What's the difference between the Policy of Ringfence and the Subsidiary Alliance of Wellesley?
Answers
Answered by
26
Policy of Ring Fence (1765-1813):
This policy was reflected in Warren Hastings’ wars against the Marathas and Mysore, and aimed at creating buffer zones to defend the Company’s frontiers. The main threat was from the Marathas and Afghan invaders (the Company undertook to organise Avvadh’s defence to safeguard Bengal’s security.
Wellesley’s policy of subsidiary alliance was an extension of ring fence—which sought to reduce states to a position of dependence on British Government in India. Major powers such as Hyderabad, Awadh and the Marathas accepted subsidiary alliance. Thus, British supremacy was established.
This policy was reflected in Warren Hastings’ wars against the Marathas and Mysore, and aimed at creating buffer zones to defend the Company’s frontiers. The main threat was from the Marathas and Afghan invaders (the Company undertook to organise Avvadh’s defence to safeguard Bengal’s security.
Wellesley’s policy of subsidiary alliance was an extension of ring fence—which sought to reduce states to a position of dependence on British Government in India. Major powers such as Hyderabad, Awadh and the Marathas accepted subsidiary alliance. Thus, British supremacy was established.
Answered by
12
The system of ring fence by Warren Hastings granted the security to the company's territories from neighborly outskirts such as Bengal, by his military troops at the investment of buffered state which acts as the kingdom on which this system was commanded.
Whereas subsidiary alliance by Wellesley was an expansion of policy of ring fence which was placed on buffer state. Under this system monarchs was compelled to admit the perpetual stationing of the British contingent at the court whose expense was maintained by the state.
Similar questions