Introduction:
‘Company rule’ in India refers to the period when the British East India Company governed the Indian subcontinent from 1767 to 1858. The administration under the East India Company (EIC) was structured under the oversight of the Board of Control and the Court of Directors, contrasting with the decentralized administrative systems of Indian rulers, particularly under the Mughal Empire.
Body:
The administration under company rule differed from Indian rulers in the following ways:
Revenue Systems:
- Introduced Zamindari, Ryotwari, and Mahalwari systems.
- These systems were distinct from traditional Indian systems like Dashala and Zabti under Mughal rule.
- Example: The Ryotwari system in Madras Presidency and the Zamindari system in Bengal.
Rule of Law vs. Rule by Ruler:
- Established a uniform civil and criminal code.
- Organized a formal army and police force for law and order.
- In contrast, Indian rulers relied on hereditary systems for local governance and policing.
- Example: Jahagirdars and Poligars managed local law enforcement in different regions.
Bureaucracy and Judiciary:
- Introduced district collectors with administrative and judicial powers.
- Established a hierarchical judiciary system.
- Indian rulers maintained law and order through a decentralized administration.
- Example: British civil and criminal courts with British judges guided by local pundits and qazis.
Political and Economic Motives:
- EIC aimed at enhancing control over Indian trade, politics, and economy.
- Economic motives were central to EIC’s policies.
- Example: Policies leading to famines like the Bengal Famine of 1770 due to exploitative revenue policies.
Social and Cultural Interference:
- British administration imposed changes impacting local cultures.
- Example: Forest policies altering tribal life and traditional practices.
Conclusion:
The administration of the East India Company differed significantly from that of Indian rulers primarily due to its economic motives and centralized governance structures. While Indian rulers governed with diverse local systems and varying political objectives, the EIC pursued unified economic goals under a structured administrative framework. This contrast underscores the complex legacy of ‘company rule’ in India, marked by economic exploitation and cultural interference, shaping the course of Indian history leading up to colonial independence movements.