History, asked by agentm1958, 1 year ago

subsidary allaince policy exploited the indian states. justify

Answers

Answered by AryaPriya06
2

Subsidiary Alliance is a system developed by the East India Company. It solved the problem of ruling a nation which is under the rule of a king. ... An Indian ruler entering into a subsidiary alliance with the British had to accept British forces in his territory and also agreed to pay for their maintenance.

If this helps then plzzzzz mark me brainliest.

Answered by nikitadasnd9
1

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 .

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 .

Terms  of the policies :

An Indian ruler entering into a subsidiary alliance with the British would accept British forces within his territory and to pay for their maintenance.

The ruler would accept a British official (resident) in his state.

The ruler who entered into a subsidiary alliance would not join any alliance with any other power or declare war against any power without the permission of the British.

The ruler would dismiss any Europeans other than the British and avoid employing new ones.

The ruler would let the British rule on any conflict with any other state.

The ruler would acknowledge the East India Company as the paramount power in India.

The ruler would have his state be protected by the Company from external dangers and internal disorders.

If the rulers failed to make the payments that were required by the alliance, part of their territory would be taken away as a penalty.

Indian rulers have to maintain British troops in his state.

Now if the rulers failed to make the payments that were required by the alliance, part of their territory would be taken away as a penalty. So the rulers imposed heavy taxes on the peasants in order to pay the money which made the whole state suffer and in turn exploited the state.

The indians cannot get higher position in the army as those position were occupied by the rulers which is another reason why Indian states got exploited.


nikitadasnd9: I hope it will help.Have a nice day. Thankyou for asking the question and mark me as brainliest.
agentm1958: thank you for answering my question
Similar questions