Question

difference between susbandry alliance and doctrine of lapse with defnation

Answer 1

The first major difference is doctrine of lapsedeals with the non passing of royalty to adopted son/daughter of king/Queen as heredity was core crux of political system in Mughals era,Ancient India. The main theme was to annex the kingdom if the ruler don't have their own blood as their successor.

This system was use by Lord Dalhousie to annex kingdoms and was able to build British empire to new heights.

Rani laxmi Bai , Peshwa Nanasaheb face problems due to this system.

Subsidiary alliance was implemented in 18th century by lord Wellesley the then Gov-Gen of Bengal, the main aim was to station British army and British resident at the court of king for the protection of their kingdoms from outside enemy, the British resident could interfere in internal matters of king, The king used to pay for maintenance of army.

The Nizam of Hyderabad was first to accept subsidiary alliance.

Both the policies of British were successful, and were able to build strong Empire in India.

Answer 2

subsidiary alliance was introduced by lord wellesley.
doctrine of lapse was introduced by lord dalhousie.

under subsidiary alliance,the indian kingdom have to maintain a certain number of british troops and there would be a british resident posted in the court of the king.
under doctrine of lapse,if the king does not have thir son their kingdom will be under british.