1.2.3 - Modern Indian History Notes 19

Elaborate Notes

Regulation of the East India Company (EIC)

The intervention of the British Parliament in the affairs of the East India Company in the 1770s was a watershed moment in the history of British India. It marked the beginning of a gradual but inexorable process of asserting state sovereignty over the Company’s burgeoning territorial empire. This intervention was not a sudden event but the culmination of various political, economic, and moral pressures that had been building for over a decade.

• The Political and Economic Rise of the EIC: Following Robert Clive’s victory at the Battle of Plassey (1757) and the subsequent success at the Battle of Buxar (1764), the EIC underwent a fundamental transformation. The Treaty of Allahabad (1765), which granted the Company the Diwani (the right to collect revenue) of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa, turned a commercial entity into a de facto sovereign power. This created an anomalous situation where a private, non-state actor wielded immense political and military power, a development that made the British state profoundly anxious. As historian P.J. Marshall argues in his work The Making and Unmaking of Empires (2005), the British political establishment grew increasingly wary of this “imperium in imperio” (an empire within an empire). The fear was amplified by the American War of Independence (1775-1783), where British settlers revolted against metropolitan control, raising concerns that the powerful EIC might one day do the same.

• Economic Motives of the British State: The British government, burdened by debt from the Seven Years’ War (1756-63), saw the EIC’s vast Indian revenues as a lucrative source for the national exchequer. This led to an agreement in 1767, compelling the EIC to pay an annual sum of £400,000 to the British treasury. The state’s desire for a share in the profits was a primary driver for seeking greater control over the Company’s finances and administration.

• Moral and Humanitarian Concerns: The Great Bengal Famine of 1770, a catastrophic event that led to the death of nearly a third of Bengal’s population, severely damaged the reputation of both the EIC and Britain. The famine was widely attributed to the Company’s exploitative revenue policies under the “Dual Government” system and its apathetic response to the crisis. This humanitarian disaster fueled a moral outcry in Britain, challenging the nascent ideology of the “white man’s burden” and providing ammunition to critics who argued that the Company’s rule was unjust and immoral.

• Corruption and the ‘Nabobs’: EIC officials, engaging in rampant private trade and accepting enormous ‘gifts’ and bribes, returned to Britain with colossal fortunes. These individuals, pejoratively termed ‘Nabobs’, used their wealth to purchase estates and seats in the House of Commons, which was seen as a corrupting influence on British politics. Figures like Robert Clive became symbols of this phenomenon. Prominent parliamentarians like Edmund Burke were vocal critics, arguing that the Company’s activities in India were morally indefensible and a threat to the British constitution itself.

• The EIC’s Financial Crisis: Paradoxically, while its servants grew rich, the Company itself was driven to the brink of bankruptcy by the 1770s. The costs of constant warfare (e.g., the First Anglo-Mysore War, 1767-69) and administrative mismanagement drained its coffers. In 1772, the EIC was forced to request a loan of £1 million from the Bank of England. This request provided the British government, led by Prime Minister Lord North, with the perfect opportunity to assert its authority and impose regulations as a condition for the bailout.

• The Select Committee of Parliament (1772): In response to the crisis, Parliament established a Select Committee in 1772 to inquire into the EIC’s affairs. The committee’s mandate was twofold:

  1. To examine the Company’s administrative and financial health in India.
  2. To define the constitutional relationship between the British state and the EIC, particularly regarding the sovereignty of the territories acquired in India. The committee’s reports highlighted severe mismanagement and corruption, confirming the need for legislative intervention. It recommended that while the EIC could retain its trading monopoly, its political and administrative functions—its “public affairs”—must be brought under parliamentary supervision. This laid the direct groundwork for the subsequent legislation.

Regulating Act of 1773 (Lord North’s Act)

This Act was the first definitive step by the British Parliament to control and regulate the EIC’s Indian administration. It was a landmark piece of legislation that legally asserted Parliament’s right to intervene in the Company’s affairs.

• Key Provisions and Their Significance:

  • Parliamentary Supervision of the Court of Directors (CoD): The Act required the CoD, the EIC’s governing body in London, to submit all correspondence from India on civil, military, and revenue matters to the Secretary of State. This established a direct channel of oversight, though commercial matters remained outside this purview.
  • Centralization of Administration: The Governor of Bengal was elevated to the position of Governor-General of Bengal (Warren Hastings being the first). The presidencies of Bombay and Madras were subordinated to the Bengal presidency in matters of war and peace, except in cases of “emergency.” This marked the beginning of a centralized British administration in India.
  • The Governor-General’s Council: A Supreme Council of Bengal was created with four members to assist and, crucially, check the Governor-General. All decisions were to be made by a majority vote. The Governor-General had no veto power, only a casting vote in the event of a tie. This was intended to prevent autocratic rule but became a major source of weakness. The initial councillors—Philip Francis, John Clavering, George Monson, and Richard Barwell—were often in opposition to Hastings, leading to administrative paralysis.
  • Establishment of a Supreme Court: A Supreme Court of Judicature was established at Fort William, Calcutta (in 1774), with a Chief Justice (Sir Elijah Impey) and three other judges. Its jurisdiction was intended to cover all British subjects in Bengal and to administer English law.
  • Anti-Corruption Measures: The Act explicitly prohibited the Company’s servants from engaging in any private trade or accepting “presents or emoluments” from Indians, directly targeting the source of the ‘Nabob’ fortunes.

• Defects and Consequences of the Act:

  • Weakness of the Governor-General: The lack of a veto power meant the Governor-General could be consistently overruled by a hostile majority in his council, as was frequently the case with Warren Hastings.
  • Jurisdictional Ambiguity: The Act failed to clearly define the respective jurisdictions of the Supreme Court and the Governor-General’s Council. This led to serious conflicts, most notably in the cases of Raja Nandakumar (1775), who was tried and executed by the Supreme Court in a controversial case, and the Cossijurah case (1779-80), which saw a direct confrontation between the court’s officers and the council’s troops.
  • Ineffective Control over Presidencies: The “emergency circumstances” clause was a significant loophole, which the Bombay government exploited to sign the Treaty of Surat (1775) with a Maratha faction, triggering the First Anglo-Maratha War without Calcutta’s consent.
  • The Amending Act of 1781 (Bengal Judicature Act): Passed to rectify the jurisdictional chaos, this Act, also known as the Declaratory Act, explicitly exempted the Governor-General and his council, along with other Company officials, from the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction for acts done in their official capacities. It also recognized the authority of the Company’s provincial courts (Sadar Diwani and Nizamat Adalats).

Pitt’s India Act of 1784

Named after Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger, this Act was designed to remedy the deep-seated flaws of the Regulating Act and establish a more permanent and effective system of control.

• Key Provisions and their Significance:
  • Creation of the Board of Control (BoC): The Act established a powerful new government body in London, the Board of Control, comprising six members, including a Secretary of State (as President) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The BoC was empowered to “superintend, direct and control” all civil, military, and revenue affairs of the EIC.
  • System of ‘Double Government’: This Act institutionalized a system of dual control. The Court of Directors of the EIC would continue to manage the Company’s commercial functions and retain the power of patronage (appointments). However, all political and administrative decisions were subject to the authority of the Board of Control. All dispatches to and from India had to be shared with the BoC, which could issue binding orders. This system, though cumbersome, lasted until 1858.
  • Assertion of British Sovereignty: For the first time, the Act explicitly referred to the EIC’s territories in India as the “British possessions in India,” unequivocally asserting the British Crown’s claim to sovereignty over them.
  • Strengthening the Governor-General: The size of the Governor-General’s council was reduced from four to three members. This crucial change meant that the Governor-General, with his own vote plus a casting vote, could now prevail with the support of just one other member, effectively preventing the deadlocks that had plagued Hastings. A subsequent Act in 1786 granted the Governor-General (specifically for Lord Cornwallis) the power to override his council in extraordinary cases.
  • Enhanced Centralization: The control of the Governor-General of Bengal over the presidencies of Bombay and Madras was strengthened and more clearly defined, reducing their ability to act independently in matters of diplomacy, war, and revenue.

---

Prelims Pointers

• The Regulating Act of 1773 was the first step taken by the British Parliament to control and regulate the affairs of the East India Company in India.
• The first Governor-General of Bengal was Warren Hastings.
• The Regulating Act provided for the establishment of a Supreme Court at Calcutta in 1774.
• The first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at Calcutta was Sir Elijah Impey.
• The Act created a Governor-General’s Council with four members.
• The Amending Act of 1781, also known as the Bengal Judicature Act or Declaratory Act, was passed to remedy the jurisdictional defects of the 1773 Act.
• Pitt’s India Act of 1784 established a system of ‘Double Government’ or ‘Dual Control’.
• The two bodies in the Double Government were the Board of Control (representing the State) and the Court of Directors (representing the Company).
• The Board of Control was responsible for civil, military, and revenue (political) affairs.
• The Court of Directors was responsible for commercial affairs and patronage.
• Pitt’s India Act of 1784 for the first time termed the EIC’s territories as the “British possessions in India”.
• The Act reduced the strength of the Governor-General’s council from four to three members.

---

Mains Insights

1. The Transition from Commercial Body to Sovereign Power: The period from 1773 to 1784 represents a critical phase in the EIC’s evolution. The Acts were Parliament’s response to the Company’s unplanned and rapid territorial expansion. The core challenge was how to manage a commercial entity that had acquired the functions of a state. This transition raised fundamental constitutional questions in Britain about sovereignty, accountability, and the legitimacy of imperial rule, which these acts attempted to resolve.

2. A Mix of Imperial Motives and Moral Imperatives: The parliamentary intervention was driven by a complex interplay of factors:

• Cause (Economic Greed): The British state, facing a fiscal crisis, sought to tap into the EIC’s Indian revenues. The £400,000 annual tribute and the loan request were clear economic triggers.
• Cause (Political Anxiety): The rise of a powerful, semi-independent EIC was a political threat to the authority of the Crown and Parliament.
• Cause (Moral Outrage): The reports of corruption (Nabobs) and the humanitarian disaster of the Bengal Famine created genuine public and political pressure for reform.
• Effect (Gradual Assertion of State Control): The result was a series of legislative measures that progressively stripped the EIC of its political autonomy, culminating in its dissolution in 1858. This illustrates that British imperial policy was often reactive, shaped by a combination of metropolitan interests and colonial crises.

3. Historiographical Perspectives:

• Imperialist/Cambridge School (e.g., P.J. Marshall, C.A. Bayly): These historians argue that the Acts were not part of a grand imperial design but rather pragmatic responses by the British state to regain control over its “over-mighty subjects” in India. They emphasize the role of crises on the periphery (famine, war, bankruptcy) in forcing the hand of the metropole.
• Nationalist School (e.g., R.C. Dutt): From this perspective, the “regulation” was a smokescreen for intensifying economic exploitation. R.C. Dutt, in The Economic History of India (1902), argued that these Acts were designed to make the system of revenue extraction more efficient for the primary benefit of Britain, not to improve the welfare of Indians. The “reforms” were merely instruments for consolidating the colonial state’s extractive machinery.
• Marxist School: This school would interpret the conflict as one between different factions of the British ruling class—the traditional landed aristocracy and the new-money commercial and industrial bourgeoisie. The Acts represented the state (controlled by the aristocracy) asserting its dominance over a faction of the commercial class (the EIC directors and Nabobs).

4. The Inherent Contradictions of ‘Double Government’: The dual control system established by Pitt’s India Act was a political compromise designed to appease powerful EIC interests (by leaving them patronage and commerce) while asserting state control over policy.

• Strengths: It successfully brought Indian policy under parliamentary scrutiny and ended the administrative paralysis seen under the 1773 Act by strengthening the Governor-General.
• Weaknesses: The system was inherently complex, creating a division of responsibility that could lead to delays, friction, and a lack of clear accountability. The President of the Board of Control and the Chairman of the Court of Directors often clashed. This cumbersome structure remained a key feature of Indian governance for over 70 years, highlighting the enduring power of vested interests in shaping imperial policy.

---

Previous Year Questions

Prelims Questions

1. Which of the following Acts of British India designated the Governor of Bengal as the Governor-General of Bengal? (UPSC CSE 2018 - Modified) (a) Pitt’s India Act, 1784 (b) The Regulating Act, 1773 (c) The Charter Act of 1793 (d) The Charter Act of 1813

   Answer: (b) The Regulating Act, 1773 The Act elevated the position of Governor of Bengal to Governor-General of Bengal and vested in him supreme authority over the other presidencies in certain matters.

2. Consider the following statements regarding the Pitt’s India Act of 1784:

   1. It established a Board of Control to manage the political affairs of the East India Company.
   2. It completely abolished the Court of Directors.
   3. It referred to the Company’s territories in India as the “British possessions in India” for the first time.

   Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 1 and 3 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3

   Answer: (b) 1 and 3 only The Act established the Board of Control and first used the term “British possessions in India.” It did not abolish the Court of Directors but made it subordinate to the Board of Control in political matters, thus creating the ‘Double Government’.

3. The establishment of the Supreme Court at Fort William in Calcutta was a part of which of the following? (a) Regulating Act of 1773 (b) Pitt’s India Act of 1784 (c) Charter Act of 1813 (d) Charter Act of 1833

   Answer: (a) Regulating Act of 1773 The Act provided for the establishment of a Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta, which was formally established in 1774.

4. A major flaw of the Regulating Act of 1773 was the constant friction between the Governor-General and his Council. How did the Pitt’s India Act of 1784 attempt to resolve this? (a) By giving the Governor-General an absolute veto over the council’s decisions. (b) By increasing the number of council members to five. (c) By reducing the number of council members to three. (d) By making the council’s decisions merely advisory.

   Answer: (c) By reducing the number of council members to three. By reducing the council size to three, the Governor-General, with his own vote and a casting vote, could not be deadlocked by two opposing members and could get a decision passed with the support of just one other member.

5. The Amending Act of 1781 was primarily enacted to: (a) Increase the commercial monopoly of the East India Company. (b) Abolish the Board of Control. (c) Settle the jurisdictional disputes between the Governor-General’s Council and the Supreme Court. (d) Grant more autonomy to the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras.

   Answer: (c) Settle the jurisdictional disputes between the Governor-General’s Council and the Supreme Court. The Act, also known as the Declaratory Act, was passed specifically to clarify the powers and jurisdictions of the Supreme Court and exempt Company officials for acts done in their official capacity.

Mains Questions

1. “The Regulating Act of 1773 was a well-intentioned but flawed attempt to reform the East India Company.” Critically analyse the statement. (UPSC Style Question)

   Answer: The Regulating Act of 1773 was indeed a pioneering piece of legislation, representing the British Parliament’s first major attempt to impose order on the East India Company’s chaotic administration in India. Its intentions were commendable, but its execution was deeply flawed.

   Well-Intentioned Aspects:

   • Curbing Corruption: The Act directly addressed the rampant corruption and private trade by EIC officials by explicitly banning the acceptance of gifts and presents.
   • Establishing Accountability: It sought to make the Company’s administration accountable to the British Parliament by requiring the Court of Directors to submit reports on revenue, civil, and military affairs.
   • Centralizing Authority: The elevation of the Governor of Bengal to Governor-General aimed to create a central authority in India to bring coherence to the policies of the three presidencies.
   • Introducing Rule of Law: The establishment of the Supreme Court was an attempt to introduce the British system of justice for its subjects and hold officials accountable under law.

   Flawed Aspects:

   • Weak Governor-General: The Act crippled the Governor-General by denying him veto power, making him subservient to a majority in his own council. This led to factionalism and administrative paralysis during Warren Hastings’ tenure.
   • Jurisdictional Conflict: The Act created a severe conflict of jurisdiction between the Supreme Court and the Council, as their respective powers were ill-defined. This led to administrative chaos, as seen in the Nandakumar and Cossijurah cases.
   • Ineffective Control: The subordination of Madras and Bombay was weak, with the “emergency” clause providing a loophole for them to act independently, thereby undermining the goal of centralization.
   • Lack of Government Control: The supervision by the British government over the Court of Directors remained indirect and insufficient to enforce its will effectively.

   In conclusion, while the Regulating Act of 1773 was a landmark for asserting the principle of parliamentary sovereignty over the EIC, its structural defects, particularly the weak position of the Governor-General and the ambiguous role of the Supreme Court, rendered it largely ineffective. It was a crucial first step, but its failures necessitated the more comprehensive reforms of the Pitt’s India Act of 1784.

2. Why did the British Parliament feel the need to regulate the affairs of the East India Company in the 1770s? Discuss the key factors that led to the passing of the Regulating Act of 1773. (UPSC Style Question)

   Answer: The decision of the British Parliament to intervene in the East India Company’s affairs in the 1770s was driven by a confluence of pressing political, economic, and moral factors that made the status quo untenable.

   Key Factors:

   1. The Company’s Changed Character: After 1765, the EIC was no longer just a trading company; it was a territorial sovereign collecting vast revenues and administering justice in Bengal. This anomalous position of a private company acting as a state without parliamentary oversight caused immense political anxiety in London.
   2. Economic Mismanagement and Bankruptcy: Despite the enormous revenues from Bengal, the Company was on the verge of bankruptcy due to the high costs of wars and administrative corruption. Its 1772 request for a £1 million loan from the state provided the immediate pretext for Parliament to impose conditions and assert control.
   3. Rampant Corruption and the ‘Nabobs’: EIC servants amassed huge personal fortunes through illegal private trade and extortion. These ‘Nabobs’ returned to Britain and used their wealth to disrupt the social and political order, leading to public outcry and parliamentary criticism from figures like Edmund Burke.
   4. The Great Bengal Famine (1770): The devastating famine, which was blamed on the Company’s brutal revenue policies, created a moral scandal in Britain. It tarnished the nation’s reputation and led to calls for humanitarian intervention and responsible governance.
   5. Desire of the State for Revenue: The British government, itself in debt, was eager to get a share of the EIC’s territorial revenues. The 1767 Act, which required the company to pay an annual sum, had already established the principle that the state had a right to the company’s profits. Regulation was the next logical step to secure and expand this revenue stream.

   Collectively, these factors created an overwhelming pressure for reform. The Regulating Act of 1773 was thus a product of this crisis, aiming to bring the powerful and rogue corporation under national control, reform its corrupt administration, and ensure that its Indian revenues benefited the British state.

3. “Pitt’s India Act of 1784 laid the foundation of the British Raj by establishing an effective and centralised system of control.” Elaborate.

   Answer: Pitt’s India Act of 1784 was a pivotal moment in the establishment of the British Raj, as it systematically addressed the deficiencies of the Regulating Act of 1773 and created a durable framework for British rule that lasted until 1858. It achieved this by establishing an effective and centralized system of control.

   Establishing an Effective System of Control:

   • The Board of Control: The creation of the Board of Control institutionalized direct oversight by the British government. Headed by a cabinet minister, it had the final word on all civil, military, and revenue matters, effectively making Indian policy an extension of British foreign policy.
   • Dual Government: The system of ‘Double Government’ was a shrewd political compromise. It allowed the EIC’s Court of Directors to retain control over commerce and patronage, thus avoiding their total opposition, while placing all substantive political power in the hands of the state via the Board of Control.
   • Clear Assertion of Sovereignty: By referring to the EIC’s territories as “the British possessions in India,” the Act removed any ambiguity about who held ultimate sovereignty. The EIC was now clearly an agent of the British Crown.

   Establishing a Centralised System:

   • Strengthened Governor-General: By reducing the council to three members, the Act empowered the Governor-General, making him the undisputed head of the administration in India. This solved the problem of indecision and factionalism that had plagued Warren Hastings, enabling decisive governance.
   • Effective Subordination of Presidencies: The Act reinforced the authority of the Governor-General over the presidencies of Bombay and Madras, making their subordination in matters of war, diplomacy, and revenue much more stringent and effective than before. This curbed their tendencies for independent and often disastrous military adventures.

   In essence, Pitt’s India Act replaced the EIC’s quasi-independent political authority with a system directly supervised by the British government and centered on a powerful Governor-General in Calcutta. This structure of a centralized bureaucracy under metropolitan command became the defining characteristic of the British Raj, laying a solid administrative and political foundation for the expansion and consolidation of British power in India.

4. Analyse the system of ‘Dual Control’ or ‘Double Government’ established by the Pitt’s India Act of 1784. How successful was it in achieving its objectives?

   Answer: The ‘Dual Control’ system established by Pitt’s India Act of 1784 was an ingenious but complex mechanism designed to balance state control with the commercial interests and political influence of the East India Company. It divided authority between the newly created Board of Control in London, representing the state, and the Company’s Court of Directors.

   Structure of the Dual Control System:

   • Board of Control (BoC): Composed of senior state officials, it held supreme power over all civil, military, and revenue (political) affairs. It could approve, reject, or modify any dispatch sent by the Directors to India.
   • Court of Directors (CoD): This body, representing the Company’s shareholders, was allowed to retain its authority over commercial activities and, crucially, the power of patronage (the appointment of all EIC officials).

   Objectives and Success:

   1. Objective: Assert State Sovereignty. The primary goal was to bring the EIC’s political functions under the control of the British government. In this, the Act was highly successful. The BoC ensured that major policy decisions were aligned with the interests of the British state, effectively ending the era of the Company as an independent political power.
   2. Objective: Improve Governance in India. By strengthening the Governor-General and centralizing authority, the Act aimed to create a more efficient and less chaotic administration. This objective was also largely met. Governors-General like Cornwallis and Wellesley were able to implement far-reaching administrative reforms and pursue aggressive expansionist policies without the internal opposition that hindered Hastings.
   3. Objective: A Political Compromise. The system was designed to be a workable compromise to avoid the political fallout of completely nationalizing the Company. By leaving commerce and patronage to the CoD, Pitt secured the passage of the Act. In this political sense, it was a success.

   Limitations and Failures:

   • The division of powers was often unclear, leading to friction and delays. The system was cumbersome, with dispatches moving between the CoD and BoC.
   • It created a diffusion of responsibility. When things went wrong, it was easy for one body to blame the other, making accountability obscure.
   • The retention of patronage by the CoD meant that appointments were not always based on merit, which could still lead to inefficiency and corruption, albeit on a lesser scale.

   In conclusion, the ‘Dual Control’ system was a pragmatic and politically astute solution for its time. While inefficient and fraught with internal tension, it successfully achieved its main objective of subordinating the Company to the state and established a stable framework for British administration in India that endured for over seventy years.

5. Compare and contrast the provisions of the Regulating Act of 1773 and Pitt’s India Act of 1784. How did the latter represent a significant step forward in the constitutional development of British India?

   Answer: The Regulating Act of 1773 and Pitt’s India Act of 1784 were the two foundational statutes that defined the relationship between the British state and the EIC. While the 1773 Act was a tentative first step, the 1784 Act was a far more decisive and comprehensive measure that represented a significant evolution in British imperial governance.

   Comparison of Provisions:

Feature	Regulating Act, 1773	Pitt’s India Act, 1784
Control in London	Indirect supervision. CoD to report to the Secretary of State.	Direct control via a new state body, the Board of Control, with supreme authority over political affairs.
Nature of Govt	Single body of CoD with some state supervision.	‘Dual Government’. CoD for commerce, BoC for politics.
Governor-General’s Power	Weak. Part of a 4-member council, often outvoted, no veto power.	Strengthened. Council reduced to 3, giving GG more power. Later got veto power (1786).
Centralisation	Introduced the principle by subordinating Bombay/Madras.	Made the subordination more stringent and effective.
Sovereignty	Implicitly asserted Parliament’s right to legislate.	Explicitly declared EIC territories as “British possessions in India.”

Pitt’s India Act as a Significant Step Forward: 1. From Supervision to Control: The 1773 Act merely provided for supervision, whereas the 1784 Act established a mechanism for direct and binding control through the Board of Control. This shifted the balance of power decisively in favour of the British state. 2. Solving the Problem of Governance: The 1784 Act rectified the biggest flaw of its predecessor by empowering the Governor-General. This fixed the administrative paralysis in Calcutta and created a strong executive, which became the pivot of British rule in India. 3. Clarity over Ambiguity: Pitt’s India Act brought clarity to the issue of sovereignty. By explicitly calling the territories “British possessions,” it laid the undisputed constitutional foundation for the British Empire in India, a step the 1773 Act had hesitated to take so clearly. 4. Establishment of a Durable System: The ‘Dual Government’ system, despite its complexities, proved to be a durable framework that balanced various interests and lasted until the Great Revolt of 1857. The 1773 Act, in contrast, was unworkable from the start and required immediate amendment.

In conclusion, if the Regulating Act of 1773 was an experiment born out of a crisis, Pitt’s India Act of 1784 was a calculated and permanent constitutional settlement. It established the supremacy of the British state, created a workable administrative structure, and laid the definitive political groundwork for the British Raj.