Question : Examine the essential principles of the Subsidiary Alliance system. How far did it contribute in making the British Company the supreme sovereign authority in India?
(2005)
Answer : The Subsidiary Alliance system was used by Wellesley to bring Indian states within the orbit of British political power.
The system served the dual purpose of asserting British supremacy in India and at the same time of saving India from menace of Napoleon.The system played a very important part in the extension of Company’s dominions.
A typical subsidiary treaty was negotiated on the following terms and conditions.
Wellesley did not invent the Subsidiary system. The system was perhaps first used by Dupleix who had lent European troops to the Indian princes at the expense of the latter.
Ever since the governorship of Chine, the system had been applied with more or less insight by almost every Governor and Governor-general of India. Wellesley’s special contribution was that he greatly developed and elaborated the system and applied it in case of every Indian state. The earliest subsidiary Treaty negotiated by the Company was with the Nawab of Oudh in 1765 in which the company undertook to defend the frontiers of Oudh on condition of the Nawab defraying the expenses of such defence. A British Resident was stationed at Lucknow. The first time the company insisted that the subsidiary state should have no foreign relations was in the treaty with Nawab of Carnatic concluded by Cornwallis in 1787. Later, Sir John Shore in the treaty with the Nawab of Oudh, 1798 insisted that the Nawab was not to hold communications with or admit into his service other European nationals. The demand for surrender of territory in commutation of cash money was the next logical step. As the monetary demands of the company were very high which the state found unable to pay, Wellesley made it a general rule to negotiate for surrender of territory in full sovereignty for the upkeep of the subsidiary force.
The subsidiary system was the Trojan horse tactics in empire building. It disarmed the Indian state and threw British protectorate over them. The Governor General was present by proxy in every Indian state that accepted the subsidiary Alliance. Thus, it deprived the Indian princes of means of prosecuting any measure or of forming any confederacy against the British.
It enabled the Company to maintain a large standing army at the expense of Indian princes. The company got its armies stationed at Hyderabad, Poona, Gwalior, and paid by foreign subsidies. The army was constantly maintained in a state of perfect equipment and was prepared for active services in any direction at the shortest notice. This force could have been directed against any of the principal states of India without the hazard of disturbing the tranquility of the company’s possessions and without requiring any considerable increase to the permanent military expenses of the Government of India. The stationing of the company’s troops in the capitals of the Indian princes gave English the control of strategic and key positions in India without arousing the jealousy of other European nations.
By this system the company threw forward her military considerably in advance of its political frontier and thus kept the evils of war at the distance from the sources of her wealth and power. In case of actual war the war theatre was always away from the Company’s territories, and this saved her territories from the devastations that usually accompany wars. The system moreover helped the company to effectively counteract any possible French moves in India. The Company required the subsidiary ally to discuss all Frenchman from his service. The company became the arbiter in interstate disputes. All avenues of direct contact between Indian States and foreign powers were closed. The officers commanding the subsidiary force were very well paid. The British Residents had considerable influence in affairs of Indian states. This placed great patronage into hands of Company’s authorities in India.
The Company acquired territories in full sovereignty from Indian states and expanded her dominions in India. By the treaty of 1800, Nizam surrendered all the territories gained from Mysore in 1792 and 1799. In 1801, the Nawab of Oudh was made to surrender half of the dominions comprising Rohilkhand and Lower Doab.
Thus, the treaty provisions directly and indirectly facilitated to the growth of the company’s political power. In later stages of its evolution the Treaty was used by the Governor-generals like Dalhousie for outright overexertion of territories as in the case of Awadh. Dalhousie also used it to acquire Berar from Nizam of Hyderabad thus further strengthening political and economic clout of company. Even in post 1857 decades, the subsidiary system was used as tool to form a confederacy of Indian states over which the British monarch had a supreme role. It may be concluded that the subsidiary Alliance was an optimistic tool for the company for its expansionist policy on one side and a counteracting measure against France on the offer. In both these aims, the Treaty proved to be a marvelous success and put the company as the sparamount political power in India.
Question : ‘The object of the Act (Regulating) was good, but system that it established was imperfect.’
(2004)
Answer : By 1773 the East India Company was in dire financial straits. The Company was important to Britain because it was a monopoly trading company in India and in the east and many influential people were shareholders. The Company paid £400,000 annually to the government to maintain the monopoly but had been unable to meet its commitments because of the loss of tea sales to America since 1768. About 85% of all the tea in America was smuggled Dutch tea. The East India Company owed money to both the Bank of England and the government. Lord North decided to overhaul the management of the East India Company with the Regulating Act. This was the first step along the road to government control of India. The Act set up a system whereby it supervised (regulated) the work of the East India Company but did not take power for itself. The East India Company had taken over large areas of India for trading purposes but also had an army to protect its interests. Company men were not trained to govern so North’s government began moves towards government control. India was of national importance and shareholders in the Company opposed the Act. The East India Company was a very powerful lobby group in parliament in spite of the financial problems of the Company.
The provisions of the Act were directed mainly to the malpractice and corruption of the company officials. The Act, however, failed to stop corruption and it was practised rampantly by all from the Governor General at the top to the lowest district officials. Major charges brought against Hastings in his impeachment trial were those on corruption. Corruption divided the Council into two mutually hostile factions- the Hastings group and Francis group. The issues of their fighting were corruption charges against each other. Consequently, Pitt’s India act, 1784 had to be enacted to fight corruption and to do that an incorruptible person, lord Cornwallis, was appointed with specific references to bring order in the corruption ridden polity established by the company.
Question : Towards the Princes, Canning adopted a policy of 'punishing resistance and rewarding obedience'.
(2000)
Answer : It was, therefore, decided to use the princely states as firm props of British rule in India. As the British historian P.E. Roberts remarked : 'to preserve them as a bulwark of the Empire has ever since been a principle of British policy'. Their perpetuation was, however, only one aspect of the British policy towards the princely states. The other was their complete subordination to the British authorities. While eve before the Revolt of 1857 the British had in practice interfered in the internal affairs of these states, in theory they had been considered a subsidiary but soverign powers. This position was now entirely changed. As the price of their continued exitence the princes were made to acknowledge Britain as the paramount power. As the paramount power, the British claimed the right to supervise the internal government of the princely states. They not only interfered in the day to day administration through the Residents but insisted on appointing and dismissing ministers and other high officials. Sometimes the rulers themselves were removed or deprived of by the British desire to give these states a modern administration so that their integration with British India would be complete.
Question : The British policy towards Indian states in 1818-1858 was one of 'isolation and non-interference tempered by annexation'.
(1996)
Answer : The British completed the taks of conquering the whole of India from 1818 to 1857. Sindh and the Punjab were conquered and Awadh, the Central Provinces and a large number of other petty states were annexed. Part of the entire sub-continent was ruled directly by the British and the rest by a host of Indian rulers over whom the British exercised paramount power. These states had virtually no armed forces of their own, nor did they have any independent foreign relations. They paid heavily for the British forces stationed in their territories to control them. They were autonomous intheir internal afairs, but even in this respect they acknowledge British authority wielded through a Resident. They were on perpetual probation. Lord Dalhousie came out to India as the Governor-General in 1848. He was from the beginning determined to extend direct British rule over as large an area as possible.
The chief instrument through which Lord Dalhousie implemented his policy of annexation was the 'Doctrine of Lapse'. Under this Doctrine, when the ruler of a protected stated died without a natural heir, his state was not to pass to an adopted heir as sanctioned by the age-old tradition of the country. Instead, it was to be annexed to British India, unless the adoption had been clearly approved earlier by the British authorities. Many states, including Satara in 1848 and Nagpur and Jhansi in 1854, were annexed by applying this doctrine.
