Previous Year Question

Option (a) applies. Under the Subsidiary Alliance, a Company's military force was stationed within the territory of an Indian ruler and the cost of maintaining that force was borne by the allied Indian State. Thus, the Company could maintain a substantial standing military force at the expense of Indian States. The Hyderabad treaties of 1798 and 1800 provide direct examples of this arrangement.

Option (b) applies, but it requires qualification. During Wellesley's period, Britain was engaged in conflict with Revolutionary/Napoleonic France, and removing French political and military influence from Indian courts became an important element of his policy. The Hyderabad treaty of 1798 explicitly required the removal of French officers and soldiers serving the Nizam. Napoleon's expedition to Egypt further heightened Wellesley's concern.

This does not mean that Napoleon had actually launched a large-scale military invasion of India or that an Indian ruler received decisive French state military support. “Napoleonic danger” here primarily reflects the British strategic perception and the wider anti-French policy context. Subsidiary Alliances reduced actual or potential French influence at Indian courts and reduced the number of possible French allies.

Option (c) does not apply. An allied State paid for the subsidiary force, and in several cases territory yielding equivalent revenue was ceded instead of a cash payment. Thus, the financial arrangement was meant to sustain the subsidiary military establishment and facilitate political-military control; securing a general “fixed income” for the Company was not the purpose of the system. Indeed, Wellesley in several cases replaced annual payments with territorial cessions.

Option (d) applies. The Subsidiary Alliance substantially restricted the external independence of Indian States. Their foreign relations increasingly came under Company control, British troops and Residents acquired a permanent presence, and rulers became dependent on the Company for military security. The system consequently became a major political instrument for establishing British paramountcy over Indian States.

One further historical nuance is important. Although the question describes the system as being “introduced” by Wellesley, the basic idea of subsidiary military arrangements was not invented by him from nothing; both French and British powers had used similar arrangements earlier. Wellesley's distinctive contribution was to employ the system systematically as an instrument of British expansion and political subordination of Indian States.