UPSC Prelims 2010 Q85: Modern History – British Administration & Economic Policies
- (a) Lord Cornwallis felt that the District Collector's efficiency of revenue collection would enormously increase without the burden of other work
- (b) Lord Cornwallis felt that Judicial power should compulsorily be in the hands of Europeans while Indians can be given the job of revenue collection in the districts
- (c) Lord Cornwallis was alarmed at the extent of power concentrated in the District Collector and felt that such absolute power was undesirable in one person
- (d) The judicial work demanded a deep knowledge of India and a good training in law and Lord Cornwallis felt that District Collector should be only a revenue collector
Answer: (c) Lord Cornwallis was alarmed at the extent of power concentrated in the District Collector and felt that such absolute power was undesirable in one person
Explanation
Why Cornwallis stripped the District Collector of judicial powers
A 1793 regulation separated revenue collection from judicial functions at the district level.
| Option | Verdict | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| (a) To boost revenue-collection efficiency by removing other burdens | Incorrect | While plausible-sounding, this is not the primary reason cited for the regulation |
| (b) Judicial power should be with Europeans, revenue collection could go to Indians | Incorrect | This misstates the actual concern, which was about concentration of power, not a European-Indian role division |
| (c) Cornwallis was alarmed at the extent of power concentrated in the Collector, and felt such absolute power was undesirable | Correct | Cornwallis was specifically concerned that combining revenue AND judicial powers in one official gave the District Collector excessive, unchecked authority — so he separated the functions |
| (d) Judicial work demanded deep legal knowledge, Collector should focus on revenue | Incorrect | While a plausible-sounding administrative argument, this is not the historically cited primary reason |
Why powers were separated:
| Point | Detail |
|---|---|
| Concern | Excessive concentration of power in one official |
| Solution | Separate judicial and revenue-collection functions |
| Regulation | 1793, under Lord Cornwallis |
Answer: (c) Lord Cornwallis was alarmed at the extent of power concentrated in the District Collector and felt that such absolute power was undesirable in one person.
Why each option is right or wrong
- (a) Incorrect. Revenue efficiency was not the primary stated reason for this specific regulation.
- (b) Incorrect. This misdescribes the actual European-vs-Indian role concern behind the decision.
- (c) CORRECT. Cornwallis's real concern was the dangerous concentration of power in a single official holding both judicial and revenue authority.
- (d) Incorrect. The legal-knowledge argument is not the historically cited primary reason.
Key point
Cornwallis separated judicial and revenue-collection powers at the district level in 1793 because he was alarmed at how much ABSOLUTE POWER was concentrated in one official (the District Collector), not primarily for efficiency or racial role division.
Remember
1793 regulation stripping the District Collector of judicial power: driven by Cornwallis's concern over excessive power concentration in one official.
Common mistakes
- Picking a plausible-sounding administrative efficiency argument over the actual power-concentration concern.
- Misattributing the decision to a European-vs-Indian role division, which misreads the real historical reasoning.
- Not connecting this 1793 regulation to Cornwallis's broader checks-and-balances approach to colonial administration.
Exam tip
Cornwallis's 1793 separation of powers = fear of ONE OFFICIAL holding too much absolute power, not simple efficiency or racial role assignment.
Sources
- Bipan Chandra — Modern India (NCERT textbook for Class XII)
- Regulation II of 1793 (Cornwallis Code): separation of revenue and judicial functions in the districts