Which one of the following wasnotincluded in the terms and conditions of Subsidiary Alliance System of Lord Wellesley?
The ally was free to enter into agreements with other rulers or engage in warfare.
Understanding the Subsidiary Alliance System of Lord Wellesley
The Subsidiary Alliance System was a key policy introduced by Lord Wellesley, who served as the Governor-General of Bengal from 1798 to 1805. This system was a strategic tool used by the British East India Company to bring Indian princely states under its control without directly annexing them. It was a form of indirect rule that gradually expanded British influence and power across the subcontinent.
Under the Subsidiary Alliance System, an Indian ruler accepting the alliance had to agree to certain terms and conditions. These conditions significantly curtailed the ruler's sovereignty and brought their state increasingly under British protection and control.
Key Terms and Conditions of the Subsidiary Alliance
Here are the main features of the Subsidiary Alliance System:
- The British East India Company would provide protection to the Indian state against external attacks.
- A British armed contingent would be permanently stationed within the territory of the allied ruler.
- The allied ruler had to pay for the maintenance of this British armed contingent. If the ruler failed to make the payment, a portion of their territory would be ceded to the British.
- The allied ruler could not enter into any alliance with any other power, nor could they engage in warfare, without the permission of the British.
- The allied ruler had to accept a British Resident at their court. The Resident would advise the ruler, but over time, Residents often interfered in the internal affairs of the state.
- The allied ruler could not employ any Europeans in their service without consulting the British.
Analyzing the Options Against the Subsidiary Alliance Terms
Let's examine each option provided in the question based on the known terms of the Subsidiary Alliance System:
- Option 1: The British would protect their ally. This was indeed a core promise made by the British under the system. They offered protection from rivals and invaders.
- Option 2: The ally was free to enter into agreements with other rulers or engage in warfare. As highlighted in the key terms, the allied ruler explicitly lost their freedom to conduct foreign policy. They were required to seek British permission for any agreements or warfare with other states. This statement contradicts a fundamental condition of the alliance.
- Option 3: In the territory of the ally, a British armed contingent would be stationed. This was a mandatory condition. A British force was stationed within the state's boundaries.
- Option 4: The ally would have to provide resources for the maintenance of the British armed contingent. This was another essential term. The ruler was financially responsible for the British troops stationed in their state.
Based on the analysis, the statement that was not included in the terms and conditions of the Subsidiary Alliance System of Lord Wellesley is the one claiming that "The ally was free to enter into agreements with other rulers or engage in warfare." The system was designed to prevent allied states from having independent political or military relations with other powers.
| Subsidiary Alliance Term | Matches Option? | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| British Protection | Option 1 | Yes, protection was offered to the allied state. |
| British Armed Contingent Stationed | Option 3 | Yes, a British force was stationed in the ally's territory. |
| Ally Pays for Contingent | Option 4 | Yes, the ally was responsible for the cost of the troops. |
| Ally forfeits independent foreign policy (agreements/warfare) | Contradicts Option 2 | Yes, allies were not free to make agreements or wage war without British consent. Option 2 is incorrect regarding the alliance terms. |
Revision Table: Subsidiary Alliance System
| Aspect | Description |
|---|---|
| Introduced By | Lord Wellesley (1798-1805) |
| Nature | Indirect rule, expansion of British control |
| Key Conditions | British protection; British contingent stationed in state; Ally pays for contingent; Ally loses independent foreign policy (no agreements/warfare without British permission); British Resident at court; No Europeans employed without British consent. |
| Purpose | Isolate Indian states, eliminate French influence, maintain a large army at the expense of Indian rulers. |
Additional Information on Subsidiary Alliance
The Subsidiary Alliance System was very effective for the British East India Company. It allowed them to maintain a large standing army, paid for by the Indian rulers, which could be used to suppress internal rebellions or fight external enemies. It also effectively neutralized the Indian states that accepted it, making them dependent on the British for security and preventing them from forming alliances against the Company. The system significantly contributed to the British dominance over India.
Rulers who accepted the alliance essentially surrendered their sovereign rights, particularly in matters of defense and external relations. The presence of the British Resident often led to interference in internal administration, weakening the ruler's authority. States that initially resisted the alliance were often pressured or militarily defeated into accepting it.
Similar Questions
Consider the following statements about the initial development of railways in India by the British:
1. Private financial investors for railways would get land free from the British Government in India.
2. The investors would get a return of 5 percent on their capital from the government if they ran at a loss or secured inadequate profit.
3. The railways would be jointly managed with the government.
How many of the above statements is/are correct?
Which of the following industries was most affected by the 'de-industrialisation' of India in the 19th century?
The Ryotwari experiment in land revenue was started by
The Bengal Famine of 1769 - 70 was worsened by
When was the monopoly of China trade lost by East India Company ?
Which one of the following statements with regard to the ryotwari settlement is not correct?
The British policy towards Afghanistan in the first half of the 19 th century aimed at
Consider the following statements about the treaty of Allahabad (1765):
1. It was an agreement between the Mughal emperor Shah Alam II and the English East India Company
2. It made the English East India Company the Diwan of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa
3. As per the provisions of the treaty, the East India Company was granted Diwani in exchange for an annual tribute to Mughal Emperor
4. The treaty was worked out after the defeat of the Mughal emperor in the battle of Buxar
How many of the above statements is/are correct?
Important Questions from India under East India Company’s Rule
Which of the Governor Generals adopted the policy of Subsidiary Alliance with Indian States ?
Consider the following statements :
1. St. Francis Xavier was one of the founding members of the Jesuit Order.
2. St. Francis Xavier died in Goa and a church is dedicated to him there.
3. The Feast of St. Francis Xavier is celebrated in Goa each year.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
In which year was there a furore over the attempt by the government to introduce the Ilbert Bill by the white opposition that forced the government to withdraw the bill?
Name the treaty signed in 1826 at the end of the First Anglo-Burmese War. This treaty sealed the victory of the British powers.
The name of Holt Mackenzie is associated with which land settlement policy?
