Empires have always utilized the notion of civilizing their subjects in order to justify their imperial ventures, and ‘Standards of civilisation’ has always been measured in terms of western empires that structured international society during the colonial era. However, this common conjecture has turned to be quite untrue because the intent to bring about a social development that would be in consonance to the metropole was present in the eastern empires like the Qing and the Mughal empire. Hence, all empires did have a civilizing mission whereby their notions of development shaped their administrative policies in the areas of their imperial ventures. The Qing and the British empire, though quite different in their forms, were no exception. In order to present a holistic approach, I will be comparing the Qing imperial venture in Inner Asia (17th-19th century) and the British Empire in India (18th-19th century) to prove that though they had different methods and forms, they converged on a common point i.e. to mold their respective newly acquired territories to benefit their imperial trait. Both the Qing and the British empire, being foreign conquerors took initiatives to include indigenous collaborators within their respective imperial systems. From 1683 to 1760, Xinjiang, Mongolia, Tibet became permanent territorial acquisitions of the Qing empire where systems of administration and communication were worked out without wholeheartedly “Sinicizing” their domain. In Inner Asia, the Qing dynasty incorporated the native characteristics while administering, however “Qing did usher something of China, in the form of certain aspects of organisation and ideology.””If the Qing ruler was the Son of Heaven for his Chinese subjects, he was also the Khan of Khans for the Mongols, the Chakravartin for the Tibetans, and so on.” This showcases the diversity which existed in the Qing empire, however, what held the Inner Asian territories with the metropole in a single thread was the systematic order brought in by the empire itself, thus, bringing in the concept of “orderly union of peoples under a common canopy”. On the other hand, the British believed that India was too ill-equipped for any rapid change and thus the practice to operate within Indian practices and institutions became the need of the hour. However, the British rule in India was of a hybrid nature and the need to “introduce system and order” was felt because of its state of lawlessness, misrule and disorder. The importance of commercial interests in early 19th century Britain was grow>