Question

Advantages and disadvantages of Subsidary Aliance to the British

Answer 1

Answer:

A subsidiary alliance, in South Asian history, describes a tributary alliance between a Native state and either French India, or later the British East India Company. The pioneer of the subsidiary alliance system was French Governor Joseph François Dupleix, who in the late 1740s established treaties with the Nizam of Hyderabad, and Carnatic[1].

The methodology was subsequently adopted by the East India Company, with Robert Clive imposing a series of conditions on Mir Jafar of Bengal, following the 1757 Battle of Plassey, and subsequently those in the 1765 Treaty of Allahabad, as a result of the Company's success in the 1764 Battle of Buxar. A successor of Clive, Richard Wellesley initially took a non-interventionist policy towards the Native states but later adopted, and refined the policy of forming subsidiary alliances. The purpose and ambition of this change are stated in his February 1804 dispatch to the East India Company Resident in Hyderabad

Under this system, the Indian rulers had to let go of their independence and had to accept the suzerainty of the English East India Company.

As a result of the payment of subsidies, the Indian states gradually became poor. This often led to the collapse of administration which gave the Company an excuse to annex the state.

The Company allegedly provided the Indian rulers with patronage and protection from enemies. With the need to militarily protect their lands from external aggression gone (at least on paper), many Indian rulers indulged themselves and neglected the welfare of their subjects.