User:Bhanunethra81

POLICY OF RING-FENCE (1757-1813)

What was it?

During this period, the British, as Lee-Warner

says, endeavoured as far as possible to live within a

Ring Fence, and beyond that they avoided intercourse

with the chiefs as the English Company was not yet

strong enough to interfere in the internal affairs of

the Indian states. More specifically the English

Company neither had the strength nor the resources

to defeat the Indian states. It was in fact only one of

the important powers in India; the Marathas, the

Nizams, the French, etc. being the other powers.

Warren Hastings, confronted with the task of

safeguarding British territories against the

encroachments of the Maratha and the militant rulers

of Mysore, generally followed the policy of a Ring-

Fence. The Pitt's India Act of 1784 even laid down

that the Home Government should not approve of

the intervention of her officers in India in the internal

affairs of the Indian states. After the battle of Buxar,

Avadh lay at the mercy of the British but they did not

annex it. After the Rohilla war; Warren Hastings

conferred the conquered territories on the Nawab of

Avadh instead of retaining them; the First Ango-

Marathaa war ended in the restoration of the status

quo by the Treaty of Salbai and the four Mysore wars

benefited the allies of the British (Marathas and

Nizam) more than the British themselves at least in

the short term.

Yet it cannot be denied that during this period

the Company did intervene in the affairs of the Indian

states on a number of occasions. Warren Hastings,

for instance, fought the First Martha War (1775-1782)

and the Second Mysore War (1780-1784) without any

justifiable reason. Similarly, Lord Cornwallis fought

the Third Mysore War (1790-1792) and annexed half

of its territory. Lord Wellesley fought the Fourth

Mysore War (1798-1799) and the Second Maratha War,

and also compelled the rulers of Hyderabad and

Avadh to sign the Subsidiary treaties with the

Company. Lord Minto not only concluded the Treaty

of Amritsar with Ranjit Singh but also granted

protection of the Cis-Sutlej states whose very existence

was being endangered by Ranjit Singh.

POLICY OF SUBORDINATE ISOLATION

(1813-58)

During this period of 45 years, the British East

India Company made all states subordinate to itself

by compelling their rulers to sign Subsidiary treaties

with it. The Indian states, without exception, were

prevailed upon to accept the Company as the

paramount power in India. They were required to

give either money or territory, so that the Company

could maintain a Subsidiary force either in the

concerned state or outside it for its protection. The

concerned state could no longer appoint non-English

Europeans in its service. It could not conduct any

foreign relations except through the British

government. In all its dispute with other states, it had

to accept British arbitration. In turn, the Company

promised the territorial integrity of the state. In

practice, however, all the Indian states entering into

subsidiary alliance, and being dependent on the

Company for self-protection, began to suffer from all

the evils of 'dual government' like those which had

destroyed Bengal between 1765 and 1722. Regarding

pitfalls of the Subsidiary system, Sir Thomas Munro

rightly remarked that, it is the natural tendency to

render the government of every country in which it

exists weak and oppressive, to extinguish all

honourable spirits among the higher grades of society,

to degrade and impoverish the whole people.

The nature and significance of this phase of the

evolution of British paramountcy over princely states

is euphemistically brought out by Colonel Luard when

he says, "This period is by far the most important in

the history of the relationship of the states to the

British government, step by step, solely against its

will, the Company had been driven by inexorable

fate to abandon its policy of Ring Fence and noninterference,

and to pass through the system of

subordinate alliance otherwise and generous policy

of cooperative partnership which holds at the present

day.

POLICY OF SUBORDINATE UNION

(1858-1947)

The Revolt of 1857 made the British reverse their

policy towards the princely states. Prior to the Revolt,

the British had made use of every opportunity to

annex the Indian states, but after it they abandoned

the policy of annexation in favour of another policy

known as the policy of 'subordinate Union'. During

the Revolt, most of the native rulers had not only

remained loyal to the British but had actively helped

the latter in suppressing it. Their loyalty was now

rewarded with the announcement that their right to

adopt heirs would be respected and the integrity of