (always European) was appointed to head the district police organisation.
• Zamindars were relieved of policing duties.
• In villages, watchmen still carried out local policing, paid by the villagers themselves.

Later Changes

• 1814: Court of Directors abolished the post of darogas and their subordinates in all Company territories except Bengal.
• William Bentinck (1828–35) abolished the post of District Superintendent of Police, making the Collector the police head in his jurisdiction.
  ⚠️ Result: Heavy administrative burden on Collectors.

Effectiveness of the Colonial Police

Successes claimed by the British:

• Reduction of major crimes like dacoity.
• Suppression of thugs (organised highway robbers, especially in Central India).
• Prevention of large-scale conspiracies against the British.
• Suppression of early national movements.

Limitations & Public Perception

• The police generally adopted an unsympathetic, coercive attitude towards the people.
• More feared than respected — seen as an instrument of colonial control rather than public service.
• Their primary loyalty was to the British administration, not the local population.

Next, we shall talk about the Judicial Organisation in upcoming section, which explains how the British dismantled the old, caste-based and ruler-centric legal order and replaced it with a court hierarchy modeled on European lines — but still infused with racial privilege. So, let’s move on!