Question map
By which one of the following Acts was the Governor General of Bengal designated as the Governor General of India?
Explanation
The correct answer is Option 4: The Charter Act of 1833. This Act was a landmark in the centralisation of British administration in India.
The key reasons why Option 4 is correct are:
- Legal Transformation: The Act redesignated the Governor-General of Bengal as the Governor-General of India, vesting in him all civil and military powers.
- First Incumbent: Under this provision, Lord William Bentinck became the first Governor-General of India.
- Centralisation: It deprived the Governors of Bombay and Madras of their legislative powers, centralising all legislative authority under the Governor-General of India.
Regarding other options:
- The Regulating Act (1773) only created the post of Governor-General of Bengal.
- Pittās India Act (1784) and the Charter Act of 1793 focused on administrative control and commercial privileges without changing the designation of the Governor-General.
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis is a 'Sitter' from the Bible of Polity (Laxmikanth, Chapter 1). It tests the absolute basics of administrative evolution. If you got this wrong, stop reading new material and fix your foundations immediately. It requires zero current affairsājust standard static text.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Did the Regulating Act designate the Governor General of Bengal as the Governor General of India?
- Statement 2: Did Pitt's India Act designate the Governor General of Bengal as the Governor General of India?
- Statement 3: Did the Charter Act of 1793 designate the Governor General of Bengal as the Governor General of India?
- Statement 4: Did the Charter Act of 1833 designate the Governor General of Bengal as the Governor General of India?
- Specifies what the Regulating Act of 1773 created: the office was titled GovernorāGeneral of the Presidency of Fort William, i.e. GovernorāGeneral of Bengal.
- Shows the Regulating Act established the GovernorāGeneral of Bengal (not the title GovernorāGeneral of India).
- Identifies the Charter Act of 1833 as the law that retitled the governor-general of Bengal as the governor-general of India.
- Implies the designation to 'GovernorāGeneral of India' occurred in 1833, not under the Regulating Act of 1773.
- Explicitly states that after the Charter Act of 1833 the Governor-General of Bengal 'was, thereafter, designated as the Governor General of India'.
- Supports that the change to the title 'Governor General of India' came with the 1833 Charter Act rather than the Regulating Act.
States the Regulating Act 'designated the Governor of Bengal as the "Governor-General of Bengal"' showing the Act named the office with Bengal in its title.
A student could contrast this exact title with later statutes or maps of administrative reach to judge whether 'of India' was used then.
Says Warren Hastings 'was made Governor-General of Bengal according to the Regulating Act of 1773' and separately notes the Charter Act 1833 designated the post as 'Governor-General of India'.
Compare the two acts' wording or timelines to infer that 'Governor-General of India' was a later designation, not in the 1773 Act.
Repeats that the Regulating Act designated the Governor of Bengal as 'Governor-General of Bengal', reinforcing the pattern of the office being Bengal-specific under that Act.
Use this repeated wording as a basis to check whether 'Governor-General of India' appears in other legislative reforms (e.g., Charter Acts).
Describes the powers and limits of the Governor-General under the Regulating Act (e.g., control over presidencies proved inadequate), implying the office's authority was structured but not necessarily pan-India.
A student could use this to reason that if the Act had intended a full 'Governor-General of India' role it would likely have granted clearer, stronger central authority.
Refers to appointments titled 'Governor-General of Bengal' (Lord Cornwallis in 1786), showing continued use of the Bengal title after the Regulating Act.
Noting continued use of 'Governor-General of Bengal' after 1773 supports testing whether the 'of India' title was introduced only later.
- Explicitly names the Charter Act 1833 as the instrument that appointed the Governor General of Bengal as Governor General of India.
- Shows the change occurred under the 1833 Charter Act, not an earlier act like Pitt's India Act.
- States the Charter Act of 1833 designated the Governor-General of Bengal as the Governor General of India.
- Provides authoritative context on administrative centralization tied to that 1833 Act.
- Britannica explicitly says the Charter Act of 1833 'retitled the governor-general of Bengal as the governor-general of India'.
- Confirms the retitling was done by the 1833 Charter Act, implying it was not done by Pitt's India Act.
States Regulating Act (1773) made Warren Hastings 'Governor-General of Bengal' and says Charter Act 1833 designated the post as 'Governor-General of India'.
A student can use this timeline (1773 Regulating Act ā 1833 Charter Act) to check whether any act between them (e.g., Pitt's Act 1784) changed the Bengal title to 'of India'.
Explains that defects in the Regulating Act led to Pitt's India Act (1784) and that Pitt's Act gave the British government supreme control over Company affairs.
Knowing Pitt's Act altered administrative control, a student could investigate whether those changes included formally changing the Governor-General's territorial title or only altered governance structure.
Says the Regulating Act 'designated the Governor of Bengal as the Governor-General of Bengal' and made Bombay and Madras subordinate to him (illustrates what the Regulating Act explicitly changed).
Use this as a baseline: compare the specific wording of the Regulating Act with the text or summaries of Pitt's Act to see if Pitt's Act altered the designation or only the powers.
Claims (in this source) that an act 'made the Governor-General of Bengal as the Governor-General of India and vested in him all civil and military powers' and names Lord William Bentinck as first Governor-General of India (this conflicts with snippet 1 about 1833).
A student should note the apparent contradiction in sources and use external chronology (dates and which act is associated with Bentinck) to resolve whether Pitt's Act or a later act effected the 'Governor-General of India' title.
Explains that the 1858 Act made the Crown supreme and that 'Governor-general became the viceroy', showing later acts redefined the officeās status and title.
Use this pattern (different acts at different dates changing the Governor-General's role/title) to ask whether 1784 specifically changed the Bengal title to 'of India' or whether that occurred under a different act.
- Explicitly names the Charter Act of 1833 as the Act that designated the Governor-General of Bengal as Governor General of India.
- Implies that this change occurred in 1833, not in 1793, thereby answering the question in the negative.
- States that the Charter Act of 1833 'retitled the governor-general of Bengal as the governor-general of India'.
- Directly attributes the re-titling to 1833, not to the 1793 Act.
- Notes that the Charter Act 1833 're-designated the office', indicating the change of title occurred in 1833.
- Supports the conclusion that the designation was made by the 1833 Act rather than the 1793 Act.
States that the Charter Act of 1833 (not 1793) designated the post as 'Governor-General of India'.
A student could compare dates (1793 vs 1833) and infer the 1833 act ā not 1793 ā is the one that made the change.
Explains the Regulating Act/earlier legislation designated the Governor of Bengal as 'Governor-General of Bengal' and made other presidencies subordinate.
Use this pattern to see that earlier acts named a Bengal-specific office, suggesting the all-India title was a later development.
Explicitly states an act (context implies later reform) 'made the Governor-General of Bengal as the Governor-General of India' and names Lord William Bentinck as first Governor-General of India.
A student could check the named person (William Bentinck) and his term to date the change and see if it aligns with 1793 or a later act.
Describes the Act of 1786 as modifying the Governor-General of Bengal's powers, showing a sequence of legislative changes to that office over time.
A student could use the sequence (1773, 1786, later Charter Acts) to place 1793 in context and test whether a redesignation occurred in 1793 or in a different year.
Describes the 1833 Charter Act centralizing authority under 'the governor-general' over Bengal, Madras, Bombay and other territories, implying a pan-India role established by 1833.
Cross-referencing the described 1833 centralization with the question's 1793 date lets a student assess whether 1793 could have already created that pan-India authority.
- Explicitly states the Charter Act 1833 designated the post as Governor-General of India.
- Names William Bentinck as the first Governor-General of united British India, linking the Act to the office change.
- Direct assertion that the Act made the Governor-General of Bengal the Governor-General of India.
- Notes the vesting of civil and military powers in the Governor-General and names Lord William Bentinck as first.
- Describes administrative centralisation under the Charter Act, placing Bengal, Madras, Bombay and other territories under the governor-general's complete control.
- Specifies expanded powers to superintend, control and direct all civil and military affairs, consistent with an all-India Governor-General role.
- [THE VERDICT]: Absolute Sitter. Direct lift from Laxmikanth Chapter 1 (Historical Background) and Spectrum Chapter 26.
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: Constitutional History of India ā specifically the trajectory of **Centralisation** (1773ā1833) vs. **Decentralisation** (1861ā1935).
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize the 'Title Trinity': 1. Gov of Bengal ā GG of Bengal (Regulating Act 1773, Warren Hastings). 2. GG of Bengal ā GG of India (Charter Act 1833, William Bentinck). 3. GG of India ā Viceroy (GOI Act 1858, Lord Canning).
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: Do not rote learn Acts in isolation. Map them to British territorial expansion. The title 'of India' only makes sense after the British defeated the Marathas (1818) and consolidated the subcontinent, making 1833 the logical year compared to 1773.
Regulating Act of 1773 designated the Governor of Bengal as GovernorāGeneral of Bengal and created an Executive Council to assist him.
High-yield for administrative history questions: explains the first formal central office in Company India and the start of centralized governance. Connects directly to later corrective legislation (Pitt's India Act) and the evolution of executive-legislative roles. Enables timeline and cause-effect questions about early British reforms in India.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 1
- History , class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 17: Effects of British Rule > 17.1Establishment of British Raj > p. 265
Charter Act of 1833 converted the earlier post into the GovernorāGeneral of India, creating the title for united British India.
Essential to distinguish between the title created in 1773 and the later allāIndia office; helps answer questions on constitutional evolution and major milestone Acts. Useful for comparing legislative powers and administrative scope across acts.
- History , class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 17: Effects of British Rule > 17.1Establishment of British Raj > p. 265
The Regulating Act made the Governors of Bombay and Madras subordinate to the GovernorāGeneral of Bengal, centralizing authority in Bengal.
Helps explain the administrative imbalance that prompted subsequent reforms; useful for questions on presidency relations, governance challenges, and the rationale for later Acts like Pitt's India Act. Connects administrative structure to political outcomes.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 1
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 5: The Structure of the Government and the Economic Policies of the British Empire in India, 1757ā1857 > The Structure of Government > p. 91
Distinguishes the Regulating Act's creation of the GovernorāGeneral of Bengal from the Charter Act 1833's designation of GovernorāGeneral of India.
Highāyield for questions on the timeline of colonial administrative reforms: it helps identify which legislative measure created the post (Regulating Act 1773) and which later renamed/expanded it (Charter Act 1833). This concept connects to broader timelines of Company ā Crown shifts and is useful for MCQs and comparative questions on Acts.
- History , class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 17: Effects of British Rule > 17.1Establishment of British Raj > p. 265
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 1
Defines the Pitt's India Act as establishing stronger British government control (introducing a dual control arrangement between the Crown and the Company).
Important for understanding the constitutional relationship between the Company and the British government; it explains administrative changes without conflating them with later acts. Mastery of this helps answer questions on administrative authority, causes of later reforms, and the sequence of Acts.
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 5: The Structure of the Government and the Economic Policies of the British Empire in India, 1757ā1857 > The Structure of Government > p. 91
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 26: Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments > The Act for Better Government of India, 1858 > p. 507
Covers the expansion of the GovernorāGeneral's remit from Bengal to authority over other Presidencies and eventually all British territories in India.
Useful for questions on the centralisation of authority under colonial rule and the legislative steps that increased the GovernorāGeneral's civil and military powers. It links administrative posts to specific Acts and personalities, aiding timeline and causeāeffect answers.
- History , class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 17: Effects of British Rule > 17.1Establishment of British Raj > p. 265
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 3
The assignment and renaming of the Governor-General post changed across major acts, notably the Regulating Act of 1773 and the Charter Act of 1833.
High-yield for UPSC questions on constitutional-administrative history: distinguishes which statute created or renamed the GovernorāGeneral's office and shows the timeline of institutional change. This concept links to questions about the evolution of British governance in India and helps eliminate choices by anchoring reforms to specific acts.
- History , class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 17: Effects of British Rule > 17.1Establishment of British Raj > p. 265
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 26: Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments > The Charter Act of 1833 > p. 506
The Charter Act of 1833 *attempted* to introduce open competition for civil services (stating no Indian should be debarred), but this provision was negated by the Court of Directors. Open competition actually started with the Charter Act of 1853. This is a classic 'trap' fact.
Use **Territorial Logic**. In 1773 or 1784, the British were just one of many powers (Marathas and Mysore were still strong). They couldn't audaciously claim the title 'Governor General of India'. By 1833, they were the paramount power. The title follows the map.
Connects to **GS2 (Indian Constitution - Unitary Features)**. The 1833 Act was the peak of centralization, depriving Madras and Bombay of their legislative powers. This historical legacy explains the strong Center (Unitary bias) in the modern Indian Constitution.