- Phone :+917814622609
- Email :[email protected]
- Student Dashboard
HPAS/Allied Mains 2022 Answer Writing Challenge Day 14: Model Answer
Question “The process of imperial expansion and consolidation of British paramountcy during the mid of 19th century was eased through the administrative policies adopted by them”, Comment on the statement. 8 marks 120 words
| Understanding of question: the question is asking to evaluate how the administrative policies adopted by britishers during the period till 1857 helped them in achieving a imperialistic grip on the Indian subcontinent. Remember we only have to focus on administrative policies | ||
| Introduction | The process of imperial expansion and consolidation of British paramountcy was carried on by the Company during the 1757-1857 period through a two-fold method: (a) policy of annexation by conquest or war (b) policy of annexation by diplomacy and administrative mechanisms. The Company defeated and subjugated, one by one, the major Indian powers like Bengal, Mysore, the Marathas and the Sikhs, mainly by waging wars against them and through considerable deceit but in the case of many other powers, the British applied diplomatic and administrative policies.
| |
| Keywords | ||
| Main Body | The Major administrative policies adopted by Britishers were:- Warren Hastings’ ‘ring-fence’ policy, Wellesley’s system of ‘subsidiary alliance’ and Dalhousie’s ‘doctrine of lapse’ 1. The Policy of Ring-Fence:- aimed at creating buffer zones to defend the Company’s frontiers, it was the policy of defence of their neighbours’ frontiers for safeguarding their own territories. The chief danger to the Company’s territories was from the Afghan invaders and the Marathas. To safeguard against these dangers, the Company undertook to organise the defence of the frontiers of Awadh on the condition that the Nawab would defray the expenses of the defending army. Hence Awadh was added to EIC control in this manner. 2. Subsidiary Alliance:- The subsidiary alliance system was used by Lord Wellesley. 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 Indian ruler had to agree to the posting of a British resident in his court. The Indian ruler could not employ any European in his service without the prior consultation with the Company. The Indian princes who accepted the subsidiary system were and got under the suzerainty of EIC were : the Nizam of Hyderabad (September 1798 and 1800), the ruler of Mysore (1799), the ruler of Tanjore (October 1799), the Nawab of Awadh (November 1801), the Peshwa (December 1801), the Bhonsle Raja of Berar (December 1803), the Sindhia (February 1804), the Rajput states of Jodhpur, Jaipur, Macheri, Bundi and the ruler of Bharatpur (1818). The Holkars were the last Maratha confederation to accept the Subsidiary Alliance in 1818. 3. Doctrine of Lapse:- the doctrine stated that the adopted son could be the heir to his foster father’s private property, but not the state; it was for the paramount power (the British) to decide whether to bestow the state on the adopted son or to annex it. The most important of the annexed states were Satara (1848), Jhansi and Nagpur (1854). The other small states included Jaitpur (Bundelkhand), Sambhalpur (Orissa), and Baghat(Madhya Pradesh). | |
| Conclusion | Hence the tactics employed by britishers were very effective in embarking a large area under their control. But the britishers or more preferably the EIC at this time had to pay for their misdeeds under administrative policies soon in form of “1857 the first war of independence”. | |
© 2024 Civilstap Himachal Design & Development
