Question map
What was/were the object/objects of Queen Victoria's Proclamation (1858)? 1. To disclaim any intention to annex Indian States 2. To place the Indian administration under the British Crown 3. To regulate East India Company's trade with India Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Explanation
Queen Victoria's Proclamation of 1858 had two main objectives reflected in statements 1 and 2. As per the Queen's proclamation, the era of annexations and expansion had ended and the British promised to respect the dignity and rights of the native princes.[1] This clearly disclaims any intention to annex Indian States. Because of the states' loyalty during the 1857 revolt and their potential use as breakwaters in political storms of the future, the policy of annexation was abandoned. The new policy was to punish or depose but not to annex.[2]
Regarding statement 2, the Act declared Queen Victoria as the sovereign of British India and provided for the appointment of a Secretary of State for India. The direct responsibility for the administration of the country was assumed by the British Crown and Company rule was abolished.[3]
Statement 3 is incorrect because the 1858 Proclamation did not regulate the East India Company's trade with India. Instead, it transferred governance from the Company to the Crown, effectively ending the Company's administrative role altogether. The Proclamation was about governance and political administration, not trade regulation.
Sources- [1] Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 7: The Revolt of 1857 > Consequences > p. 183
- [2] Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 34: The Indian States > IV. Policy of Subordinate Union (1857-1935) > p. 605
- [3] Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 7: The Revolt of 1857 > Consequences > p. 182
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis is a classic 'Timeline Consistency' test. Statements 1 and 2 are the core definition of the 1858 shift found in every basic text. Statement 3 is a historical anachronism—the Company's trade role had already been dismantled by the Acts of 1813 and 1833. If you knew the commercial timeline, this was a sitter.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Did Queen Victoria's Proclamation (1858) disclaim any intention to annex Indian States?
- Statement 2: Did Queen Victoria's Proclamation (1858) place the administration of India under the British Crown?
- Statement 3: Did Queen Victoria's Proclamation (1858) regulate the East India Company's trade with India?
- Explicitly states that 'as per the Queen's proclamation, the era of annexations and expansion had ended'.
- Says the proclamation promised to respect dignity and rights of native princes, implying no intention to annex.
- Links the year 1858 with abandonment of annexation policy following Crown assumption of responsibility.
- Specifies the new policy was to punish or depose but not to annex, tied to the 1858 change.
- States the policy of annexation was abandoned to cultivate princely states as buffers after the 1857 revolt.
- Records guarantees of territorial integrity and respect for princely succession, consistent with a promise not to annex.
- Explicitly records the proclamation read at the Durbar and states India would be governed in the name of the British Monarch through a Secretary of State.
- Notes abolition of the Court of Directors and Board of Control and that the Crown and Parliament became constitutionally responsible for governance.
- States the Act of 1858 declared Queen Victoria the sovereign of British India.
- Says direct responsibility for administration was assumed by the British Crown and Company rule was abolished.
- Explicitly says an Act of Parliament in 1858 transferred the power to govern from the East India Company to the British Crown.
- Describes the Secretary of State for India (answerable to Parliament) and Governor-General as Viceroy executing government on behalf of the Crown.
- Explicitly lists “To regulate East India Company's trade with India” as a proposed object of the Proclamation, showing the claim exists in discussion.
- Also states the Proclamation 'brought an end to the Company's rule', implying the Proclamation's main effect was transfer of governance rather than trade regulation.
- Explains that until 1858 policy was set by the East India Company and that 'the determination of Indian policy passed from one set of institutions to another' in 1858.
- This indicates the 1858 change was about shifting governance/policy control away from the Company (placing administration under Crown) rather than specifically regulating its trade.
Says the proclamation/Act abolished the Court of Directors and the Board of Control and transferred governance to the Crown, showing a legal re‑allocation of the Company's governing functions.
A student could infer that if governing bodies were abolished, they should check whether commercial privileges (like trade monopoly) were separately revoked or left intact in the same legislation or subsequent statutes.
Explains the 1858 Act transferred power to the Crown and set up a Secretary of State with Council, indicating the Act’s primary focus was administrative/governmental change.
One could extend this by comparing the Act's language (administration vs commerce) or looking for clauses about trade rights to judge whether trade regulation was intended.
Notes that the Regulating Act of 1773 was explicitly meant to 'control and regulate the functioning of the East India Company', giving an example that earlier parliamentary acts did regulate the Company's affairs.
A student could use this pattern (parliamentary acts regulating Company functions) to examine whether 1858 followed the same model and thus might also have included trade regulation.
Describes the Company’s origin as a trading body under a royal charter with exclusive trading privileges, establishing the Company’s commercial identity distinct from later political rule.
Using this, one can ask whether the 1858 transfer of political power would necessarily alter the original chartered commercial privileges or whether those would require separate legal action to change.
States the Company transformed from trading to ruling (by 1765) and that 1773–1858 was Company rule, highlighting the dual commercial/political evolution of the Company.
A student might use this pattern to hypothesize that because the Company had become a ruler, the 1858 Act targeted governance first; they should therefore check whether trade functions were explicitly addressed or left to other statutes.
- [THE VERDICT]: Sitter. Directly solvable from Spectrum (Chapter: The Revolt of 1857 - Consequences) or Old NCERT Bipan Chandra.
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: Constitutional Developments (1773–1947) and the specific transition from Company Rule to Crown Rule.
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize the 'Death of the Company': 1813 (Trade monopoly lost except tea/China) → 1833 (Purely administrative body, trade ended completely) → 1853 (Patronage lost, open competition) → 1858 (Political abolition). Also, link 1858 to the creation of the Secretary of State and the Council of India.
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: When studying Acts, always ask: 'What died here?' In 1858, the Doctrine of Lapse and the Dual Government (Board of Control + Court of Directors) died. Trade regulation was not the agenda because trade was already dead.
Multiple references link the 1858 Proclamation to abandonment of annexation and explicit assurances to princely states.
High-yield for polity/modern history questions about British policies after 1857 — explains a major shift from Doctrine of Lapse to protection of princely states. Master by memorising the change in policy, key phrases (end of annexation), and linking to the 1858 Act and Durbar. Useful for questions on causes/consequences of 1857 and British-princely relations.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 7: The Revolt of 1857 > Consequences > p. 183
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 34: The Indian States > IV. Policy of Subordinate Union (1857-1935) > p. 605
References show post-1858 the Crown asserted paramountcy while guaranteeing territorial integrity and succession rights of native rulers.
Important for questions on the nature of indirect rule and constitutional relationships between British Crown and princely states. Helps answer comparative questions (pre- and post-1857 policies), and to explain mechanisms like guarantees of succession. Prepare by mapping policy changes to administrative acts and princely-state reactions.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 34: The Indian States > IV. Policy of Subordinate Union (1857-1935) > p. 605
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 27: Survey of British Policies in India > British Policy Towards Princely States > p. 539
Evidence notes the proclamation also promised non-interference in religion and greater inclusion of Indians in administration alongside ending annexation.
Useful for balancing political and social dimensions of the proclamation in essays/answers — shows the proclamation addressed both princely relations and native sentiments. Study by pairing the proclamation's political guarantees with its social/administrative pledges to explain its conciliatory intent.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 7: The Revolt of 1857 > Consequences > p. 183
- Exploring Society:India and Beyond ,Social Science, Class VIII . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 4: The Colonial Era in India > Two heroines > p. 111
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 26: Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments > Charter Act of 1853 > p. 514
The references repeatedly state the 1858 Act transferred authority from the East India Company to the British Crown, directly addressing whether administration came under the Crown.
High-yield constitutional history topic: explains the formal end of Company rule and start of Crown rule, often tested in polity and modern history. Connects to later developments (Viceroy, Secretary of State, princely states). Master by memorising the Act's purpose, key institutional changes, and consequences for administration.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 7: The Revolt of 1857 > Consequences > p. 182
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 1: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND > Utility of a Historical Retrospect. > p. 2
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 9: Administrative Changes After 1858 > Administration > p. 151
Multiple references mention the Secretary of State and a Council as the mechanism by which the Crown governed India after 1858.
Important administrative detail linking institutional change to accountability (Cabinet responsibility to Parliament). Useful for questions on administrative structure and continuity/change from Company to Crown rule. Learn roles/functions and relation to Governor-General/Viceroy.
- History , class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 18: Early Resistance to British Rule > Proclamation 1858 > p. 295
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 9: Administrative Changes After 1858 > Administration > p. 151
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 26: Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments > Central Government > p. 525
References describe the proclamation's assurances (non-interference in religion, end of annexations, respect for princes) which contextualise Crown rule.
Helps answer questions on colonial policy shifts and legitimacy strategies post-1857; links political rhetoric to administrative change. Useful for essay and mains answers on policy continuity and princely states. Revise proclamation text summary and its political implications.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 7: The Revolt of 1857 > Consequences > p. 183
- Exploring Society:India and Beyond ,Social Science, Class VIII . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 4: The Colonial Era in India > Two heroines > p. 111
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 34: The Indian States > IV. Policy of Subordinate Union (1857-1935) > p. 605
References describe the 1858 Act and Queen Victoria being declared sovereign, showing the transfer of governance from the East India Company to the British Crown.
High-yield for UPSC: this is central to the constitutional/administrative history after the 1857 Revolt. Questions often ask about the shift from company to Crown rule, its provisions and consequences. Study the Act's main features, political context, and how it set the stage for later colonial governance.
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 9: Administrative Changes After 1858 > Administration > p. 151
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 1: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND > Utility of a Historical Retrospect. > p. 2
The 'White Mutiny' (1859). Following the 1858 transfer, European troops of the EIC mutinied because their services were transferred to the Crown without a fresh bounty. This is the immediate military fallout of the Proclamation often missed.
Use the 'Anachronism Filter'. Ask: 'Did the Company even trade in 1858?' No. The Charter Act of 1833 ended all commercial activities of the EIC, making it a purely administrative body. Therefore, 'regulating trade' in 1858 is chronologically impossible. Eliminate 3.
Mains GS2 (Federalism): The 1858 Act established a highly centralized, unitary administration (Secretary of State → Viceroy). The constitutional history of India from 1861 to 1935 is essentially the slow dismantling of this 1858 centralization towards provincial autonomy.