what did the policy of non intervention in india mean?why did british occasionally follow this policy?
Answers
Answered by
0
I can't understand your question please explain me clearly.
rajputmuskan:
what is non intervention in india ?why british follow this policy?
Answered by
0
Cornwallis immediately on his arrival in India sought to allay the fears of scindia Holkar etc. and towards that end agreed to return an places on the west bank of the Jumna except Agra, Gwallior and Gohad to Scindia.
He was even, willing to hand over Delhi to Scindia. He also sought to buy the good will of Holkar by similar method. Cornwallis ordered General Lake to take steps according to his above policy, but Lake vehemently objected to Cornwallis’ policy of weakness in the name of peace and non-intervention. But before the controversy was over Cornwallis died. It was only three months that he was in India after his arrival as Governor-General for the second time.
Sir John Barlow (1805-1807):
On the sudden death of Lord Cornwallis Sir John Barlow, a member of the Calcutta Council, was appointed Governor-General as a stop-gap. He followed the policy of non-intervention and in 1805 signed a new treaty with Scindia by which some modifications were made of the treaty of Surji-Arjangaon. The river Chambal was made the dividing line between the territories of Scindia and the Company.
In the meantime Lake had succeeded in defeating Holkar and putting him to flight to the Punjab. But in 1806 Barlow restored Holkar 10 his kingdom and made peace with him. Barlow was a follower of the policy of non-intervention yet he did not hesitate to prevent the Nizam from transgressing the provisions of the subsidiary alliance by which he had bound himself with the English, nor did he agree to alter the treaty of Bassein despite Court of Directors’ advice. For, he believed that it was by intervening in the mutual quarrel among the native Princes that the English could make their power unassailable in India.
During short span of two years Barlow had succeeded in turning the Company’s deficit into surplus. But it was during his administration there was a rising of the Indian troops at Vellore (1806). It was over the order of the Commandant of the Vellore army in concurrence with Bentinck, Governor of Madras, that the soldiers had to wear a new kind of turban and were prevented from wearing any religious sign on the forehead. They were also ordered to shave off their beard.
The Sepoys took all these as preliminaries to their conversion into Christianity by the English. At that point of time some members of Tipu’s family were at Vellore and were suspected of having incited the rebellion. The native troops, that is the Sepoys, rose in rebellion on 10th July, 1806 and killed 113 English soldiers and two English officers. The English suppressed the rebellion by ruthless repression with the help of troops from Arcot. Governor of Madras, William Bentinck, and Commandant Sir John Cradock were recalled for their part in precipitating the rebellion.
He was even, willing to hand over Delhi to Scindia. He also sought to buy the good will of Holkar by similar method. Cornwallis ordered General Lake to take steps according to his above policy, but Lake vehemently objected to Cornwallis’ policy of weakness in the name of peace and non-intervention. But before the controversy was over Cornwallis died. It was only three months that he was in India after his arrival as Governor-General for the second time.
Sir John Barlow (1805-1807):
On the sudden death of Lord Cornwallis Sir John Barlow, a member of the Calcutta Council, was appointed Governor-General as a stop-gap. He followed the policy of non-intervention and in 1805 signed a new treaty with Scindia by which some modifications were made of the treaty of Surji-Arjangaon. The river Chambal was made the dividing line between the territories of Scindia and the Company.
In the meantime Lake had succeeded in defeating Holkar and putting him to flight to the Punjab. But in 1806 Barlow restored Holkar 10 his kingdom and made peace with him. Barlow was a follower of the policy of non-intervention yet he did not hesitate to prevent the Nizam from transgressing the provisions of the subsidiary alliance by which he had bound himself with the English, nor did he agree to alter the treaty of Bassein despite Court of Directors’ advice. For, he believed that it was by intervening in the mutual quarrel among the native Princes that the English could make their power unassailable in India.
During short span of two years Barlow had succeeded in turning the Company’s deficit into surplus. But it was during his administration there was a rising of the Indian troops at Vellore (1806). It was over the order of the Commandant of the Vellore army in concurrence with Bentinck, Governor of Madras, that the soldiers had to wear a new kind of turban and were prevented from wearing any religious sign on the forehead. They were also ordered to shave off their beard.
The Sepoys took all these as preliminaries to their conversion into Christianity by the English. At that point of time some members of Tipu’s family were at Vellore and were suspected of having incited the rebellion. The native troops, that is the Sepoys, rose in rebellion on 10th July, 1806 and killed 113 English soldiers and two English officers. The English suppressed the rebellion by ruthless repression with the help of troops from Arcot. Governor of Madras, William Bentinck, and Commandant Sir John Cradock were recalled for their part in precipitating the rebellion.
Similar questions