Which one of the following wasnota feature of the Subsidiary Alliance of Lord Wellesley?

Question

Prepp Team · Accepted Answer

Understanding the Subsidiary Alliance of Lord Wellesley

The Subsidiary Alliance system was a key tool used by the British East India Company to expand its power in India. Introduced by Lord Wellesley, who was the Governor-General of India from 1798 to 1805, this system brought many Indian states under British control without directly annexing them immediately. It fundamentally altered the political landscape of India.

Key Features of the Subsidiary Alliance System

Under the terms of the Subsidiary Alliance, an Indian ruler who accepted it had to agree to several conditions. These conditions significantly curtailed the sovereignty of the Indian state and increased the British Company's influence.

The Indian state had to disband its own army.
The ruler had to accept a British force permanently stationed within his territory.
The ruler had to pay for the maintenance of this British force, either annually in cash or by ceding a part of his territory to the British.
A British Resident was posted at the ruler's court, whose presence and influence often interfered with the state's administration.
The ruler could not enter into any negotiations or agreements with any other Indian ruler or foreign power without the permission of the British. The British controlled the state's foreign policy.
The ruler had to expel any non-British European personnel from his state.
In return for accepting these terms, the British promised to protect the ally from external invasion and internal rebellion.

Analyzing the Given Options on Subsidiary Alliance Features

Let's examine each option provided in the question to see if it aligns with the known features of Lord Wellesley's Subsidiary Alliance:

Option 1: "The British were responsible for protecting the ally from any external threats" - This statement is consistent with a key promise made by the British under the alliance. Protection from external enemies was indeed a stated responsibility of the British.
Option 2: "All internal threats were to be handled by the ally alone, with no help from the British" - This statement contradicts a crucial aspect of the Subsidiary Alliance. The British promise of protection extended not just to external threats but also to internal disturbances or rebellions within the state. The presence of the British contingent was meant to help the ruler suppress internal dissent, although this often meant the British interfering in the state's internal affairs. Therefore, the ally was not left alone to handle internal threats; British help (and control) was part of the deal.
Option 3: "The ally was to provide resources for maintaining a British armed contingent stationed in its territory" - This is an accurate description of a primary condition of the alliance. The cost of the British troops was borne by the Indian state, either through payment or cession of territory.
Option 4: "The ally could not enter into any agreement with other rulers without the permission of the British" - This statement correctly describes the loss of sovereignty over foreign policy, a significant feature imposed by the alliance.

Identifying the Feature Not Part of the Subsidiary Alliance

Based on the analysis, Option 2 describes a situation where the British provide no help with internal threats. This is contrary to the terms of the Subsidiary Alliance, where British protection included dealing with internal threats. Thus, the statement in Option 2 was not a feature of the Subsidiary Alliance of Lord Wellesley.

Feature Described	Was it a feature of Subsidiary Alliance?	Analysis
Protection from external threats	Yes	Explicit promise by the British.
Ally handles all internal threats alone, no British help	No	British protection extended to internal threats.
Ally provides resources for British contingent	Yes	Core requirement (payment/cession).
Ally needs British permission for agreements with other rulers	Yes	Control over foreign policy.

Therefore, the statement that was NOT a feature of the Subsidiary Alliance was that the ally handled internal threats alone without British help.

Revision Table: Subsidiary Alliance Key Points

Aspect	Description
Introduced by	Lord Wellesley
Purpose	Expand British control without direct annexation
Key Obligation (Indian Ruler)	Disband army, accept British contingent, pay for troops, accept Resident, lose control over foreign policy, expel non-British Europeans.
Key Promise (British)	Protection from external and internal threats.
Outcome	Increased British dominance, reduced Indian state sovereignty.

Additional Information on Subsidiary Alliance

The Subsidiary Alliance system effectively made the Indian states subordinate to the British. While it offered a sense of security against external aggression, it came at the cost of independence. The state lost the ability to conduct its own foreign policy and maintain its own army. The presence of the British Resident often led to interference in the day-to-day administration. The financial burden of maintaining the British force could also be significant, sometimes leading to economic distress in the state. States that refused to accept the alliance were often annexed by the British.

Examples of states that accepted the Subsidiary Alliance include Hyderabad (the first to accept in 1798), Mysore, Awadh, the Peshwa, the Maratha states, and others over time. This system was instrumental in paving the way for direct British rule in many parts of India.