Q1. Which of the following statement is not correct regarding the “Subsidiary Alliance”?
- East India company’s Army had to be stationed at the Capital of Princely states.
- Princely rulers had to expel all other Europeans from their state.
- Remittance for stationed company’s Army would only be in monetary form.
- State had to keep an European official called ‘Resident’, who would oversee all the negotiations and communication with other states.
Correct Option: 3. Remittance for stationed company’s Army would only be in monetary form.
Explanation : Remittance for stationed company’s Army would be in monetary or in territorial form. “Subsidiary Alliance” used to be an agreement between the Princely states and the East India company mainly to protect the princely states from an outside attack. For this, the ruler had fulfill the following mentioned conditions:-
-East India company’s Army had to be stationed at the Capital of Princely states.
-Princely rulers had to expel all other Europeans from their state. Rulers had to give money or territory to company in return for the stationed army.
-State had to keep an European official called ‘Resident’, who would oversee all the negotiations and communication with other states.
This is how the native Indian rulers lost the sovereignty and such policies immensely helped Britishers to expand their territorial base in India.
Following are the examples of states which were overtook by the policy of Subsidiary Alliance:-
-Tanjore/mysore (1799)
-Awadh (1801)
-Peshwa (1802)
-Bhonsle (1803)
-Scindia (1804)
-Singrauli (1814)
-Jodhpur (1818)
-Holkar of Indore (1818)
Q2. Which of the following statements best describes the Subsidiary Alliance system introduced by Lord Wellesley in India?
- Indian rulers had complete control over their army and foreign affairs.
- Indian rulers had to maintain a British force in their territory and pay for it, and could not have independent foreign relations.
- British troops were withdrawn from Indian territories, and rulers had total autonomy in defense.
- Indian rulers were encouraged to expand their territories with British assistance.
Correct Option: 2. Indian rulers had to maintain a British force in their territory and pay for it, and could not have independent foreign relations.
Explanation : The Subsidiary Alliance system, introduced by Lord Wellesley in the late 18th century, required Indian princely states to:
• Maintain British troops in their territory at their own expense.
• Accept a British resident (political agent) at their court.
• Avoid forming alliances or waging war without British consent.
This effectively reduced the sovereignty of Indian rulers and brought them under British control without direct annexation.
Q3. Which of the following was a feature of the Doctrine of Lapse implemented by Lord Dalhousie?
- Any princely state without a natural heir would automatically be annexed by the British.
- Indian rulers could adopt heirs freely, and British would have no say.
- British guaranteed protection to all princely states irrespective of succession issues.
- States could expand their territories if they had British approval.
Correct Option: 1. Any princely state without a natural heir would automatically be annexed by the British.
Explanation : The Doctrine of Lapse (1848–1856), introduced by Governor-General Lord Dalhousie, stated that:
• If a ruler died without a natural male heir, the state would “lapse” and be annexed by the British East India Company.
• Adoption of an heir required British approval.
This policy led to the annexation of states like Satara (1848), Jhansi (1854), and Nagpur (1854), creating resentment among Indian rulers and contributing to the Revolt of 1857.
Q4. Which of the following correctly differentiates the Subsidiary Alliance from the Doctrine of Lapse?
- Subsidiary Alliance involved annexation of territories, Doctrine of Lapse involved payment of British troops.
- Subsidiary Alliance restricted the ruler’s foreign policy, Doctrine of Lapse annexed states without natural heirs.
- Both were military treaties allowing rulers to maintain independence.
- Doctrine of Lapse was economic, Subsidiary Alliance was only political.
Correct Option: 2. Subsidiary Alliance restricted the ruler’s foreign policy, Doctrine of Lapse annexed states without natural heirs.
Explanation :
• Subsidiary Alliance: Political and military strategy; limited rulers’ foreign policy and required them to maintain British troops.
• Doctrine of Lapse: Succession-based annexation policy; any state without a natural heir could be annexed by the British.
While both policies expanded British control, they did so via different methods: one through political-military subordination, the other through succession law manipulation.
Q5. Which of the following was a direct result of the Subsidiary Alliance and Doctrine of Lapse policies?
- Strengthening of Indian rulers’ independence
- Reduction in British territorial influence in India
- Expansion of British control and discontent among Indian rulers
- Peaceful coexistence between British and Indian states
Correct Option: 3. Expansion of British control and discontent among Indian rulers
Explanation :
• Both policies significantly increased British influence over Indian states.
• Subsidiary Alliance reduced rulers’ autonomy in defense and foreign policy.
• Doctrine of Lapse allowed direct annexation of states without heirs.
• These actions caused widespread resentment among Indian rulers, contributing to tensions that culminated in the Revolt of 1857.