Subsidiary Alliance System 1798: Origins, Impact and Facts

Lord Wellesley was the embodiment of imperialist policy. His sole aim was the ultimate development of the British Empire in India, whether through diplomacy or force of arms. Among the steps he took to expand this empire, the Subsidiary Alliance was a novel and unprecedented policy. It carried the hallmark of his overt imperialism. Lord Wellesley‘s policy of Subsidiary Alliance was an extension of the ring fence, which sought to reduce states to a position of dependence on the British government in India. This leads us to explain the system of Subsidiary Alliance.

What is Subsidiary Alliance?

Under this arrangement, each ruler of India had to agree to pay the British a subsidy to maintain the British army. In return, the British would protect them from their enemies, which allowed the British to expand their empire.

Who introduced Subsidiary Alliance?

The Subsidiary Alliance was introduced by the governor-general of Bengal, Lord Wellesley (1798-1805), in 1798. However, the French used to provide their troops for rent purposes to the native Indian states. Joseph Marquis Dupleix was the first French governor to lend European troops to the Indian states. Later, it was adopted at a large scale by Lord Wellesley.

You can also read about Drain of Wealth Theory 1867: Process, Impact, Debates.

Background of Subsidiary Alliance

At the time of Wellesley’s arrival in India, the company’s direct administration was only in effect in the Bengal, Bombay, and Madras presidencies. The larger part of India was under the rule of Indian native princes. Moreover, the company did not have friendly relations with these states.

In Indian politics, without British assistance, the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II ascended the throne of Delhi in 1772 AD with the help of the Marathas. Among other powers in India, the Maratha power had managed to build a vast empire, which was the most concerning issue for the British. Therefore, Wellesley’s first task for empire expansion was to curb the power of native states through alliances and prevent them from becoming independent.

At that time, the power expansion of other European powers (French) over native states had shaken the British Empire’s fear. For example, French influence had considerably expanded in Scindia’s court. The increasing power among Holkar & Bhonsle and the behavior of Tipu Sultan, the ruler of southern Mysore, had also alarmed Wellesley. As a result of Tipu Sultan’s alliance with the French, he planned to eliminate Tipu Sultan.

Due to the Nizam’s defeat by the Marathas, he had sought help from the then Governor-General Sir John Shore, but he had been refused. Consequently, the Nizam had become inclined to seek French help. On the other hand, on the foreign issue at that time, Napoleon had planned an expedition to India.

Mainly the fear of foreign invasion, i.e., the fear of Napoleon, the expansion of power of other European powers, and the encouragement and planning of independence of native states paved the way for Wellesley’s introduction of subsidiary alliances. And for this purpose, he had become dutiful to secure the British Empire.

Features of Subsidiary Alliance

1. The rulers of the Indian states were forced to accept the British army’s permanent garrison inside their territories and to provide funding for its maintenance.
2. He was also responsible for funding the maintenance of the British army.
3. The Indian emperor was prohibited from hiring any European workers without first consulting the company. The rulers of the Indian empire could not sign treaties with any other foreign state without British permission.
4. Nor could he go to war or negotiate with any other Indian ruler without consulting the governor-general.
5. The Indian state could also not enter into any political connection with another Indian state without British approval.
6. The British promised to protect the ruler against a foreign attack or revolt in exchange for all of this.
7. The British made a vow to stay out of the allied state’s internal affairs, but they rarely followed through on this.
8. The rulers of the Indian empire had fully lost their independence and had become British “protectorates” as a result of these policies that the British administration had imposed with great force. According to this treaty, it was stated that a British resident would be kept in each of the signatory provinces.
9. The Indian ruler thus lost all powers concerning foreign affairs and the military.

You can also read about Doctrine of Lapse Policy: Impact on India’s Princely States.

Merits and Demerits Effects of Subsidiary Alliance

Merits:

The benefits of this policy were:

• The competition for empire expansion among the Indian princes and related mutual disputes had come to an end. Being under British protection, one state could not attack another state without any reason.
• If any war were to occur in the future, it would be conducted within the protected states rather than within the British Empire. As a result, the terrible consequences of war would be limited to those states.
• As British military influence over the signatory states increased, British empire expansion was accelerated.
• Due to the security in the protected states, trade there had improved.

Demerits:

The drawbacks of this policy were:

• For the security of their own state, native states had to give up a portion of their territory. As a result, they were forced to impose excessive taxes on the general public to bear the expenses of the state.
• As the native states became secure, the rulers often indulged in luxurious lifestyles instead of paying attention to the happiness and peace of their subjects.
• The Indian ruler lost their independence by buying security.
• They were not free of interference from the British residents.
• They lost most of their revenue, paying for the British troops.
• Indian soldiers had become unemployed.
• Also, the alliance made the Indian rulers weak and irresponsible. And a lack of self-confidence and courage was observed among them.

Stages of application of Subsidiary Alliance

Four stages in the evolution of the Subsidiary Alliance system:

1. In the first stage, the company makes a friendly state offer to support its forces in whatever fight the state might be involved in.
2. The second stage involved finding common ground with the now-friendly Indian state and deploying both state and personal forces.
3. The third stage was asking for money from the Indian ally instead of men. The company stated that in exchange, it would appoint British officers to lead and train a contingent of soldiers who would be at the ruler’s disposal for personal defense and to repel foreign invaders.
4. The final stage was setting money or protection costs, usually at a high level. The company was asked to cede a portion of its territories in exchange for payment if the state did not pay the agreed-upon amount on time.

You can also read about Blood and Iron Policy of Balban: Balban’s Path to Power.

States that accepted Subsidiary Alliance

The first state to accept Subsidiary Alliance was the Nizam of Hyderabad in 1798.

The holkard were the last Maratha confederation to accept the alliance in 1818, and the ruler of Mysore in 179. The Ruler of Tanjore in October 1799, the Nawab of Awadh in November 1801, the Peshwa in December 1801, the Bhonsle Raja of Berar in December 1803, the Scindia in February 1804, the Rajput Staters of Jodhpur, Jaipur, Macheri, Bundi, and the ruler of Bharatpur in 1818.

Conclusion

Although Wellesley’s aggressive policy was beneficial to British interests, it was not justifiable from an impartial perspective. The native kings who signed the treaty had surrendered their independence forever. Many historians have blamed this policy for the gradual fall of native states.

However, British historian P.E. Roberts did not blame this policy for the fall of native states. He argued that if the kings of native states had unitedly engaged in an anti-British struggle, they could have resisted the British. But Wellesley had accelerated their downfall by exploiting their internal weaknesses. However, some British historians also did not support his overtly imperialist policy.

Subsidiary Alliance FAQ’s