Question

differences between subsidiary alliance and doctrine of lapse

Answer 1

The first major difference is doctrine of lapse deals 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
IF IT HELPED YOU THEN MARK ME AS BRAINLEST AND LOVE AND FOLLOW ME

Answer 2

Subsidiary alliance- subsidiary alliance is when a kingdom is in trouble, the British gives support , inturn the kingdom should give any rewards to the British


Doctrine of lapse- Doctrine of lapse is when a king is becoming old and he does have any successars then they would adopt someone but, here the British will take the kingdom if there is no successer in the kingdom


I hope it helps u. plzzzzzzzzz mark it as brainlist