The Subsidiary Alliance System and the British Takeover of Indian States
The subsidiary alliance system was the principal diplomatic instrument by which the British East India Company extended its territorial control over the Indian subcontinent in the early nineteenth century. Developed by Lord Wellesley during his tenure as Governor-General (1798–1805), the system was applied successively to the Nizam of Hyderabad, the Nawab of Awadh, the Maratha Confederacy, and a number of other Indian states. The principal treatment of the British expansion is the British East India Company and the Mughals page, and the related instrument of British expansion is the doctrine of lapse. This page focuses on the subsidiary alliance system, its terms, its applications, and its consequences.
The Origin and Development of the System
The subsidiary alliance system was developed by Lord Wellesley in 1798, in the context of the broader European crisis produced by the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. Wellesley, who had arrived in India with a clear vision of British paramountcy in the subcontinent, recognised that the Company could not afford the military and administrative burden of direct annexation of every Indian state, and he devised the subsidiary alliance as an instrument of indirect control. The system allowed the Company to extend its territorial control without having to administer the territories it acquired, and it provided a source of revenue through the subsidies paid by the allied states.
The system built on earlier British practice. The Treaty of Allahabad of 1765, examined in detail in the Treaty of Allahabad 1765 page, had required the Nawab of Awadh to pay a subsidy for the maintenance of a British force, and the British had maintained a resident at the court of Hyderabad since the 1760s. Wellesley systematised these arrangements and applied them on a much wider scale, with significant consequences for the Indian states.
The Basic Terms of a Subsidiary Alliance
The subsidiary alliance was a treaty between the British East India Company and an Indian state, by which the Indian state agreed to the following terms. The Indian state would disband its own military, with the exception of a small force maintained for ceremonial and police purposes. The Indian state would pay a subsidy, in cash or in territorial assignments, to the Company, in return for the maintenance of a British force within the state for its defence. The Indian state would surrender its foreign relations to the Company, with the British acting as the intermediary between the Indian state and other foreign powers. The Indian state would receive a British resident at its court, with significant powers and privileges, who would report to the Governor-General on the conduct of the state’s government. The Indian state would not employ any European, particularly any French, in its service without the consent of the Governor-General.
The terms of a subsidiary alliance were severe, and they effectively reduced the Indian state to a position of political dependence on the Company. The allied state retained its internal administration and its formal sovereignty, but the British resident exercised a considerable influence over the conduct of the government, and the British force within the state was the ultimate guarantee of compliance with the terms of the alliance.
Application to Hyderabad 1798
The first major application of the subsidiary alliance system was to the Nizam of Hyderabad in 1798, by the Treaty of Hyderabad. The treaty, concluded in the context of the broader European crisis and the threatened French presence in the Indian Ocean, was the foundation of the British position in the Deccan. The Nizam, who had been a major figure in the politics of south India in the late eighteenth century, accepted the terms of the alliance under considerable pressure, and the treaty required the Nizam to disband his military, to pay a subsidy to the Company, and to receive a British resident at his court.
The application of the subsidiary alliance to Hyderabad was a major step in the consolidation of British control over the Deccan, and it set a precedent for the subsequent applications of the system to other Indian states. The Hyderabad state, examined in detail in the mughal successor states page, was of the Indian successor states, and the British subsidiary alliance with Hyderabad was a defining feature of its later history.
Application to Mysore, Awadh, and the Marathas
The subsidiary alliance system was applied to a number of other Indian states in the years that followed. The Treaty of Seringapatam with Mysore in 1799, following the defeat of Tipu Sultan, divided Mysore and required the restored Raja to accept a subsidiary alliance. The Treaty of 1801 with Awadh, examined in the mughal successor states page, required the Nawab to cede major portions of his territory to the Company, to accept a British resident, and to pay a subsidy for the maintenance of a British force. The applications of the system to the Maratha Confederacy, after the Second Anglo-Maratha War of 1803–1805, were a major step in the consolidation of British control over central India.
The application of the system to Awadh was particularly significant. The Nawab of Awadh, who had been a major figure in the politics of north India since the Treaty of Allahabad, was required to cede approximately half of his territory to the Company, and the remaining Awadh state was placed under a subsidiary alliance. The cession deprived the Mughal emperor of one of his most important sources of revenue and political support, and the consequences of the cession are examined in the mughal successor states and the rebellion of 1857 pages. The Awadh state, which had been a significant Indian power under the Nawabs, was eventually annexed by the Company in 1856, examined in the doctrine of lapse page.
Application to the Rajput States
The subsidiary alliance system was also applied to the Rajput states of Rajasthan in the early nineteenth century, particularly under the policy of Lord Hastings (Governor-General 1813–1823). The Rajput states, which had been a major part of the Mughal political order since Akbar’s reign, were brought into subsidiary alliance with the Company through a series of treaties in 1817 and 1818. The treaties required the Rajput rulers to accept British paramountcy, to disband their military forces, and to pay subsidies for the maintenance of British forces in their territories.
The application of the subsidiary alliance to the Rajput states was a major step in the consolidation of British control over Rajasthan, and it had the effect of reducing the Rajput states to a position of political dependence on the Company. The Rajput connection to the Mughal state, which had been a defining feature of Mughal policy since Akbar, was effectively ended, and the consequences of this development are examined in the religious policies and alienation of subject communities and the mughal successor states pages.
The Criticism of the System
The subsidiary alliance system was widely criticised, both at the time and in subsequent historiography, on several grounds. The first ground was the loss of sovereignty. The Indian states that entered into subsidiary alliance were reduced to a position of political dependence on the Company, and their internal and external affairs were effectively placed under British control. The second ground was the financial burden. The subsidies that the allied states were required to pay to the Company were a major fiscal burden, and the demands of the subsidies often required the Indian rulers to extract additional revenue from their subjects, with consequent popular discontent. The third ground was the military consequences. The allied states were required to disband their own military forces, with the result that the Indian states were progressively unable to defend themselves against external aggression or internal rebellion, and they were progressively dependent on the British for their security. The fourth ground was the political consequences. The British residents at the courts of the allied states exercised a considerable influence over the conduct of government, and they often intervened in the internal affairs of the states in ways that were resented by the Indian rulers and the Indian political class.
The criticism of the system was a major factor in the grievances that erupted in the rebellion of 1857, and the consequences of the system are examined in detail in the doctrine of lapse and the colonial Mughal legacy pages. The criticism was not new; it had been made by contemporaries of Wellesley, including the Governor-General’s own council, and it was the subject of extensive debate in the British Parliament and the British press.
The Legacy
The legacy of the subsidiary alliance system was profound. The system was the principal instrument by which the British East India Company extended its territorial control over the Indian subcontinent in the early nineteenth century, and it laid the foundation for the subsequent British raj. The system was eventually replaced by direct British administration, but the political and territorial arrangements that it established were the basis on which the British raj was built. The consequences of the system are examined in the British East India Company and the Mughals, the mughal successor states, the doctrine of lapse, the rebellion of 1857, and the colonial Mughal legacy pages, and the broader Mughal decline overview treats the system as a major event in the history of the British presence in India.
Sources
- P.J. Marshall, Bengal: The British Bridgehead (NCHI II.2, 1987), ch. 5.
- H.H. Dodwell, ed., The Cambridge History of India, vol. V, British India, 1497–1858 (Cambridge University Press, 1929), ch. 17.