Subsidiary Alliance
Modern History › Extension of British Paramountcy and Frontier Policy · Topic 8.2
The Subsidiary Alliance was the system used by Lord Wellesley (Governor-General 1798-1805) under which an Indian ruler accepted a permanent British force in his territory, paid a subsidy for it, took a British Resident at his court and gave up independent foreign relations, in return for protection.
7 min read · UPSC Prelims · History · Extension of British Paramountcy
At a Glance
- What it is A system of alliance that made Indian rulers dependent on the Company
- Used by Lord Wellesley, Governor-General 1798-1805
- Core terms Permanent British force, subsidy, Resident, no other Europeans, no independent foreign relations
- First to accept The Nizam of Hyderabad (1798)
- Exam link UPSC Prelims, Modern History: Extension of British Paramountcy
Where Does It Fit?
This is the second topic of the category on the extension of British paramountcy. The previous topic described the ring-fence, of which this system was an extension. This topic gives the terms, the stages and the states that accepted it. The next topic covers Dalhousie’s Doctrine of Lapse. Previous topic: The Policy of Ring-Fence.
What Were the Terms of the Subsidiary Alliance?
The subsidiary alliance system was used by Lord Wellesley, who was Governor-General from 1798 to 1805, to build an empire in India. Under the system, the allying Indian state’s ruler was compelled to accept the permanent stationing of a British force within his territory and to pay a subsidy for its maintenance. The ruler had to agree to the posting of a British Resident at his court.
| Obligation of the ruler | Detail |
|---|---|
| British force | Permanent stationing within the state’s territory |
| Subsidy | Payment for the maintenance of that force |
| Resident | A British Resident posted at the ruler’s court |
| Europeans | No European (other than the British) to be employed without prior consultation with the Company |
| War and diplomacy | No war or negotiation with another Indian ruler without consulting the Governor-General |
In return, the British would defend the ruler from his enemies and adopt a policy of non-interference in the internal matters of the allied state.
Why Did Wellesley Use It?
One of the objectives was to keep the French from reviving and expanding their influence in India. At this time the fear of Napoleon’s expedition towards the East was very real for the British, who felt that the French could attack the western coast of India from their colony of Mauritius. Hence the clause requiring Indian rulers to dismiss Europeans, other than the British, from their service and not employ any.
By this system the Company could station its forces at strategic locations and keep the French at bay. It would also expand the Company’s hold over the Indian states and gradually bring more and more territory into the Company’s fold.
How Did the System Evolve?
It was probably clive-and-the-anglo-french-struggle-a-comparison/" class="maargx-auto-link" data-preview="At a Glance What it is A profile of Dupleix and a comparison of why the English succeeded and the French failed…">Dupleix who first gave European troops on hire to Indian rulers to fight their wars. Since then almost all Governors-General from Clive onwards applied the system to various Indian states and brought it to near perfection.
The first Indian state to fall into this protection trap, which anticipated the subsidiary alliance, was Awadh, which in 1765 signed a treaty under which the Company pledged to defend its frontiers if the Nawab paid for the defence, as seen in The Policy of Ring-Fence. In 1787 the Company first insisted that the subsidiary state should not have foreign relations. This was included in the treaty with the Nawab of the Carnatic which Cornwallis signed in February 1787. It was Wellesley’s genius to make it a general rule to negotiate for the surrender of territory in full sovereignty for the maintenance of the subsidiary force.
What Were the Four Stages?
| Stage | What happened |
|---|---|
| First | The Company offered to help a friendly Indian state with its troops to fight any war the state might be engaged in |
| Second | The Company made common cause with the state and took the field with its own soldiers and those of the state |
| Third | The ally was asked not for men but for money; the Company promised to recruit, train and maintain a fixed number of soldiers under British officers |
| Fourth | The money was fixed, usually at a high level; if the state failed to pay in time it was asked to cede territory in lieu of payment |
The Company’s entry into the affairs of the state had begun. It would now be for the British Resident, installed in the state capital under the treaty, to initiate, sustain and hasten the process of eventual annexation.
Which States Accepted It?
| State | Year of acceptance |
|---|---|
| Nizam of Hyderabad | September 1798 and 1800 |
| Mysore | 1799 |
| Tanjore | October 1799 |
| Nawab of Awadh | November 1801 |
| Peshwa | The Treaty of Bassein, 1802 |
| Bhonsle Raja of Berar | December 1803 |
| Sindhia | February 1804 |
| Jodhpur, Jaipur, Macheri, Bundi and Bharatpur | 1818 |
| Holkar | 1818, the last Maratha confederate to accept it |
The Mysore case followed the fall of Tipu, as explained in Fourth Anglo-Mysore War and the Fall of Tipu Sultan and Mysore After Tipu and an Estimate of Tipu Sultan. The Maratha cases are explained in Second Anglo-Maratha War, 1803-05 and Third Anglo-Maratha War, 1817-19, and the End of the Peshwaship.
What Was the Effect on Indian Rulers?
The Indian rulers lost their independence by buying security. They were not free of interference from the British Resident, and they lost much of their revenue paying for the British troops. The alliance also made the Indian rulers weak and irresponsible. Their subjects were exploited, and it was practically impossible to depose oppressive rulers, since they were protected by the British. The Awadh case, in Annexation of Awadh, shows where this could end.
As an analytical point, the system worked for the Company at both ends. It saved the cost of garrisons, since the ally paid; it placed troops at useful points; and it turned the ally’s treasury problems into a lever for taking territory.
Sidney J. Owen, who edited Wellesley’s despatches, summed up the result: from Wellesley’s time the defence of India became the Company’s responsibility, and the Company claimed the whole country as its sole protectorate.
Why Is This Topic Important?
- Core Prelims topic The terms, the states and the years are asked repeatedly
- Mains theme It explains how the Company gained control without always fighting
- Base for later topics Doctrine of Lapse and the annexation of Awadh follow from it
What Came Next?
The next topic covers the Doctrine of Lapse, Dalhousie’s method of annexing states without a natural heir. Next topic: Doctrine of Lapse.
Key People and Terms
- Subsidiary Alliance A treaty system placing a British force and Resident in an ally’s state
- Subsidy Payment by the ally for the British force
- Resident The Company’s representative at the court of an allied state
- Cession The handing over of territory
- Protectorate A state that depends on another for defence and foreign affairs
- Mauritius The French colony from which an attack on India’s west coast was feared
Exam Corner
Points to Remember
- Wellesley was Governor-General from 1798 to 1805.
- Terms: permanent force, subsidy, Resident, no other Europeans, no independent foreign relations.
- First to accept: the Nizam, 1798.
- Cornwallis first barred foreign relations, in the 1787 treaty with the Nawab of the Carnatic.
- Holkar accepted last, in 1818.
Do Not Confuse With
- Ring-fence and Subsidiary Alliance Ring-fence: defence of an ally’s frontier at its cost; the alliance adds a Resident and bars foreign relations
- Subsidiary Alliance and Doctrine of Lapse Wellesley’s alliance; Dalhousie’s annexation of states without a natural heir
- Originator and perfector Dupleix hired out troops; Wellesley made the alliance a general rule
Memory Hook
Troops, Resident, subsidy: the ally pays to be watched.
Mains Angle
Questions ask how the alliance worked and what it did to Indian states. These points add depth.
- Dependence Rulers bought security and lost independence and revenue
- Strategy It kept the French out and placed forces at strategic points
- Path to annexation The Resident and the unpaid subsidy led to territorial cessions
A Question You May Face
An original practice question, not a past paper question.
“Discuss the Subsidiary Alliance system and its impact on Indian states.”
How to Answer
- Define Give its terms in a few lines.
- Evolution Mention Dupleix, the 1765 Awadh treaty, Cornwallis in 1787 and Wellesley’s rule.
- Impact Describe loss of independence, revenue and the exploitation of subjects.
- Conclude Say that it prepared the ground for annexation.
GS Relevance
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the Subsidiary Alliance?
The Subsidiary Alliance was the system used by Lord Wellesley, Governor-General 1798-1805, under which an Indian ruler accepted a permanent British force in his territory and paid a subsidy for it. He also had to accept a British Resident and could not employ other Europeans.
What were the terms of the Subsidiary Alliance?
The ruler took a permanent British force, paid a subsidy, accepted a Resident, and could employ no European without consulting the Company. He could not go to war or negotiate with another ruler without consulting the Governor-General. In return the British promised protection and non-interference in internal matters.
Why did Wellesley introduce the Subsidiary Alliance?
One aim was to keep the French from reviving their influence, since the British feared a French attack on the west coast from Mauritius. It also let the Company station forces at strategic locations and gradually extend its hold over more territory.
Who was the first to accept the Subsidiary Alliance?
The Nizam of Hyderabad accepted it first, in September 1798 and again in 1800. Mysore followed in 1799 and Tanjore in October 1799, then Awadh in November 1801, the Peshwa through the Treaty of Bassein in 1802, and others later.
What were the four stages of the Subsidiary Alliance?
First, the Company helped a friendly state with troops. Second, it joined in the war. Third, the ally paid money, not men, for troops maintained under British officers. Fourth, the fee was fixed high and unpaid sums were met by territory ceded in lieu of payment.
What was the effect of the Subsidiary Alliance on Indian rulers?
Indian rulers lost their independence by buying security. They suffered interference from the Resident and lost much of their revenue. Protected by the British, they became weak and irresponsible, their subjects were exploited and oppressive rulers were practically impossible to depose.
PYQ Practice — Statement Analysis
1 The Subsidiary Alliance system was used by Lord Wellesley.
He was Governor-General from 1798 to 1805.
2 The first Indian state to accept the Subsidiary Alliance was Mysore.
The Nizam of Hyderabad accepted first, in 1798.
3 Under the alliance, a ruler could not employ any European without consulting the Company.
This clause was aimed at the French.
4 Cornwallis first insisted that a subsidiary state should have no foreign relations.
It was in the 1787 treaty with the Nawab of the Carnatic.
5 Under the alliance, the Company demanded that the ruler pay no subsidy.
He had to pay a subsidy for the permanent British force.
Related Topics
Browse the full Modern History index