Final answer:
The British East India Company did not allow previous kings like Chandrakanta Singha and Purandhar Singha to reside in Rangpur and Jorhat to prevent them from becoming centers of resistance against Company rule after they had established authority in Assam and other parts of India.
Step-by-step explanation:
After their victory at the Battle of Buxar in 1764 and the subsequent granting of the rights to collect taxes in Bengal in 1765, the British East India Company solidified its economic and political control over large parts of India. They used their wealth from tax collection and their powerful private armies to enforce rule and suppress any form of resistance or rebellion to their authority. The Company's policy towards Indian rulers, such as the kings of Assam, Chandrakanta Singha and Purandhar Singha, followed a strategy of undermining local power structures to ensure full control. They prevented these former kings from residing in places like Rangpur and Jorhat to avoid any possibility of them becoming focal points for resistance or symbols of legitimate rule that could challenge Company authority.
The British East India Company had exploited India's diversity and the declining power of the Mughal Empire to create disunity amongst Indian princes, which made it easier for them to establish and maintain their rule. It wasn't until the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857 that the Company was disbanded and India came under direct British rule, marking the beginning of the British Raj. By not allowing previous kings such as Chandrakanta Singha and Purandhar Singha to reside in their former capitals, the Company effectively removed potential centers of rebellion and resistance.