British Expansion in India

UPSC CSE PYQs

Plassey

• The battle of Plassey was "not a great battle but a great betrayal." Comment. [2000,

20 m]

• "The Battle of Plassey that decided the fate of Bengal was won by Clive through

intrigues." Explain. [2014, 15 m, medieval]

• After 1757 there grew up a State of Bengal which was a "sponsored state" as well as a

"plundered state". Comment. [1999, 20 m]

• Discuss the causes that led to the 'economic drain' in Bengal following the Battle of

Plassey. [2004, 60 m]

• "The Battle of Plassey (1757) thus marked the beginning of political supremacy of the

English East India Company in India." Critically examine. [2018, 10 Marks]

Between Plassey and Buxar

• "The revolution of 1760 (Bengal) was really no revolution." Comment. [1987, 20 m]
• The East India Companyhad thought that they had found an ideal puppet in Mir Kasim.

Mir Kasim, however, belied the expectation of the company. Examine critically. [2021,

10 Marks]

Battle of Buxar

• "Buxar takes rank amongst the most decisive battles ever fought." Comment. [1982,

20 m]

• "Thusendedthefamousbattleof Buxar,onwhichdependedthefateof Indiaandwhich

was as gallantly disputed as was important in its results." Comment. [1985, 20 m]

Plassey-Buxar Comparison

• "Plassey did not complete the British conquest of India. Had the English been

convincingly defeated in any subsequent battle in India, then (the battle of) Plassey

would have remained as a minor episode in the history of India." Critically examine.

[2014, 10 m]

• "Theverdictof Plesseywasconfirmedby the Englishvictoryat Buxar."Comment.[1996,

20 m], [2002, 20 m]

• 'The Battle of Plassey (1757) was a skirmish while the Battle of Buxar (1764) was a real

war.' Critically examine. [2022, 10 m]

Bengal was the first state where the Company's newly acquired strength was tested vis-à-vis

the Indian states. The period from 1757 to 1764 virtually brought about a radical change in

the fate of Bengal as well as that of the Company.

Guiding motive of the East India Company in Bengal:

• The mercantilist policy: Company's motive was to maximize the profit from distant trade.
• The officers/merchants of the company were committed to carry on the private trade but

the biggest obstacle in his path was the Nawab of Bengal.

• They wanted to oust other European rivals and establish the monopoly.
• They wanted to end the interference of the officers and employees of the Nawab.

Relation between the company and Nawab & Battle of Plassey:

• Rightfrom thetimeof Murshid Quli Khan,there wasa boneof contention between British

company and Nawab regarding the misuse of dastak.

• This dastak was given to the company but even private British merchants were

using this dastak for their personal trade.

• Company used to sell the dastak even Indian merchants.

• In spite of the differences with the British company, almost all the Nawabs from Murshid

Quli Khan to Aliwardi Khan adopted a moderate approach to the British company.

• However, Nawab Sirajuddaula adopted an aggressive approach to the British company

from the beginning. Siraj had developed serious grievances against the Company which

was acting a little too independently.

• The Nawab's rivals such as Raj Ballabh (Diwan of Dhaka) and Shaukat Jung were

being secretly assisted by the British Company.

• The issue of the fortification of Fort William became an important one between Bengal

Nawab and British company.

• Both British and French companies startedthe fortificationduring the Seven Years'

War. Nawab ordered them to demolish the fortification,ashe saw it asa challenge

to his sovereignty. While the French at Chandranagar company promptly agreed,

the British company refused to comply with the order.

• So, Nawab invaded Fort William and plundered it in June 1756 and captured it.
• As soon as Clive arrived with naval support from Madras, he re-captured Calcutta.

However, surprisingly, the Nawab became lenient and compromised with the

company on soft terms in the Treaty of Alinagar. (February 1757)

• In March 1757, the British Company invaded and occupied Chandranagar, a French

territory in Bengal. This was a direct challenge to the sovereignty of the Nawab.

• Meanwhile, Robert Clive strengthened his position by making secret agreement with

Nawab's officer Mir Bakshi Mir Jafar, another military officer, Rai Durlabh, a merchant of

Bengal Amichand, a banker of Bengal Fatehchand, and officer-in-charge of Calcutta

Manikchand.

• Finally, the Battle of Plassey took place on 23 June 1757. This was not a major war but a

great betrayal.

Significance of Plassey

1. The military significance of Plassey was negligible. English victory in the battlefield of

Plasseywasdecidedbeforethebattlewasfought.Itwas notthesuperiorityofthe military

power but the conspiracy of the Nawab's officials that helped the English in winning the

battle.

1. The political significance of the Battle of Plassey was not much in immediate sense

because the Nawab of Bengal was still a sovereign authority. But, in long term, Plassey

marked the beginning of the British conquest of India. The history of Bengal from 1757 to

1765 is the history of gradual transfer of power from the Nawabs to the British. Now the

company started to play the role of a kingmaker.

• It undermined position of Nawab and elevated the political prestige of the British.

During this short period of eight years three puppet Nawabs, Siraj-ud-daula, Mir

Jafar and Mir Kasim ruled over Bengal.

• Thus, it established a system of a "sponsored" Indian state, controlled but not

administered. (Parcival Spear)

1. The economic significance of this battle was immense because the Company used its

newfound political influence to establish commercial monopoly in Bengal. Bengal

emergedasa"plundered"stateafterthebattleof Plasseybecausethecompanyexploited

the resource in Bengal in every possible way.

• From Mir Jafar

i. The company extracted the heavy sum of 1.77 crore silver rupyas and

received the Zamindari of 24 Paragana too.

ii. Robert Clive received 20 lakh rupees from the new Nawab in personal

status.

• From Jagat Seth, 2 million pounds to Clive and Company each.
• Also, the Murshidabad Treasury was looted post-Plassey.
• William Dalrympleinthebook Anarchydescribesthelootmadeof Plasseyas"one

of the largest corporate windfalls in history".

• Eric Stokes, "Plassey revolution was the first English essay in private profiteering

on a grand scale."

1. Monopoly establishment:
• Besides the financial gain, the English East India Company was also successful in

establishing its monopoly over Bengal trade by marginalising the French and the

Dutch companies during the course of Plassey. Using the influence, the Company

started to eliminate its European rivals from Bengal one-by-one.

• Furthermore, the Company started to tightly control the artisans of Bengal

through its Gumastas (Indian agentsof the company).It used itscorrupt influence

to make artisans sell cheaper.

i. Sekhar Bandopadhyay: "for the Company officials Plassey opened the

gates to make personal fortunes, not only through direct extortion but also

through rampant abuse of dastaks for their private trade."

ii. PJ Marshall: The massive invasion of the private trade of Bengal by private

British enterprise, threw the division between the Company's public and

private interests into confusion and unleashed what has been termed the

'post-Plassey plunder.'

1. Fate of Bengal

• Bengal's administration suffered due to lack of resources because most of the

revenue was being cornered by the company and its officials.

• Bengal was forced to pay for the British conquest of India. Virtual mastery over

Bengal in long term paved way for the ultimate supremacy over entire India. Vast

resources of Bengal helped in victory in Carnatic and over Marathas and Mysore.

Between 1757-1760

During this period, Mir Jafar remained a Nawab of Bengal. However, the honeymoon period

between the two got over very soon. British started to make further demands from Nawab

whilehistreasurywasgettingexhausted.Hecouldn'teventaxthe trade,and Companyagents

exploited countryside of Bengal while he couldn't do anything.

The British company got disenchanted with the new Nawab and his ways. So, the British

governor Vansittart concluded a secretdealwith the new Nawab Mir Qasim.Accordingto this

deal, Mir Qasim had to offer to the British company 29 lakhs rupees & three districts

(Midnapore, Bardhaman and Chittagong), while in return the post of the Nawab had to be

graced by Mir Qasim.

Vansittart characterised this event as 'Bengal Revolution'. However, it is not fair to call it a

revolution. Because the following conditions must be fulfilled for the revolution:

• It must be relatively sudden.
• The change must be fundamental.
• It should have support of people.

The change of nawab in Bengal did not fulfil the two conditions. In a way, it was a

replacement of one puppet Nawab with another puppet Nawab, while the strings

continued to be in the hands of the British. The company continued to play the role of the

kingmaker.

Between 1760-1764

Soon, the differences surfaced between the nawab and the Company. Mir Qasim mistakenly

expected some autonomy.

Differences between New Nawab Mir Qasim and the Company:

• Economic factors:

• As after the battle of Plassey, the company's merchants became much aggressive

in their behaviour and in countryside they were almost carrying loot and plunder

while company's governor did not pay heed towards persistent complaints made

by the Nawab.

• The new Nawab Mir Qasim was takingthe issue of misuse of Dastak veryseriously.

• Political Factors:

• In order to be free from the British interference, Mir Qasim transferred his capital

from Murshidabad to Munger (Bihar).

• To strengthen his military position, he started to organize his army on western

pattern apart from that he laid the foundation of a gun factory at Munger.

• Mir Qasim even sought recognition from Mughal emperor Shah Alam II.

(investiture)

Battle of Buxar (1764)

• The differences between the company and Nawab of Bengal led to an open conflict

betweenthetwoin 1763.Inthisconflict,Nawabwasdefeated,andhefledawayto Awadh.

• Then in association with the Nawab of Awadh Suja-ud-Daulah and Mughal emperor Shah

Alam II, he appeared in the battle of Buxar that took place on 22 nd October 1764.

• It was not like a treachery, as we find in the case of Plassey. Rather, it was an open contest

and British could defeat the combined powers of all the three.

Treaties of Allahabad

With Shuja-ud-daula

(20 August 1765)

With Shah Alam II

(12 August 1765)

• Transfer of the region of

Allahabad and the

adjoining territories of

Kara.

• Nawab to pay 50 lakhs to

the Company as war

indemnity and defray the

cost of maintenance of the

troops for the defence of

his frontier.

• The emperor's firman granted the Diwani of Bengal,

Bihar and Orissa to the East India Company. The right

of Diwani authorized the Company to collect revenue

of the subah of Bengal.

• Shah Alam was taken under the Company's

protection. He was assigned Kara and Allahabad

region ceded by Shuja-ud-daula. From now on, Shah

Alam was to reside at Allahabad.

• Company to pay Rs 53 lakh for administrative

expenses and Rs 26 Lakhs for personal expenses

annually as tribute to the emperor.

Significance of the battle of Buxar

The battle of Buxar gave the English Company the complete

political control over Bengal and thus it was more decisive

than Plassey. Actually, the process of transition started with

the battle of Plassey and culminated in the battle of Buxar. It

virtually sealed the fate of India and was a real turning point

on the road to the British occupation of India.

1. The victoryof companyat Buxar confirmed theverdict of

Plassey 8 years earlier.

• It ended the rivalry between Nawab and British

company, as Nawab was then completely

subordinated to the British company.

• Plassey made the Nawab the British puppet, but

Buxar made the British the unchallenged master

of Bengal.Itendedtherivalrybetween the Nawab

and the Company.

1. It is one of the most decisive battles ever fought because in this battle three of the most

important Indian powers were defeated by English company simultaneously in a

particular day.

• It also allowed EIC to introduce a dual government in Bengal.
• Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II came under the influence of the Company.

Theoretically, the whole of Mughal Empire lost to the English company.

• Awadh came under indirect control of the Company. Awadh emerged as a buffer

state between Bengal and the Marathas, thus cushioning Bengal from Maratha

raids.

1. The outcome of thebattle wasdecided bythe qualityof leadership and strength of arms.
• Compared to Plassey, which was won by treachery, it was a fiercely contested

battle.

1. By winning the Buxar, company got Diwani rights of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.
• With the Treaty of Allahabad, the Company became the de Jure ruler of Bengal.

The Company came to have the real control of the financial administration of

Suba-e-Bengal.

• The company emerged as the real Master of Resources of Bengal.
• It solved the problem of financing Indian trade.
• By using the resource of Bengal English company would defeat Mysore, Maratha

and other opponents in future.

1. Transformation in the character of the Company.
• Henceforth,the Companybeganto shake itsmaritime nature and assumethe role

of the state.

Robert Clive

(Clive of India)

Robert Clive was one of the mostprominentpersonalities amongall Englishmen who reached

India. His actions left a lasting impact on history of India both directly and indirectly. He

started his career as a clerk and rose to the position of factor, then the Governor of Bengal.

In fact, he was appointed governor of Bengal twice.

OR

Clive'splacein Indian and Britishimperialhistoryhasbeena matterof controversyin boththe

countries since the 18 th century. While in India he was seen as an evil exploitative governor

who plunderedthecountry,in Englandhewaswidelyhatedasacorrupt and violent Company

official.

Achievements of Clive:

1. For the first time, Clive gained prominence due to his daring siege of Arcot. His success in

holdingon fort of Arcot against heavyodds changed thedirection of the 2 nd Carnatic war.

1. The Battle of Plassey was a personal adventure of Clive. Unlike his fellow officers, he saw

in the moment of the Company'sdefeat in Calcutta an opportunity to not only reclaim the

losses, but also to unreservedly establish the rule of East India Company in Bengal.

• It made the Bengal Nawab a company protégé.
• Though this battle is not of much significance in immediate sense, in the long run

it paved the way for the emergence of British Indian Empire.

• With this, the French and Dutch lay prostrate before British in Bengal.

1. After the victory of company in battle of Buxar,Clive was appointed as Governor of Bengal

once again. He was sent from London to sign treaties with the defeated parties. Clive

signed two Treaties in Allahabad in 1765.

• Through first treaty, the company got Diwani rights of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa

from the Mughal emperor. Company had already received Nizamat rights from

Nawab Nazam-ud-Daula in Feb 1965. These rights received by company

transformed it from de facto de jure power.

• Through the second treaty, he converted Awadh into a protected buffer state, in

ordertoensurebreathingspacefor the Companytodominatetheaffairsof Bengal.

1. Clive tried to curb the evil of private trade by establishing the Society of Trade.
2. Clive suppressed white mutiny of white soldiers that broke out in 1766.

Limitations and Failures of Clive:

1. Though the Clive achieved remarkable success in his life but many of its works brought

disrepute to Britain rather than glory. He himself shattered the greatness and usefulness

of his achievements.

1. The system of dual government established by Clive in Bengal was a miserable failure. In

this system, all the powers were enjoyed by company and responsibility of

administration was in the hands of Nawab, who had neither resources nor authority to

perform admin functions because of which a situation of anarchy developed in Bengal.

• The extreme exploitation resulted in massive famine in Bengal in 1770 which

wiped out 1/3 rd of its population.

1. Clive was extremely greedy, he indulged in private trade on a large scale though he tried

the curb the private trade of other officials of company.

1. Clive received huge bribes from the Nawabs of Bengal during both the tenures as

governor. Because of his misdeeds, Clive was tried after returning London and he

committed suicide.

That is why it is commented that Clive was neither a statesman nor a great person. He

shattered the works of his glory through his own actions.

Was Clive the Founder of the British Indian Empire?

1. For a later generation of Britons, the victory at Plassey by 'Clive of India' marked the birth

of their Indian Empire. Clive was deliberately hailed as founder of British Indian empire

during the Victorian era.

1. Colonial historians glorified Clive as founder of British Indian Empire but in reality, he was

an adventurer. He took risks which eventually paid off. He was not a planner of empire.

• Seize of Arcot, which turned the table against French during 2 nd Carnatic war, was

just a gamble. The failure in this gamble would have been extremely costly for the

company.

• Similarly, the re-capture of Calcutta and then the battle of Plassey was another

gamble. The defeat of English forces in Plassey would have sealed their fate in

Bengal.

1. Even after winning the battle of Plassey, the company could have lost its possessions in

India just by facing a decisive defeat anytime in near future because company's political

possessions were on a very shaky ground. Had company lost battle of Buxar, Clive would

have found no place in records of history.

Quotes on Clive

• William Dalrymple: Clive was an unstable sociopath and a racist, hated both in India

and England.

• Shashi Tharoor: Clive was a ruthless, dishonest, unprincipled leader of an unregulated

corrupt corporation that oversaw India's loot and plunder.

• Clive is "a symbol of themost morally bankrupt excesses of

Empire" - Afua Hirsch

A new plaque near his statue in Shrewsbury was installed in

2023, during BLM Movement (Black Lives Matter) "The fact

that one of Britain's greatest corporate rogues continues to

have pride of place at the heart of government suggests that

the British elite has not yet confronted its corporate and

imperial past." - Nick Robins (The Corporation that Changed

the World)

UPSC CSE PYQs

• Whywas Mysoreconsideredathreatby the Britishtotheirpossessionsandmercantileinterests

in the south? Do you think that Tipu Sultan's posturing became his undoing? [2009, 30 m]

• Examine the circumstance which led to the Third Mysore War. Could Cornwallis have avoided

it? [2006, 60 m]

• "Tipu Sultan was trying to build in Mysore a strong centralised and militarised state, with

ambitious territorial design." Critically examine. [2019, 10 Marks]

• Tipu Sultan had little success in setting forth a course of change significantly different from the

general experience of 18 th century crisis of Indian politics and society where public life tended

over and over to become a system of plundering. Critically examine. [2021, 10 Marks]

Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan

The political chaos which followed the decline of Mughal empire fostered the rise of a group

of energetic and ambitious military adventures in the 18 th century. One such successful

military adventurer was Hyder Ali who rose by sheer military skill and courage. Soon, he

overthrew the Hindu king of Mysore in 1761, captured power and laid the foundation of

Riyasat of Mysore.

• Hyder centralized power in his own hands.

• Controlled independent poligars' activities
• Introduced the system of imposing land taxes directly on the peasants

• He expanded the territories. The territories of the state now encompassed much of

present-day Karnataka, large portions of Andhra, Tamil Nadu and Kerala.

• Esp. he invaded and annexed Malabar and Calicut expanding the frontiers of

Mysore significantly.

• Withinthenexttwodecades,Mysorebecametheleadingstateoftheregionwithan army

that could effectively challenge the EIC and defeat the British in multiple battles.

Under Hyder and his son Tipu, Mysore not only emerged as an advanced military power but

also became home to modern economic developments.

Tipu Sultan

• Tipu took the reign from father in 1782. In 1787, he declared himself Badshah after

repudiating the overlordship of the Mughal emperor Shah Alam.

• He played a very significant role in the modernization of Mysore. Under Tipu, the state

became a critical player in various kinds of economic activities.

Reforms by Tipu Sultan

Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan are given special consideration among the 18 th c Indian rulers as

they attempted to modernize Mysore on western line. It is said that India in the 18 th century

was in dark age.

Economic Reforms:

• Tipu Sultan took interest in land revenue reforms.

• Tipu abolished the system of farming out lands. The state assumed the

responsibility of collecting rent directly from peasants. He took steps to remove

intermediaries (landlords) and tried to develop direct relations between the state

and people.

• It augmented the state revenue which oiled his larger military infrastructure.
• Tipu also protected peasants against money lenders and revenue officers.

• Apart from that, Tipu promoted agriculture:

• Extension of agriculture to new areas by developing barren land.

▪ Tipu attended to the regular repair of tanks and encouraged cultivation in

the wastelands by charging very low rents. (tax incentive)

▪ He discouraged the production of more than one crop on the same soil so

that its fertility was not affected.

• Encouraging the cash crops.

▪ Cash crops such as areca nut, pepper, cardamom,tobacco and sandalwood

were grown as well, and they got good revenue for the state.

• He encouraged the production of sugarcane.
• Supported sericulture (silk production).
• He also took steps for improving animal breeds.
• There was a flow of credit into rural economy.
• Tipu established a biodiversity garden named Lal Bagh.

• Tipu tried to develop modern industries with French/Persian support.
• To promote trade, he took following measures:

• He sent commercial ambassadors to certain states like Muscat, France etc. for

ambitious oceanic trade.

• He restricted the sale of certain products i.e. spices etc so that the British

(commercial rival) would be eliminated from this. (state monopoly). Tipu

participatedinlucrativetradeofsandalwood,coconut,rice,silketcbyestablishing

30 trading centres in and outside Mysore (including Muscat)

• He funded the construction of seagoing vessels from the central treasury.
• Above all, he experimented with the creation of a trading mercantile company on

the pattern of European countries.

▪ Established state commercial corporations with plans to setup factories

outside state.

Military Reforms:

Hyder and Tipu reorganized the entire military.

• He could create a strong and modern army with the support of French experts.

• European style military discipline was imposed.
• French experts were recruited for training in infantry.
• Revamped the cavalry force.
• System of Risala with clear chain of command.

• Technological modernization

• Artillerywasmodernizedalong Europeanlines. Hyderestablishedmodernarsenal

at Dindigal in 1755 with French help.

• Tipu established gun foundries and saltpeter factories with state ownership.
• He promoted development of rocket technology, the effectiveness of which was

surprising even to the British.

Foreign Policy:

• He was wellawareof thefactthattodefeat the British companyisnotenough.Oneneeds

to defeat the British empire, which was protecting the Company. Therefore, he tried to

create a joint front against the British empire at global level by sending his ambassadors

to many countries, such as France, Turkey, Afghanistan, Persia.

• His relationship with France became more cordial after the revolution in which his

sympathies lay with the Jacobins.

Socio-Religious Reforms:

• As part of his social reform measures, Tipu tried to abolish various social abuses like

alcoholism.He wasthe first modern Indian monarch to ban consumption of alcohol in the

entire State, not on religious grounds, but on moral and health grounds.

• First to confiscate the property of upper castes, including Mutts, and distribute it among

the Shudras.

Causes behind Anglo-Mysorean Conflict

The Anglo-Mysorean relations between 1760-99 has to be understood in the following

context.

• Competition to control entire Peninsula and Deccan
• The British considered Tipu as their chief rival in the south and the main hurdle

on their road to supremacy over South India.

• "The authorities of the East India Company were acutely hostile to Tipu. They

looked upon him as their most formidable rival in the south and as the chief

obstacle standing between them and complete domination over South India. Tipu,

on his part, thoroughly disliked the English, saw them as the chief danger to his

own independence and nursed the ambition to expel them from India." - NCERT

• British were interested in controlling the rich spice trade on the Malabar coast

(cardamom and pepper) which was under Mysore's control.

• Buffer state issue: Powerful Mysore near Madras was a threat.
• Strong Mysore state, with powerful Army and strong economy as seen as a threat

by the British.

• A strong Pro-French policy was pursued by both Hyder and Tipu. Intimate relations

between Mysore and French were considered strategically threatening by the British, as

the British and French were global rivals and their hostilities spanned across the

continents. There was an attempt by the French to revive their fortune in India in the late

18 th century.

• Mutual rivalries among Indigenous powers (eg Arcot, Hyderabad, Marathas, Mysore)
• In this context, English pursued the policy of supporting one indigenous ruler

against another to maximize their benefit.

First Anglo-Mysore War (1767-69)

• In the late 18 th c, Mysore assumed central importance. The Nizam of Hyderabad, Nawab

of Arcot and Marathas also felt threatened.

• Since English considered Hyder as a threat, they provoked Marathas and Nizam to create

a broad-front against Mysore. (Triple Alliance, 1766)

• Haider rose to the occasion as came to know about the British design. He isolated British

diplomatically by turning the Marathas neutral and Nizam into his ally against Nawab of

Arcot.

• Whenthedangerof Marathasand Nizamwasaverted,Haidarsuddenly attacked Madras.

• Hisforcesreachedtheoutskirtsof Madras,causingcompletechaosandpanic.This

compelled the English to sue for peace.

• Treaty of Madras (1769):

• It restored the status quo and mutual restitution of territories.
• There was no provision for war compensation.
• Important clause: This was a defensive alliance and both powers agreed to help

each other in case of an attack by a third party.

This treaty was an honourable treaty for Hyder Ali. It severely damaged the prestige of

Englishin India.Theimportanceof the First Anglo-Mysorewarliesinthefactthat the English,

for the first time in India, seemed to be on backfoot. The seeds of a continuous friction

between Mysore and the British power were thus sowed.

Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780-84)

Immediate Causes:

• In the Treaty of Madras of 1769, there was a provision that if the Marathas attacked

Mysore in the future, the British would support Hyder Ali. In 1771, Mysore was invaded

by the Maratha but British didn't come to help. Hyder Ali considered it a contravention

to the spirit of the Treaty of Madras and accused them of breach of faith.

• Haider Alifound the French moreresourceful in terms of fulfillingthe army requirements

of guns, saltpeter and lead. Consequently, he started importing French war materials to

Mysore through Mahe, a French possession on the Malabar Coast.

• The increasing friendship between Mysore and French raised concern for the British. In

1779, the British company invaded the French region, Mahe. It provided the immediate

pretext for the war.

Course of the War:

• Hyder had upper hand initially:
• Using his diplomatic skill, Hyder was able to win over Marathas and Nizam on his

side for some time.

• It was a fiercely fought military context ranging over a vast area stretching from

Mangalore on the west coast to Arcot in the east.

• He was able to capture almost the whole of Carnatic.
• However, after 1781, tables started turning.
• Battle of Porto Novo (1781): General Eyre Coote defeated Hyder Ali
• British made peace with Marathas which enabled them to concentrate their

entire military strength against Mysore.

• In 1782, Hyder Ali died when the war was in full-swing. It was Tipu Sultan who took

command of the war for its remaining duration (1782-84).

• Tipu got big military successes at many places and hence British came under the

pressure. Neither side was capable of overpowering the other completely.

• At the same time, Madras was hit by a financial crunch. Thus, Lord Macartney,

the Governor of Madras initiated peace talks. Tipu also needed time to

consolidate his hold and strengthen administration. Thus, it remained an

inconclusive War.

• Treaty of Mangalore (1784)
• Both sides restored all conquests. This treaty kept Tipu's kingdom and military

intact. It was a respectable treaty for Tipu as there was no place for war

compensation even in this treaty.

• Although the British had been shown to be too weak to defeat Mysore, they had

certainly proved their ability to hold their own in India.

Third Anglo-Mysore War (1790-92)

• The Treaty of Mangalore was not enough to resolve the conflict. It was just a temporary

respite before a final showdown.

• The relationship between Tipu and Iran/France were improving, which threatened the

British interests.

• In 1789, Tipu invaded the state of Travancore, which was protected by British as per the

Treaty of Mangalore (1784).

• War:
• Cornwallis came out to protect Travancore and sent an expedition led by General

Meadows against Tipu. However, this expedition of unsuccessful.

• Then, Cornwallis formed a Triple Alliance and succeeded in isolating Tipu

diplomatically - Marathas and Nizams against Tipu along with British.

• The rulers of the states of Travancore, Cochin and Arcot were already

hostile to Tipu.

• Tipu was compelled to fight simultaneously on several fronts which overstretched

his military resources. Still, he sustained the war for one long year. Finally, Tipu

was comprehensively defeated in 1792 andhadtomake a treatyof Seringapatam.

• Treaty of Seringapatam (1792)
• Humiliating treaty for Tipu: he lost half of his region to the British, along with 3.3

crore rupees as war compensation.

• Partition:
• British shared some regions submitted by Tipu with their allies. (Kadappa

and some regions near Tungabadhra to Marathas, regions near Pennar

river to Nizam)

• However, the most important regions at Cochin, Coorg and Malabar coast

and places like Dindigul, Barmahal (Salem district) were brought under

their own control.

• After that Lord Cornwallis very proudly made the statement that 'we have

successfully crippled our enemy without making our friends too

formidable'.

• This war depleted Tipu's strength and destroyed his dominant position in the south and

firmly established British supremacy there.

Fourth Anglo-Mysore War (1799)

Lord Wellesley (1798-1805)

• French Menace
• Wellesley was sent to India during when Napoleon was preparing for the

invasion of Egypt and there was a possibility of French invasion of India and the

danger of French revival in India. Wellesley was expressly sent to India to check

the French menace.

• British expansionism (policy of annexation)
• Wellesley abandoned the policy of non-intervention pursued by his

predecessor John Shore.

• He tried bringing as many Indian states as possible under British control. By his

arrival, the two strongest Indian powers (Mysore, Marathas), had declined in

power;aggressionwaseasyaswellasprofitable.Andinthat,the Frenchmenace

provided good pretext.

• Wellesley had no doubt about the legality or morality of his actions. His only

objective was supremacy of the British in India.

• Wellesley adopted three different methods to achieve his goal:
• The method of war: 4 th Anglo-Mysore, 2 nd Anglo-Maratha
• The method of Subsidiary Alliance
• The method of Annexation: Surat, Tanjore, Carnatic
• Tipu'sspirit of resistancedid not subside even when reducedto half. Hewas inthe search

of alternative method to counter the British.

• French Connection
• Tipu developed developed three armouries - Mangalore, Wazirabad and

Malidabad - with the French help.

• He entered in negotiations for an alliance with Revolutionary France. He

hoisted French flag and hoisted Tree of Liberty in Seringpatanam. He

subscribed to the Jacobin Club and preferred to call himself Citizen Tipu.

• Later, he even maintained correspondence with Napoleon.
• British were not prepared to accept Tipu's Francophile policy.
• Tipu sent ambassadors to many regions including Mauritius, Constantinople,

Afghanistan and Iran to forge an anti-British alliance.

• Under the circumstances, the destruction of Tipu's power became even more urgent

from the British viewpoint. Tipu was accused of plotting against the British with

treasonable intent. Lord Wellesley decided to eliminate Tipu asap.

• British attempted to persuade Tipu to sign Subsidiary Alliance but he refused.
• Wellesley sent Arthur Wellesley and Major Stewart to crush the power of Tipu.
• British forces attacked Seringapatnam in 1799. Although by now, Tipu was no

matchforthe British,yethefoughtvaliantly. Thebattleof Seringpatnamwasbrief

but fierce. Tipu died valiantly fighting in 1799. He was 48 years old.

Outcome

• Nearlyhalfof Tipu'skingdomwasdivided between Nizamand British.A small portionwas

restored to Wodeyars. They were made to sign the subsidiary alliance system.

• Thus ended the independent Mysore state. It had taken the English 32 years to subjugate

Mysore.

• The fall of Mysore permanently brushed aside the threat of French revival in the Deccan.

Causes of the Downfall of Tipu

Thedownfallof Mysorehasbeen attributedto Tipu'sinabilitytohandle the political situation

as tactfullyas Hyder Ali,if alive,would have done."Haidar wasbornto create an Empire, Tipu

toloseone."However,closerscrutinyofsouth Indiaintheclosingdecadesof the 18 th century

gives a much more complex picture.

• Hyder had taken the advantage of the ongoing Anglo-French and Anglo-Maratha

military contests in South India. However, the political situation in India and abroad had

undergone qualitative transformation since the days of Hyder Ali.

• By the time of Tipu;
• By the time Tipu ascended to the throne, the English had ousted the French from

India. Thus, Tipu's attempt to build up a broad anti-British front didn't succeed.

• The British diplomatic gestures successfully re-aligned the Indian powers to suit

the British interest.

• British made peace with the Marathas and thus concentrated exclusively

against Tipu.

• Bybringing Nizam,Travancore and Arcoton theirside, Britishwere ableto

isolate Tipu.

• Thus, while the English received assistance from the indigenous powers, Tipu's

attempt to secure foreign help was not successful. Tipu had to fight the British

single handedly.

• The British power in India was at its height by 1790 s.
• While Hyder relied heavily on the guerrilla tactics and cavalry forces to dislodge

British infantry, Tipu depended on his artillery forces and tried to confront the

British directly.

• However, for the British, there was now a perennial supply of funds to sponsor

continuous warfare and access to the most sophisticated firearms. The English

succeeded here because they were better equipped.

Finally, sooner or later, the fall of Mysore was inevitable. Tipu didn't have power to reverse

the forces of history. It is an irony of history that Tipu's life coincided with the British colonial

expansion in India. With the surrender of all Indian powers, the English were all set on the

road to paramountcy.Under these circumstances,it wasnotpossible for Tipu's Mysore alone

to retain its independence.

UPSC CSE PYQs

First War

• "Anglo-Maratha War coveringnearlynine yearsfrom themurderof Narayan Raotothe

Treaty of Salbai emphatically discloses the vitality of the Maratha nation which had not

been exhausted either by the disaster of Panipat or the death of their great Peshwa

Madhavrao." Comment. [1991, 20 m]

• The British "fought the First Maratha War in a period when their fortunes were at the

lowest ebb". Comment. [1998, 20 m]

• "The Treaty of Salbai (1782) was neither honorable to the English nor advantageous to

their interests." Comment. [2004, 20 m]

Second War

• "The Treaty of Bassein, 1802 was‚ a step which changed the footing on which we, the

English stood in western India. It trebled the English responsibilities in an instant."

Comment. [1983, 20 m]

• "Upon the whole,then, Iconclude that the treatyof Bassein waswise, just and a politic

measure." Comment. [1986, 20 m] (Ramsay Muir)

• "The treaty of Bassein, by its direct and indirect operations, gave the Company the

Empire of India." Comment. [1993, 20 m]

• "Upon the whole,then, Iconclude that the treatyof Bassein waswise, just and a politic

measure." Comment. [2005, 20 m]

Third War

• "……. the hunt of the Pindaris became merged in the Third Maratha War." Comment.

[1989, 20 m]

Maratha Decline

• Trace the course of the Anglo-Maratha relations in the first two decades of the

nineteenth century. Account for the ultimate defeat of the Maratha power by the

British. [1984, 60 m]

• How did the British establish their control over Maharashtra in the first two decades of

the 19 th century? Why did the Maratha challenge ultimately collapse? [1994, 60 m]

• "The Maratha polity disintegrated through internal stress." Critically examine. [2017,

10 m]

• While individually the Marathaswere clever and brave, theylacked the corporate spirit

so essential for national independence. Discuss with reasons. [2021, 10 Marks]

Maratha Confederacy

Peshwas

Balaji

Vishwanath

1713-20

• Resolved the Maratha civil war.
• Assisted the Syed Brothers in deposing the emperor

Farrukhsiyar in 1719.

Bajirao I 1720-40

• Establishment of Hindu Pad Padshahi.
• Defeated Nizam multiple times (eg Palkhed, Bhopal)
• Conquest of Malwa, Rajputana, Gujarat
• Attacked Delhi in 1737
• Created Maratha Confederacy

Nanasaheb

(Balaji

Bajirao)

1740-61

• Extension in North, South, East - From Cuttock to Attock

and Peshawar in 1758

• Third Battle of Panipat 1761
• Expansion of Pune city

Madhavrao I 1761-72

• Maratha Resurrection
• Defeated Nizam in the battle of Rakshasabhuvan.

Narayanrao 1772-73

• Assassinated by Gardi guards at the behest of

Raghunathrao.

Raghunathrao 1773-74

• Deposed by barbhai, fled for British protection.
• First Anglo-Maratha War

Madhavrao II 1774-96

• Appointed as infant by generals and ministers as regents.
• Era dominated by Nana Phadanvis

Baji Rao II

1796-

1802

• Defeated by Holkar in the battle of Poona.
• Fled for British protection, provoked Second Anglo-

Maratha War

Amrit Rao 1802-03 • Appointed by Holkar after defeating Peshwas and Scindia.

Baji Rao II 1803-18 • Third Anglo-Maratha War - End of Maratha Confederacy

First Anglo-Maratha War (1775-82)

During the period of Warren Hastings (1772-85), two important wars took place - First

Anglo-Maratha War and the Second Anglo-Mysore War.

Background:

• The Marathas had suffered a great setback when they were decisively beaten by Ahmad

Shah Abdali at the Battle of Panipat in 1761. The British, on the other hand, after

consolidating their position in Bengal and Awadh, were looking for an opportunity to

settle a score with them. The opportunity came when Raghunath Rao sought British help

for becoming the Peshwa, as he was facing opposition from the Council of Regency

headed by Nana Phadnavis.

• Just after the untimely death of Madhavrao Peshwa, a series of court intrigues,

conspiracies and counter-conspiracies started in the Maratha court, in order to

control the gaddi of Peshwa.

• Madhavrao was succeeded by his younger brother Narayanrao whose life was

made difficult but uncle Raghunathrao (Raghoba, brother of Nanasaheb), who

wanted to be Peshwa. However, he couldn't succeed in his designs due to the

intervention of Nana Phadanvis.

• So, out of sheer frustration, Raghoba sought British help. This conflict gave British

a handle to interfere in Maratha politics.

Why exactly did British intervene?

• Expansion to cotton producing region of western India.
• Bombay was an important opium supply route.
• Bombay officers adventured - Intervention into internal matters of Poona court, into the

succession rights.

Treaty of Surat, 1775

British promised to help Raghunath Rao to become Peshwa in return of:

• Control over Salsette and Bassein
• Revenue of Surat and Broach
• Acceptance to be consulted before making alliance with any other power.

The War:

• In May 1775, an army contingent led by Col. Keating was dispatched to help Raghoba,

thereby commencing the first Anglo-Maratha war.

• However, Warren Hastings (GG of Bengal), however, was not consulted and thus didn't

like the idea. He sent Col. Upton to mediate between the Marathas and the Bombay

government.

• This led to the Treaty of Purandar (1776) with Pune.

▪ British promised not to help Raghoba.

▪ British would get Salsette, while other regions would be vacated by both

the parties.

• Thus, the war halted. However, the Bombay officials were not satisfied with it. This

prompted the Bombay presidency to resume the war once again.

• However, the Marathas gained upper hand:

• In the battle of Talegaon (1779), British were roundly defeated by the Marathas,

and this led to the signing of the Treaty of Wadgaon (1779).

▪ Thistreatyledtothestatusquoantebellum and Salsettewentto Marathas

again. All the benefits earned by British were lost.

• The years of 1780-82 turned out to be a very difficult year for the British

▪ Nizam, Hyder, and Marathas joined hands against them due to diplomacy

of Nana Phadanvis. (United Front).

▪ The Company was going through the administrative crisis in India, in the

wake of Regulating Act (1773).

▪ The company was also facing a financial crunch as the revenue sources

were not established properly.

▪ Moreover, the Company was not able to receive proper help from the

home government which was pre-occupied in the American War of

Independence.

• However, the Treaty of Wadgaon was not accepted by Hastings. Now, British went on

offensive, and Hastings sent resources from the Bengal Presidency.

• Hastings created severe military pressure on Marathas and forced them to come

to thetable.Thus,wassignedthe Treatyof Salbai(1782).Accordingtothistreaty:

▪ Madhav Rao Narayan was recognized as the real Peshwa. The Company

promised not to interfere in the internal matters of the Marathas.

▪ British got the control of Salsette, along with Elephanta Islands.

▪ British also established a foothold in the internal conflicts of Indian states.

With this treaty, the First Anglo-Maratha War ended. Thereafter, a 20 years-long peace

prevailed between Marathas and the British. The British Company took advantage of this,

isolated the state of Mysore and eliminated it. Thus, the treaty helped in neutralizing

Marathas andbreakingthe allianceof Indianpowersanddefeatthemonebyone. Meanwhile

the Marathas were gripped by internal dissension and local Maratha chiefs tried to expand

their areas as much as possible, which obviously weakened the central Maratha authority.

Wellesley's Subsidiary Alliance

To achieve his expansionist goals, Lord Wellesley devised a system of subsidiary alliance.

Although aggressive in nature, it was an extension of the policy of Ring-Fence. It was not an

entirely novel idea, some of the elements were visible earlier.

• Dupleix had a similar treaty with Hyderabad in 1740 s
• Clive concluded first such treaty with Shuja-ud-Daulah back in 1765
• In 1787, Cornwallis signed Treaty with Carnatic which had brought its foreign policy of

under British control.

Using the pretext of hyped French Menace to justify

the aggression, the earlier practices were given a

definite formal shape and systemic framework by

Wellesley in the form of Subsidiary Alliance.

Before starting the final war with Mysore, Wellesley

signed the first treaty with Hyderabad in 1798. It

inaugurated the era of Subsidiary Alliance System.

After the capture of Mysore, all political entities in India were to be offered the option of

submitting peacefully by becoming the part of the subsidiary alliance system, or of a military

contextiftheyresistedcolonialdomination.Wellesleyusedittosubordinate the Indianstates

to the paramount authority of the Company.

Constituents of the Treaty

• Permanent Army led by a British officer.

• Stationed within the territory of the state, in order to protect from internal

disorder and external aggression.

• The state had no control over this army.
• It was mandatory for the ally to disperse his own militia.

• Payment of a subsidy: In cash (for smaller states) or ceded territory (for bigger states)

to defray its expenses.

• Posting a British Resident at his court.

• Theoretically, the company was not allowed to interfere in the internal matters

of the state but practically, this rule was almost always flaunted.

• Control over external relations

• Not to employ any European in service without consent.
• Not to directly negotiate with any other Indian ruler.

Sequenceinwhich the Indian States

entered Subsidiary Alliances with

Lord Wellesley:

• Hyderabad (1798, 1800)
• Mysore, Tanjore (1799)
• Awadh, Arcot (1801)
• Peshwa (Marathas) (1802)
• Shinde, Bhosle, Gaekwads

(Marathas) (1803-05)

Effects of the Treaty:

For the British - Extremely useful On Indian States - Devastating

• It allowed company to gradually and

silently disarm Indian states.

• Maintainalargearmyatthecostof the

Indian states.

• This subsidiary force was stationed in

the capitalsofnativestates which were

places of great strategic significance.

The company could fight wars far away

from their own territories.

• Company now controlled the defense

and foreign relations of the protected

allies. The possibility of any native

alliance against the company was

eliminated.

• It eliminated French threat in India

because no French men could be

recruited by a native ruler without the

permission of the company.

• This system allowed the company to

ensure that only its favourites were

sitting on throne of native state

because at any time native ruler tried

to threaten the interest of company he

was immediately replaced. It

transformed company into an

arbitrator of Indian disputes because

any kind of conflict involving native

state was to be settled by English

company. Thus, the Company could

easily maintain its paramountcy over

native states.

It proved to be extremely degenerative for

Indian native states because native rulers

purchased security at the cost of

Independence and sovereignty.

• The army was allegedly for the protection

but, it turned the ruler into a tributary

client.

• Indian state virtually signed away

its independence.

• Disbandment of the local armies led to

loss of livelihood for soldiers and officers.

• On the one hand, the state was divested

of its army and on the other hand, it had

to pay for its own occupation.

• British Resident interfered in the day-to-

day administration.

• The rulers of the protected states tended

to neglect the interests of their people

and to oppress them.

• As a result, a situation of extreme

maladministration developed in

many native states.

• Extremely high cost of subsidy - leading

to diversion of disproportionate share of

revenue and ultimate bankruptcy in many

cases.

• In external matters, the states lost all

vestiges of sovereignty: it became

subservient in diplomatic relations, could

not employ foreign experts, or settle

disputes with its neighbors.

This alliance proved to be very advantageous from the point of view of the English, both

economically and militarily. The native states were gradually brought under the sovereign

control of English company. It is commented that it was a trojan horse tactics of empire

building. Arthur Wellesley was right in observing that 'our policy our arms have reduced all

the powers of India to the state of mere cyphers.'

Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803-05)

Background:

• By the end of the 18 th century, British had contained all other major powers in India.
• By 1800, almost all the important Maratha leaders had passed away by this time. Next

generation leadership was not so competent, lacked pragmatic program and involved in

internecine conflict.

• Haripant Phadke (1794), Ahilyabai Holkar (1795) passed away.
• Mahadaji Shinde (1794) → Daulatrao Shinde
• Tukojirao Holkar (1797) → Yashwantrao Holkar
• Sawai Madhaorao (1795) → Baji Rao II
• In March 1800 Nana Fadnavis, the Chief Minister at Poona, died. "With him",

remarked Colonel Palmer, the British Residents at Poona, "departed all the

wisdom and moderation of the Maratha Government".

• Freed from Nana's vigilance, Baji Rao's worst qualities found a free play.

• Withhisfondnessforintrigue,the Peshwasoughttokeepuphispositionbyputting

the Maratha chiefs one against another. However, Baji Rao was caught in the net

of his own intrigues.

• Both Daulat Rao Shinde and Jaswant Rao Holkar sought pre-eminence at Poona.

• Theinternecineconflict between Shindeand Holkarmadethe Marathafallal most

inevitable.

• Shinde-Holkarwerecompetingtogetinfluence over Peshwa.The Shindeprevai led

at first and the Peshwa passed under his virtual control.

• Holkar's victory over the Peshwa's forces in the year 1800 prompted the Peshwa Baji Rao

II to accept the British offer of subsidiary alliance in 1802 by signing the Treaty of

Bassein. (31 Dec 1802):

• The Peshwa had to pay a huge sum as a subsidy.

• It included ceding a territory worth 26 lakh and control over Surat.

• In return, the British were to guarantee the safety and security of Peshwas from

internal and external dangers.

• British regiment stationed at Poona for payment of 26 lakh/annum.
• British resident stationed at Poona.

• Peshwa agreednotto enter into anyalliance withanyotherpower without British

consent.

• The foreign policy of Peshwas had to be conducted at the advice of British

resident. British now obtained right to intervene in the internal matters of

the Maratha confederacy, as the final arbiter.

• Specificclause: Differences between Peshwas-Nizam or Peshwas-Gaikwad

to be resolved under British mediation.

• This marked the achievement of another object of Wellesley's

policy, namely, that the state Hyderabad definitely passed under

the Company's protection.

• Military advantage:

• The Company'ssubsidiarytroopswereencampedatthecapitalsofthefour

Indian powers--at Mysore, Hyderabad, Lucknow and Poona.

• In return, Arthur Wellesley restored the peshwa to Pune in May 1803. The leading

Maratha state had thus become a client of the British. This treaty led to the Second

Maratha War (1803-05),

The Treaty of Bassein did not establish the Company's political supremacy in India but

certainlywasan important milestone inthat direction.Thus, Sidney Owen's remarkthat "the

treaty by its direct and indirect operations gave the Company the Empire of India" merely

contains the exaggeration of a true political phenomenon.

This British intervention into the internal matters irritated different members of the

Confederacy. The national humiliation was too much for the Marathas. The Maratha chiefs

rejected the treaty, which led to the second Anglo-Maratha War (1803-05). Now even

Peshwas realised his loss in the treaty and hence he started seeking support of Bhonsle &

Scindia against the British.

Thus started the Second Anglo-Maratha War in 1803.

• In order to counter Maratha power, the British created two military commands: Northern

command under Lord Lake & Southern command under Arthur Wellesley.

• It was a major military confrontation, encompassing the large parts of the

subcontinent. Deccan, MP, Gujarat, Karnataka, Odisha, Rajasthan, UP.

• The first Phase of War:

• Arthur Wellesley defeated Bhosle and Shindes in a series of battles.
• Lake defeated Shindeinthebattle of Aligarh,battle of Laswari innorth India. Then,

he captured Delhi (battle of Patparganj) and Agra.

▪ Symbolically, Mughal Emperor Shah Alam became free from the control of

Maratha & fell under the control of the British.

▪ Under British protection the Mughal Emperors languished till the great

revolt of 1857.

• Subsidiary Alliance Treaties: Now, the treaties of subordination were imposed on a

number of tributariesof the Marathas. Britishsigned separate treaties with each of them.

• Treaty of Devgaon with Raghuji Bhonsle of Nagpur.
• Treaty of Surji-Anjangaon with Daulatrao Shinde.

• Later on, the revised treaty of Mustafapur (1805) was foisted upon

Shindes.

• Gaekwads had already concluded the Treaty of Cambey (1802)
• Moreover, the British acquired the right to be the final arbiter in any disputes

among the Maratha houses.

• Second Phase: The war with Yashwant Rao Holkar continued till 1805. They fought the

battleseparately,alongwith Jatsof Bharatpur.Thus,inthe Second Phaseof War,Holkars

were defeated.

• In the meantime, the Court of Directors in London realized the extravagance of the war

and recalled Wellesley.

• They sent Cornwallis again to India (1805) to curb expansionist policies of

Wellesley, but he died after reaching in India.

• Thus,George Barlowwassentasthenew Governor-Generalwhoconcludedpeace

with Holkar in 1805 (Treaty of Rajpurghat).

▪ With this, Holkars were forced to party away with a large part of Malwa to

British.

• Thus, the second Anglo-Maratha ended in stalemate, but only outwardly.

• The Englishconquestof Delhi,apartfromothergains,considerablyenhanced their

prestige and put them in the forefront of the Indian political scene. They also

gained ascendency at Pune.

• Forallpracticalpurposes,alargechunkof Marathaterritorywasnow under British

control,through Peshwaor through other leaderswhohad signedthesubsidiaries

treaties.

• However, the Maratha power had been shattered though not completely

annihilated.

Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817-18)

Causes:

• The settlement of 1803 treaties provided some amount of stability under British

domination for about a decade.

• The breathing time that the Marathas had got after Wellesley's recall in 1805 was

not utilized by them for strengthening their power but wasted in mutual conflicts.

• The arrival of Lord Hastings in 1813 turned out to be a major landmark in the evolution of

British imperialism, which now became even more aggressive.

• He resumed the threads of aggressive policy abandoned in 1805 and was

determined to proclaim British Paramountcy in India.

• The Company wanted to capture Poona for strategic importance.
• A certain arrangement was evolved by the British whereby Bajirao II remained to be

Peshwa, but without power.

• Now, the Peshwa made the last-ditch effort to salvage the situation. The War erupted

when there was a reaction from Maratha side. Peshwa Baji Rao tried to unite all Maratha

chiefs against the British which led to the war of 1817-18.

Pindari War (1817-18)

• The final Anglo-Maratha overlapped with a large-scale campaign against the Pindaris. In

fact, the so called Pindari menace provided the pretext and justification for military

mobilization against the Marathas.

• Pindaris created a law-and-order situation for the British.

Lord Hastings decided to eliminate them. For him, annihilation of Pindaris was a prerequisite

to the destruction of the Marathas. He formed a task force for the same purpose in 1816.

They were surrounded by an army of about 120,000 men, which converged upon them from

Bengal, the Deccan, and Gujarat under the supreme command of the Governor-General Lord

Hastings (northern command) and LG T. Hislop (southern

command).

The sheer military might of the Company resulted in victory. The

Pindaris themselves offered little resistance. Their bands simply

dissolved and there was no direct encounter. Most of the leaders

surrendered or died.

Hastings used Pindari campaign as a pretext to attack Marathas.

After finishing the Pindari campaign, Lord Hastings asked Maratha

commandersto signnewtreatyand when theyhesitated awar was

declared on them immediately. Thus, along with the Pindaris, even

Marathas became the target of the same army.

The Peshwa was defeated at Khirki, Bhonsle's army routed at Sitabaldi and Holkar's army

crushed at Mahidpur.

Mountstuart

Elphinstone, LG of

Bombay (1819-27)

Consequence

• The Marathas were badly beaten in the third Anglo-Maratha war, which finally ended the

independence of the Maratha states - Nagpur, Indore, Gwalior, Baroda - and made the

EIC a major territorial power in western and central India.

• The Peshwa's authority was terminated and his seat of authority, Pune, formally became

part of the Company's territory.

• Bajirao II formally abdicated his office and was sent to Bithur with an annual

pension of 8 lakh.

• The gaddi of Peshwa was abolished and region of Maharashtra (including Pune)

was completely annexed.

• However,to assuage thefeelings of Maratha spirit, a separatestate of Satara was

carved out and granted to Pratap Singh, a descendant of Shivaji.

• Theannexationof Poonatothe Bombaypresidencyledtoitsrestructuringin 1818.

• Although Maratha Confederacy was dissolved, the Shindes, Halkars, Gaikwads and

Bhosles still retained large tracts of territory at the end of the war, being incorporated

into the British India empire as princely states.

• Thedefeatofthe Marathasopenedtheroadforestablishing the Company'sparamountcy

over the Rajputana region.

• Thus, the Maratha dream of inheriting the Mughal imperial mantle was finally dashed to

the ground.

Reasons for the eventual Downfall of the Maratha

The Marathas could not offer an alternative to Mughal rule. The political vacuum left behind

by the Mughalswas eventuallyfil led up by the British power and thus, the dream of founding

a Maratha empire was shattered.

The initial military success of the Maratha Kingdom could be attributed to the extraordinary

political acumen of Shivaji and the first three Peshwas. Thereafter, the Maratha power

declined and went down in the face of repeated British onslaughts.

Reasons for the failure of the Maratha:

• No great/capable leader by the 1800 s.

• By the end of the 18 th century, all the talented and experienced leaders like

Mahadaji Sindia,Tukoji Holkar,Nana Phadnisweredead.Baji Rao IIwasselfish and

inefficient. The absence of a good leader led to mutual quarrels and factionalism

among the Marathas and quickened their decline.

• Ontheotherhand,the East India Companywasluckyinhavingtheservicesofable

persons like Elphinstone, John Malcolm Colonel Colins, Jonathan Ducan, Arthur

Wellesley (later on the conqueror of Napoleon), Lord Lake and above all Richard

Wellesley.

• Nana Phadanvis and Tipu's plans to combine Indian powers together in a grand coalition

ultimately foundered, because of mutual disputes.

• Superior English Diplomacy: The English were superior to the Marathas in the game of

diplomacy. Before actual operations would start the Company would take care to win

allies and isolate the enemy diplomatically.

• Superior English Espionage: The Marathas were careless about military intelligence.

• Onthecontrary,the Company'sspysystemwasperfect.Palmerwrotein December

1798, "I consider it as the duty of every British subject in this country, however

situated, to contribute to the utmost of his power, to the stock of general

information".

• There were long-term changes in the character of the Maratha state.

• The extension of Maratha empire beyond its natural boundaries led to the change

in the character of the Maratha state and led to the creation of Maratha

confederacy.

• Maratha Confederacy's members were in conflict with each other. Even during the

hour of crisis, they couldn't unite.

• Factionalism within Punecourt ledtoitsinabilityto controlthe confederacyundercheck.
• Marathas' source of income was unreliable. They mostly relied on the 'Chauth' and the

'Sardeshmukhi', rather than creating productive assets.

• The Maratha chiefs had to resort to periodic raids and plunder to run their

economy. This economic insolvency also exerted an evil influence on the political

stability of the empire.

• In the absence of any industry or foreign trade openings, fighting was the only

lucrative opening for the youth. War became the 'national industry' of the

Marathas and recoiled on the economy of the state.

• Although, the Marathas discarded their traditional warfare techniques and adopted the

European techniques, they lagged in the British in these warfare methods.

• The Maratha military supremacy owed its successto guerilla tactics and the use of

cavalrymen. But the later Maratha leaders opted for the western method of

warfare. Sir Alfred Lyall in his book "Rise and Expansion of British Power in India"

states that the abandonment of the guerilla system of warfare was a cardinal

mistake of the Marathas.

▪ It isfurther contended that the neglect of cavalryon the part of the Shinde

and concentration on artillery and infantry affected adversely the mobility

of the army, depriving it of the chief advantage it had possessed against

the armies of the Mughals.

• However, the Maratha fault lay not in abandoning the guerilla system of warfare,

but in inadequate adoption of the modem techniques of warfare. They could not,

integrate the two. As a result, the Maratha method of warfare became partly

foreign, partly vernacular.

• The Marathas neglected the paramount importance of artillery.

▪ Mahadaji Sindhia deserves the credit of trying to fight the enemy with the

enemy's weapons. His battalions were trained on the European model and

factories were set up for the manufacture of fire-arms, but these

departments were entirely in the hand of foreigners whose loyalty in times

of need was always in doubt.

▪ The Poona Government also set up an artillery department, but it hardly

functioned effectively.

• Lack of modernity

• Maratha state was essentially medieval in nature. Marathas failed to evolve

modern institutions and lacked the ability to adapt to new circumstances.

▪ Jadunath Sarkarcontendsthattherewereinherentdefectsinthecharacter

of the Maratha state. The religio-national movement which had worked in

thedestructionof the Mughal Empireintheseventeenthcenturyhadspent

itself in the process of expansion of the Maratha Empire.

• Social backwardness:

▪ J.N. Sarkar points out that growth of orthodoxy and Brahmin-Maratha

differences sapped the vitality of the state.

• The Maratha sardars did not have the farsightedness to develop a new economy.
• The Maratha rulers could not realise the importance of science or technology or

did not take interest in trade and industry.

When the English attacked the Marathas, the latter were already past the prime of their

power. The Maratha power had lost its early vigour and momentum. Thus, the English

attacked a 'divided house' which started crumbling at the first push.

UPSC CSE PYQs

Sindh

• "We have no right to seize Sind, yet we shall do so and a very advantageous, useful,

humane piece of rascality it will be." Comment. [1984, 20 m]

• "We haveno rightto seize Sind,yetweshalldoso,and averyadvantageous,usefuland

human piece of rascality it will be." Comment. [1990, 20 m]

• "The British conquest of Sind was both a political and moral sequel to the first Afghan

war." Comment. [1995, 60 m]

• Sir Charles Napier said, "We have no right to seize Sind, yet we shall do so, and a very

advantageous, useful, humane piece of rascality it will be.'' Comment. [2000, 20 m]

Punjab

• "Punjab's fate after Ranjit Singh was foredoomed as the impulse of neo-Victorian

Imperialism was bound to overwhelm it". Elucidate [2010, 20 m]

• "Annexationof Punjabwaspartofabroadnorth-westfrontierpolicysetinmotion after

the exit of Maharaja Ranjit Singh." Critically examine [2015, 10 Marks]

• Underline the major considerations of the British imperial power that led to the

annexation of Punjab. [2017, 10 m]

• "Maharaja Ranjit Singhdiedin 1839.Hisdeathwasthesignalforanoutburstofanarchy

all over the Punjab." Critically examine. [2020, 10 Marks]

• 'The Treaty of Amritsar (1809) was significant for its immediate as well as potential

effects.' Critically examine. [2022, 10 m]

Phase of Industrial Capitalism (1813-58)

Objective: To convert India as a market for British manufactured goods

and the supplier of raw materials

• Political Policy: To bring the maximum number of states under

direct control. (Paramountcy and Annexationism)

• Administrative Policy: Substantial changes in the administrative

structure

• Economic Policy: Commercialization of Agri, Deindustrialization,

Free Trade, Drain of Wealth

• Social Policy:Reformsthrough English Educationand Law (civilizing

mission)

• Cultural Policy: Liberals, Utilitarians, Evangelism

Inauguration of aggressive British imperialism in India

There was asignificantchangein thenatureof British imperialismintheearlypartof the 19 th

century. One can trace the beginning from the time of Lord Wellesley (1798-1805), but he

was discouraged by the authorities in London. As the London was unsatisfied with Wellesley's

costly programme of conflict and expansion, he was repatriated from India. However, the

policy started changing decisively after 1810 s.

With the arrival of Lord Hastings as the Governor of Bengal (1813-1823), the nature and

character of British policies in India changed significantly. Hereafter the vision of extensive

British Empire guided the actions and policies of British rulers both in India as well as in

London.

Reasons:

• By this time, British had captured extensive territories. Roots of British in India became

very strong. Once the Marathas were completely defeated in 1805, the British became

more aggressive.

• There was also a change in the policy of the British authorities in London. they were now

becoming more supportive of aggression.

• In continental Europe, the threat of Napoleon to British dominance had also

subsided by mid-1810 s.

• There was an Economic logic for aggressive policy

• With the beginning of Industrial capitalism, there was a need to convert India as

a market for British manufactured goods and the supplier of raw materials. The

industrial revolution heightened the need for resources to sustain economic

growth.

• Also, after conquering Ganga basin completely, British now turned their greedy

gaze towards Indus valley. Control of the Indus valley was seen as not only

economically lucrative but also as a gateway to the Central Asia.

• Victorian neo-imperialism (from 1830 s onwards)

• There was a sense of national pride and competition among European powers.

Acquiringcolonieswasoftenseenasameasureofanation'sstrengthandprestige.

• In the 1830 s, there was the beginning of The Great Game.

• It was a rivalry between the 19 th century British and Russian Empires over

influence in Asia, primarily in Afghanistan, Persia, and later Tibet.

• Britain feared Russia's southward expansion would threaten the India possession.

Asa result, British madeit ahighprioritytoprotect allapproachesto India,to stop

Russian expansion towards India.

▪ Toprotect India,Britain aimedtocreate a protectoratein Afghanistan,and

support the Ottoman Empire, Persia, Khiva, and Bukhara as buffer states

against Russian expansion.

• British also wanted to protect sea trade routes by blocking Russia from gaining a

port on the Persian Gulf or the Indian Ocean.

Overall, this era was characterized by an aggressive pursuit of economic interests, the

consolidation of political control, and the imposition of Western values on the Indian

subcontinent. Thus, the British expanded in two ways: by more interfering in princely states

to depose the rulers and by following aggressive war policy at the frontiers.

(A) Internally: Interference through the Paramountcy

• In 1813 came governor-general Hastings of Moira who spelt out the certain notion of

paramountcy.

• He demanded British must be recognised as supreme and sovereign power in

India. He aimed to assert British supremacy over all Indian native states.

• Paramountcy vis-à-vis Princely states:

▪ The policy asserted the Governor General's right to intervene in the

internal affairs of the Indian princely states, and to supersede their

authority if necessary. It is a claim to overlordship.

▪ Theoretically, it tried to establish the superior authority of the British

Empire over the princely states which were tied in treaty relationship with

the with the company. So, even the large states like Hyderabad had to

listen to the dictates of the Company.

▪ Inthelongrun,paramountcyalsoinvolved moredirectintervention ofthe

British to the point of the government of the princely states being directly

taken over by the British authorities. So, in the long run, paramountcy

threatenedtheexistenceoftheprincelystatesaltogether. (justification for

annexation)

• This trend climaxed in the 1830 s-40 s.

▪ Lord William Bentick (1828-35) annexed Mysore, Central/Northern Cachar

and Jaintia etc.

▪ During 1848 when governor-general Dalhousie embarked on a systematic

policy of annexation of the territories of many of the more prominent

princelystates.Theannexationof Awadh(1856)finallyledtotheoutbreak

of the revolt of 1857.

(B) Externally, aggressive policy territorial expansion was pursued.

Policy of territorial expansion was pursued aggressively. All those native states were wipe out

that tried to challenge the British dominance in India. Hereafter, the Wars and Battles were

not fought for defensive purpose, but they guided by aggressive imperialistic designs.

As part of its long-term objective of bringing under imperial control the frontier the Indian

subcontinent, the East India Company tried to extend its empire in North, East and West.

• Lord Hastings (1813-23): Third Anglo Maratha War
• Himalayan region: Anglo-Nepal War (1814-16) by Lord Hastings
• Northeast: Lord Amherst (1823-28) annexed of Assam, and led the British in First Anglo-

Burmese War (Treaty of Yandabo 1826)

• Northwest:

• Lord Auckland (1836-42): First Anglo-Afghan War (1839)
• Lord Ellenborough (1842-44): Annexation of Sindh (1843)
• Lord Hardinge (1844-48): First Anglo-Sikh War (1845)
• Lord Dalhousie (1848-56): Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848)
• Lord Lytton (1876-80): Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878)

Thus, the policy of British in the Northwest must be situated in this larger historical backdrop

of a new kind of imperialism which was becoming more aggressive, more interfering, more

conscious about the security of the empire.

Afghanistan

The Graveyard of Imperial powers

• Shah Shuja, the ruler of Afghanistan was expelled from Afghanistan by Shah Mahmud

(1809). From 1815 onwards Shah Shuja resided at Ludhiana.

• Failed attempt of Shah Shuja to re-capture power:

• Dost Mohammad, came to power in 1826.
• Shah Shuja he launched an invasion of eastern Afghanistan. However, in the

middle of 1834 Shuja was defeated by Dost Mohammad at Kandahar.

Auckland's Forward Policy in Afghanistan

• Soon after Auckland (1836-42) assumed office, there was sustained propaganda of

Russophobia in India and Britain to justify the forward policy in Afghanistan.

• Initially, Alexander Burnes, was deputed to Kabul in 1837 on a so-called commercial

mission. However, he was unsuccessful in diplomatic negotiations with Dost Mohammad

due to the issue of control of Peshawar.

• It was now decided by the Company that Dost Mohammad needed to be overthrown and

for that, Shah Shuja was given active help.

• As a prelude to the implementation of this scheme a treaty was signed between

Shah Shuja, Ranjit Singh, and the British (Tripartite Treaty of 1838).

• According to the original plan, Ranjit Singh was to render military support to Shah

Shuja to enable him to acquire control over Afghanistan. In return, Shuja was to

renounce claims over those territories of Afghanistan which had been acquired by

the Punjab kingdom, particularly Peshawar.

• Eventually,itwasdecided that Britishtroopswouldaccompany Shujaonhismarch

to Kabul.

• The death of Ranjit Singh in 1839, and the uncertainties of succession in the Punjab

kingdom, made Shuja even more dependent on the British.

First Anglo-Afghan War

• The Punjab army was to march from Peshawar to Kabul via the Khyber Pass. But it

couldn't move beyond Peshawar.

• The Company's contingents, which now constituted the main force - Army of the Indus -

was to take a southerly routethrough Sind and Baluchistan and proceed to Kabulthrough

the Bolan Pass in 1839.

• Initial British Victory (1839)

• The Army of the Indus was able to occupy Kandahar and Ghazni on its way to

Kabul.

• Dost Mohammad retreated from Kabul as the British army approached the city;

and Shah Shuja was proclaimed as the ruler.

• Soon, they became complacent without noticing Afghan discontent.

• British stuck in Kabul

• It soon became apparent that the new ruler could not maintain his position

without continuing British presence. Thus, it was decided that the British force

would stay on for some time.

• Two worries:

▪ A prolonged stay in Afghanistan was financially unviable.

▪ Punjab was unwilling to allow the British army to march through its

territory.

• As Dost Muhammad was powerful → Negotiation.

• Despite British presence, Dost Mohammad was able to gather sufficient

supporters.

• However, since his forces were too small for a sustained offensive, he decided to

negotiate with the British. The British authorities agreed to his voluntary exile in

India. He was placed under virtual house arrest in Mussoorie.

• Still, the situation continued to deteriorate despite the exile of Dost Mohammad. By

1841, there was widespread unrest and troops had to be constantly rushed to put down

armed rebellions.

• Retreat of the British Army (1842)

• Soon, the Army of the Indus commenced its retreat in January 1842.
• It met with stiff opposition from local tribal communities
• Almost the entire British force of nearly 16,000 men, was wiped out much before

reaching Jalalabad.

o

• The First Afghan War was the most comprehensive defeat the British faced in their

colonial wars during the nineteenth century, and one in which they suffered huge losses.

British prestige was heavily damaged.

• The final catastrophe for the British cause was the assassination of Shah Shuja in April

1. it was decided that Dost Mohammad be released so that he could return to power

in Afghanistan. Uponhisreturnto Kabul,Dost Mohmammadonceagainbe came the ruler

of Afghanistan and reigned till his death in 1863.

The First Afghan War thus ended in a colossal defeat for the British.. This was perhaps the

worst military disaster for the British during their expansionist drive in the first half of the

nineteenth century.

Sindh (Talpur)

The Afghan Warhadcreated conditionsfor the conquestof Sind. Theprocess which finallyled

to the annexation of the region was set in motion just as British forces retreated from

Afghanistan.

Causes behind Sindh's Annexation

• Russophobia:

• To counter Russian expansion in NW of India
• Sind was passing through a phase of internal crisis it could have easily target

for Russians.

• Tail of Afghan War:

• After the defeat in the First Afghan War, the Company lost influence in

Afghanistan. It was thus necessary for the company to strengthen its defence

on Afghanistan-Sind border by annexing Sind.

• Afghan expedition was a blow to British prestige. They wanted to restore it by

annexing Sindh.

In the early nineteenth century Sind was ruled by chiefs/amirs of the Talpur clan.

The colonial penetration of Sind:

Sind was an independent state and the John Company had friendly relations with Sind. The

Company repeatedly promised to protect unity and integrity of Sindh.

• For the first time the English company came into contact with Sind in 1775 when it set up

1 st factory at Thatta. This factory was abandoned in 1792 due to commercial reasons.

• French Menace → Early Treaties

• During the Napoleonic Wars, a treaty (1809) was signed with the amirs under

which they agreed not to allow the French into the region.

• Thiswasfollowed upbyanother treaty in 1820 intendedto excludeall Europeans

(and Americans) from Sind.

• Commercial Explorations → Treaty of 1832

• Alexander Burnes' brother James visited Hyderabad in the late 1820 s and

published an account of his stay at the court of Hyderabad.

• It was in the early 1830 s that the British began to systematically gather

information about Sind. Alexander Burnes's espionage mission of 1831 was the

first major attempt to explore the lower Indus.

• Treatyof 1832-Amoresubstantialtreatywasconcludedin 1832 whichcompelled

the amirs to open up their territories, the river Indus particularly, to commerce.

This marked the beginning of regular British intervention in the affairs of the Sind.

• Punjab politics → Treaty of 1838

• The southwardexpansion ofthe Punjab kingdomin thedirectionofnorthern Sind

lent urgency to British manoeuvres.

▪ In 1836, Ranjit Singh was planning to occupy the city of Shikarpur in

northern Sind. The threat to occupy Shikarpurwas meant to pressurizethe

amirs to pay the tribute.

• At this point, the British intervened and offered their 'protection' to the amirs,

forcing another treaty (1838) on them.

▪ Henry Pottinger, played a prominent role in the 1830 s in undermining the

authority of the Sind amirs.

• Afghan Expedition → Treaty of 1839

• During Kabul expedition, Karachi was occupied in 1839, following which another

treaty was signed with the amirs under which they were forced to accept a

subsidiary force and pay Rs 3 lakhs per annum towards its expenses.

Role of Charles Napier:

Shortly after Ellenborough took over as governor general, Charles Napier, a senior British

military officer, was appointed the Company's supreme military commander and Resident in

Sind and given wide-ranging political authority. It was he who created circumstances and led

the process of annexation of Sindh.

• Napier conducted a farcical inquiry into allegations of secret support by Sindh amirs to

anti-British activities. Finding the amirs guilty, he imposed a new treaty with onerous and

unacceptable conditions, which was sure to be refused.

• At the same time the British madeuseof afactionaltussleat Khairpur to support one side

against another, which led to the popular spontaneous resistance.

Thus started the war in which Amris were swiftly defeated. Sind was annexed by the British.

Napier was made governor of the province.

The Punjab

Aggressive policy of paramountcy, and Russophobia as security challenge to the Indian

possessionsof the British Empirecamefacetofacewithasituationin Punjabafterthecollapse

of Ranjit Singh's Kingdom.

British intervention in this region in 1840 s was provoked by the fear of a troubled frontier.

Russian intervention in the region (Russophobia) persuaded the British to constantly

recalibrate its Punjab policy.

• Earlier Policy - To prop-up Ranjit Singh's regime as a possible bulwark/barrier against

possible Russian invasions through Afghanistan.

• Later Policy-Once Ranjit Singh's Kingdomcollapsed,andinstabilitybecamerampant,and

this policy had to be changed.

Rise of the Sikhs - Ranjit Singh (Punjab Kesari)

This Sikhpolityhadthememoryofanti-Mughalresistanceasinideologyandfacedthe military

compulsion of containing the Afghans. This demanded the emergence of a more organized

and more powerful leadership.

At the end of the 18 th century, Zaman Shan, a successor of Abdali in Afghanistan was invading

north India regularly. So, it was this necessity of resistance to Afghans that eventually made

for the rise of Ranjit Singh possible. Ranjit Singh, by dint of his leadership, competency and

muscle power, fused the various Sikh misls into a powerful state.

• Born in 1780, he assumed the leadership of the

sukarchakia misl at the age of 12 after the

premature death of his father.

• His main source of strength was his army. He

modelled it on European style, on East India

Company's army. It became the second largest army

in Asia.

• Ranjit Singh was a military adventurer, and

he knewthatmilitarysuperioritywas the key

to power. He laboured hard to build up a

disciplined, well- armed military force along

modern lines.

• He appointed European military experts to

train his soldiers.

• The cavalry was well organized.
• He set up modern manufacturing units to manufacture cannons.
• The racial composition of his army and administration was heterogeneous. He

recruited both the Hindus and the Muslims.

• He also introduced the system of vassalage - all these great Sikh sardars in other places

were enticed to be his vassals.

• Initially, Ranjit Singh was firmly established in Lahore in 1799 then Amritsar came under

his control in 1805. The control over the holy city of Amritsar gave him a certain

advantage. Thus, both the political and religious capital of Sikhism was under him.

• Shortly thereafter, he forced all the Sikh chiefs west of the river Sutlej to acknowledge

him as the King of Punjab and thus created a unified state.

This powerful Kingdom was capable of generating a measure of prosperity as well.

• It was natural for Ranjit Singh to look after irrigation facilities for the peasants because

ultimately rural peasantry (esp. Jat Sikhs) was the main support base.

• At the same time, Ranjit Singh brought order and security to the region was beleaguered

by invasions and instability for a long time. There began the trade revival which brought

more prosperity, greater income and propelled the artisanal industry.

So,thisishowthebasisof apowerfulkingdomwascreated.Itwasnotjustakindofa military

state. Itcoulddrawon hugeeconomic resources (agriculture,traderevival,handicraftrevival)

which gave Ranjit Singh the kind of power that he was able to wilt over the entire region.

Relations with the English

As early as 1800, the English, fearing an

Afghan invasion of India under Zaman

Shah, had requested that the Maharaja

should not join Zaman Shah in case he

invaded India.

In 1805 Jaswant Rao Holkar hotly

pursued by Lord Lake came to Amritsar

and solicited Ranjit Singh to make a

common cause against the English.

Ranjit Singh at that time did not think it

prudent to incur the hostility of the

English. In 1806, Ranjit Singh signed a

treaty of friendship with General Lake

agreeing to force Jaswant Rao Holkar to leave Amritsar. General Lake, in turn, promised that

the English would never form any plans for the seizure of Ranjit Singh's possessions and

property.

Treaty of Amritsar (1809)

• Ranjit Singh's ambition to acquire the Cis-Sutlej territories brought him face to face with

the English East India Company.

• After successfully uniting the Sikhs on the west bank of the Sutlej, Ranjit turned

to bring the Cis-Sutlej states under his control.

• When he tried to capture cis-Sutlej, these states applied British for help to

safeguard their independence.

• At this time, the Punjab had become particularly important from the British point of view

as they apprehended possible joint Franco-Russian invasion into India through land-

route via Afghanistan. They had been so far watching Ranjit Singh's expansionist policy

with a deep sense of concern. Now, they responded quickly.

• British officer at Ludhiana, David Ochterlony, declared the states under British

patronage and provided protection. It was an open warning to Ranjit Singh to

control his ambition by threat with open conflict.

• Ranjit Singh finally entered into the Treaty of Amritsar with EIC. By this treaty:

• Ranjit Singh was forced to give up all his claims on the Cis-Sutlej states which

were to be hanceforth under the protection of the British. (British sphere of

influence)

• In return, the British too, acknowledged Ranjit Singh's sovereign authority on the

western side of Sutlej.

• So far, in the east, Ranajit Singh's domain was confined upto Sutlej.

The Treaty of Amritsar was important for its immediate as well as potential effects.

• It checked one of the most cherished ambitions of Ranjit Singh to extend his rule over

the entire Sikh nation, living east or west of the river Sutlej.

• The treaty also gave Ranjit Singh a carte blancheso far as the region to thewest of Sutlej

was concerned.

• With the disappearance of all danger from the English, the Maharaja directed his

energies towards the west and captured Multan (1818), Kashmir (1819) and

Peshawar (1834).

• In its ultimate effects the treaty showed the weak position of Ranjit Singh vis-a-vis the

Company.

• The British were brought close to the frontier of the Lahore kingdom and this

brought the danger of war nearer.

• Besides, the treaty gave the Company a degree of control over Ranjit Singh's

relations with the neighbouring states of Sind, Bahawalpur and Afghanistan.

• The relations of Raja Ranjit Singh with the Company, from 1809 to 1839, clearly indicate

the former's weak position.

• The Company forestalled the moves of Ranjit Singh on Sind.
• The fear of Russian advances in Central Asia led the English to occupy and later

build a cantonment at Ferozepur in 1835. The stationing of British troops at that

strategic town worried Ranjit Singh but his protest went unheeded.

• In 1838, Ranjit Singh was compelled by political compulsions to sign the Tripartite

Treaty with the English; however he refused to give passage to the British army

through his territories to attack Dost Mohammad, the Afghan Amir.

• "Ranjit Singh feared to expose the kingdom that he created to the risk of war with

the Company and chose instead the policy of yielding, yielding and yielding." (NK

Sinha)

The causes of the Anglo-Sikh war were both strategic and economic. So far as Ranjit Singh

was alive, he checked the ambitions of local nobles and controlled the army. However, his

death in 1839 was followed by a period of political uncertainty, family rivalry, conspiracies

and factionalism.

• A series of weak rulers sat on throne one after another.
• Sikh court was divided into two factions - who wanted to be kingmakers. It created

disorder.

• Maharaja Ranjit Singh had created the 2 nd biggest army in entire Asia but after his death

there was a division between civil authority and military authority.

After 1839, it was very troublesome time for Punjab.

Sikh Emperors

1801-1839 Maharaja Ranjit Singh

1839

Kharak

Singh

(eldest

son)

He was one of Ranajit Singh's sons and became the ruler as per

the desire of Ranajit Singh himself. However, Kharak Singh

didn't have a long life.

1839-1840

Nau Nihal

Singh

Kharak Singh died on 5 November 1839; Nau Nihal Singh (his

own son) died on the same day when a gateway, likely

accidentally, fell on him.

1841-1843

Sher

Singh

With the support of now-influential Dhyan Singh, Sher Singh, a

half-brother of Kharak Singh, became the next maharaja in

1841.But Sher Shahwasassassinatedin 1843 bytherivalfamily

group, and soon Dhyan Singh too was killed.

1843-1849

Duleep

Singh

(youngest

son)

Thearmynowsupportedtheclaimof Dalip Singh,theyoungest

son of Ranjit Singh, to be the maharaja. Rani Jindan (his

mother) became regent for the minor maharaja. The strong

support of the army ensured the ascendancy of Rani Jindan in

the years between the accession of Dalip Singh and the First

Punjab War.

The First Anglo-Sikh War (1845-1846) - Lord Hardinge (1844-1848)

Thisinternal political turmoilwaswatched bythe British.Infact,theyhadbeenthrowing their

greedy glances on trans-Sutlej area since the days of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. The recent

situation of relative instability created an opening for them. This led to an important change

in British policy. There was now a departure from the position that the British had taken in

1809 in the Treaty of Amritsar.

Ever since the Treaty of Amritsar, the Company had been gradually infiltrating the state

apparatus of the Punjab kingdom through espionage and diplomacy, so that Punjab had

already become vulnerable to its manoeuvres by 1839. Following Ranjit Singh's death,

dissensionswereencouraged atthe Lahorecourt,allowingthe Britishtoeasilyundermine the

authority of the ruling elite.

British now began military preparation and started to mobilize their armyon the other side of

Sutlej.

• Major Broadfootwasappointedas the Britishagentin 1844. Heprovokedthekhalsa army

by repeatedly insulting and alienating the Sikh sardars and army officials.

Sikhs too started preparations to counter a possible British attack.

• By this time, the Khalsa/Sikh army had become somewhat independent of the control of

the palace or of the control of the rulers. It was without a General or at any rate without

one supreme controlling mind.

• At the time, selfish and traitorous people controlled the government at Lahore. Rani

Jindan, under the influence of a section of the civilian chiefs who wanted to weaken the

army, ordered the army to strike at the British.

The governor general, Henry Hardinge, who had succeeded Ellenborough in 1844, declared

war on 13 December 1845. Sikh Army crossed the river, and the wars were fought. The First

Punjab War dragged on for nearly two months. Eventually the Sikh Army lost out.

However, the Panjab was not annexed in February 1846. Given the kind of resistance that the

British encountered from the Sikhs, the Company realized that the Khalsa army had been

defeated, but not annihilated. This would have involved prolonged fighting for which the

British lacked the strength for the time being. There was also a deficit in the Indian treasury

and the hot season was ahead. So, the company gave up the idea of immediately annexing

Punjab. Hardinge rather decided to follow a moderate policy but use the victory to weaken

the kingdom politically, to such an extent that its absorption would be a matter of time.

In 1846, the Sikh court had to sign the Treaty of Lahore.

• Subsidiary Alliance Treaty
• The size of the Khalsa army was reduced to 20,000 infantry and 12,000 cavalry.
• The British Army was stationed at Lahore for some time.
• A British resident was appointed in the Sikh court.
• British were to be indemnified with Rs 1.5 crores for the expenses of the war
• British took possession of the fertile Jullundhar Doab (between Sutlej and Beas)
• Sikhshadtolosealargeareaincluding Kashmir.Kashmirwassoldtoa Dogra Sardar Gulab

Singh for 50 Lakh rupees.

Tensionssoonsurfacedbetweentheresidentat Lahore,Henry Lawrence,andtheregent,Rani

Jindan. A new supplementary treaty (Treaty of Bhyrowal) was signed in December 1846 to

strengthen the position of the resident.

• A council of regency was constituted, comprising eight Punjab chiefs. The council was to

function under the supervision of the resident.

• British troops were to remain in Punjab, for whose maintenance Rs 22 lakhs had to be

paid annually.

• This arrangement would continue till 1854 when Dalip Singh came of age.

With this, the position of Rani Jindan was marginalized. In August 1847, Rani Jindan was

compelled to leave Lahore so as to curtail her influence. Now, British resident was practically

running the Sikh state after the first war. Duleep Singh was just a nominal ruler. With this, the

British control over domestic policy and foreign policy was established in a Sikh state. Sikhs

lost their autonomy.

The Second Anglo-Sikh War (1849) - Lord Dalhousie (1848-56)

The Treaty of Lahore could not satisfy the British imperialist appetite. So,another conflict was

inevitable.

On the other hand, the freedom loving Sikhs were not happy with the Treaty of Lahore. The

prominent presence of the British the resident trying to control the government, to

undermine the Council of Regency, to pension of Rani Jindan; all this created a certain kind of

grievance in the Punjab and there was resistance against it. What reallyworried the Sikhs was

the presence of the British army in the Punjab. Thus, there was a Sikh revolt in 1848, a series

of rebellions in Multan and Lahore led by Mulraj and Chattar Singh respectively.

Lord Dalhousie cameto India in 1848 and startedhisaggressiveimperial policy.He undertook

the annexation of Punjab in 1849. This annexation was a logical outcome of the opportunities

of interference that British got after 1846 Treaty.

The situation in several areas of Punjab was unstable, and often the Lahore authorities had

to rely on the Company's apparatus to deal with problems. Once the preparations for the

invasion were completed, British forces under Gough crossed into Punjab in November 1848.

This marked the beginning of the war, even though no formal declaration of war was made.

The Sikhs were finally defeated in the most decisive battle of Gujrat (battle of guns) and

Dalhousie annexed Punjab in 1849. The Khalsa militia was disbanded. British forced Dileep

Singh, the infant ruler, to sign the document of annexation. Dileep was sent out to England,

and he lived the rest of his life in England as an exile. Thus, the last major autonomous Indian

state became a part of the British Indian Empire.

Causes of Sikh Defeat

• Despite its big size and military strength, the Sikh state was medieval in nature. It didn't

evolve its own modern institutions.

• Ranajit Singh had consolidated and centralized the administration to such an

extentthathisabsencecreatedavoid,leadingtothegradualcollapseoftheentire

structure.

• Even though Ranjit Singh united the Sikhs under a national monarchy, he also

actively aided the feudalization process. As he did not have enough resources to

pay for a huge army due to the weak economic basis of his kingdom, he started

distributing jagirs in lieu of salary. This created a class of feudal military

aristocrats who were tied to land and not to the state.

• So long as there existed a powerful monarch like Ranjit Singh, the Sikh sardars remained

united against a common enemy, the British. However, under the weak successors of

Ranjit Singh, there was mutual rivalry and the Sikh court fell prey to factionalism.

• Khalsa Army

• Ranjit Singh had turned the Khalsa army into a heroic fighting force. The army

fought with the British with a remarkable patriotic spirit. But they lacked modern

sophisticatedfirearmstocombat the English whowerearmedwithsuperiorarms

and ammunitions.

• He couldn't bring the army under civilian authority. While he was alive, his

personal influence kept the army in check, but after his death, the army spiraled

out of control, meddling in politics and rendering the civil government powerless.

• The jagir system also weakened the army and contributed to its undisciplined

character.

• Unlike Shivaji, Ranjit Singh failed to instill a unifying sentiment that would endure after

hisdeath.While Shivaji'ssuccessorsmayhavebeenequallyincompetentas Ranjit Singh's,

the post-death history of Maharashtra contrasts significantly with that of Punjab.

• Ranjit Singh's lack of foresight is evident in his interactions with the English. Despite

knowing that the English were encircling his kingdom and aware of their expansionist

goals, he chose to wait and avoid a confrontation. Instead, he left the responsibility of

facing the English to his feeble and incompetent successors.

• Ranjit Singh was powerless to avert future British danger. By signing the Treaty of

Amritsar, he protected Punjab from British expansion temporarily but effectively passed

the matter on to his successors.

Notwithstanding his shortsighted policy Ranjit Singh occupies a high place in Indian History.

Ranjit Singh transformed a chaotic Punjab, torn by internal conflicts and threatened by

Afghans and Marathas, into a unified kingdom. He secured territories from Kabul, prevented

English interference, and pushed back invasions from the northwest, reaching the Khyber

Pass. His legacy lies in creating a powerful tradition, celebrated by history.

UPSC PYQs

• "The British endeavored as far as possible to live within a Ring-Fence and beyond that

they avoided intercourse with the chiefs." Comment. [1987, 20 m]

• "If the paramount power cast its imperial cloak over the princes, it was also entitled to

see that what was sheltered was in the main creditable." Comment. [1989]

• "No native state should be left to exist in India which is not upheld by the British power

or the political conduct of which is not under the absolute control." Comment. [1992,

20 m]

• "The British policy towards Indian States in 1818-1858 was one of isolation and

noninterference tempered by annexation." Comment. [1996, 20 m]

• "Dalhousie changed the map of India with speed and thoroughness no campaign could

equal." Comment. [2001, 20 m]

• Examine the essential principles of the Subsidiary Alliance system. How far did it

contribute in making the British Company the supreme sovereign authority in India?

[2005, 60 m]

Beginning around in the middle of 18 th century, the English company emerged as the political

master of India. In 1858, company was taken over by British crown and direct rule

commenced. The ascendance of British power in India was a gradual multi-stage process.

During these stages the attitude of British and the character of their policies towards native

states changed fundamentally. The relations between the British and the Indian states

followed following stages:

(1) The Company Struggles for Equality, 1740-65

• Prior to 1740, the East India Company focused primarily on commerce. However, during

the Carnatic wars English asserted the political presence by capturing Arcot in 1751.

• In 1757 the English won the battle of Plassey and became the political force behind the

nawabsof Bengal. Still,ithesitated toassertthe power openly.Rather,it stood in relation

to the Indian state in a position of subordination. The Company became a ruling power

after the Emperor, Shah Alam II granted it the Diwani of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa in 1765

in the Treaty of Allahabad after the battle of Buxar.

(2) The Policy of Ring Fence (1765-1799)

This period saw the emergence of the policy of creating buffer states around the Company's

territories. The idea was purely that of defense of the frontiers of the Company.

Moreover, in this phase, the company conquered territories gradually, but it was not very

powerful. It was considered necessary to avoid wars and battles. It was rather apprehensive

that the powerful native states could harm its interest if the company indulged in open

expansionism.Thus,the Companytriedtoremainaway from unfriendlynative states asmuch

as possible.

• To save Bengal from Marathas and Afghans, Awadh was treated as a buffer.
• To save Madras and Norther Sircar, it was the Nizam's domain acting as a buffer.

(3) Subsidiary Alliance (1798-1813)

With the arrival of Wellesley, the Company's relations with the Indian states underwent a

change. In light of the possible French invasion of India, he aimed atbringing the Indian states

within the ambit of British political power and military protection using subsidiary alliance.

Starting with the Nizam of Hyderabad, many other states including Mysore and Oudh were

forced to accept the Subsidiary Alliance System. It was the Trojan- horse tactics in Empire-

building. The defeat of the Marathas in 1803-05 virtually established the supremacy of British

power.

"No native state should be left to exist in India which is not upheld by the British power or the

political conduct of which is not under its absolute control." George Barlow (Acting GG, 1805-

07)

(4) The Policy of Paramountcy and Annexationism, 1813-57

• Factors and forces of change:

• Industrial capitalism
• Neo-Victorian imperialism
• Utilitarian ideas - better and efficient government
• With the arrival of Lord Hastings in 1813, the nature and character of company's

policies in India changed fundamentally, a new stage of imperialism started, the

theory of Paramountcy began to develop.

• By this time consolidation of the company's authority in India was over.
• The Charter Actof 1833 markedasignificantshiftinthecharacterof the East India

Company. The company phased out its commercial operations, assuming a more

prominent political role.

Now, British started to establish the superior authority over the princely states tied in treaty

relationship. All the activities of the company were guided by the vision of imperialism.

• Company-Mughal Emperor relations:

• Till 1813, Mughals were accepted as sovereign.
• After 1813, there was a change. Lord Hasting refuse to meet Mughal emperor

Akbar II without the terms of equality.

▪ Lord Amherstbecame the First Governor Generaltomeet Mughal Emperor

on the terms of Equality on in 1827.

▪ During the reign of Akbar II, the British no longer regarded themselves as a

subject under the Mughal rule.

• With respect to states:
• The treaties with the Indian states were not on the basis of reciprocity and mutual

amity. Rather, they imposed the obligation to act in subordinate cooperation and

acknowledge British supremacy.

• Thus,the Indian states surrendered all formsof external sovereignty to the East India

Company. The states, however, retained full sovereignty in internal administration.

• However, even internally, the policy asserted the Governor General's right to

intervene, and to supersede their authority if necessary. It is a claim to overlordship.

• The decades following the retirement of Lord Hastings saw a rapid increase in

the influence of the Company in the internal administration of the states.

• Gradually, the influence, power and interference of the British Residents

increased in the native courts. With the assertion of the Company's

Paramountcy, the Residents slowly but effectively transformed from

diplomatic agents (representing a foreign power) into controlling officers of a

superior government.

▪ The branch of the Company's government which handled matters

pertaining to princely states was known as the foreign department,

created first in 1783.

▪ Residents and political agents often wielded enormous authority and

constituted parallel centres of power. Lord Hastings noted: "Instead of

acting in the character of ambassador, he (the Resident) assumes the

functions of a dictator."

▪ Even the large states like Hyderabad had to listen to the dictates of the

Company.

▪ In the long run, paramountcy involved more direct intervention in the

form of annexation.

• After 1833, there was a substantial change in its approach toward Indian states.

• The company now started insisting on its prior approval in all matters of state

succession.

• Eventually, it became common for the company to provide advice to the princes

on the selection of ministers.

• The policy of annexation of states 'whenever and wherever possible' was allowed

by the Court of Directors in 1834. Annexations were made to acquire new

territories and new sources of revenue on the plea of failure of natural heirs or

misgovernment. Thus, Paramountcy was used as a legal fiction to justify outright

annexation.

The Governors-General of this period were frankly annexationists.

• William Bentinckannexed Mysore(1831),Cachar(1832),Coorg(1834),and Jaintia(1835).
• Auckland annexed Karnul, Mandavi (1839), Kolaba and Jalaun (1840).

Lord Dalhousie, the greatest imperialist

Lord Dalhousie (1848-56) was greatest imperialist in the history of British India, and he used

every method and opportunity to carry out the territorial expansion of British East India

possessions. He embarked on a systematic policy of annexation of the territories. Dalhousie

strongly advocated decreasing the areas under indirect rule and bringing them under direct

British administration. This trend might have continued beyond his tenure had the revolt not

intervened.

Three-fold Policy of Dalhousie:

• Continued the British policy of conquest - Vast Territorial Expansion

• Second Anglo-Sikh War (1849) - Annexation of Punjab
• Second Burmese war (1852) - pushed the eastern frontier to the Salween river.

• Pressure tactics

• Snatched Berar from the Nizam (1853)
• Sikkim fell into the clutches of Dalhousie's imperialist policy (1850) and the

southern part was annexed.

• Annexation

• Doctrine of Lapse

▪ It was earlier vaguely used by Auckland in the past, but Dalhousie gave it a

concrete shape.

▪ Under this, if the ruler did not have a natural heir, his kingdom could be

annexed by the British authorities, unless the adopted son was specifically

approved by the British earlier.

▪ The Doctrine paid rich dividends to the Company. On this basis, Dalhouise

annexed seven states: Satara (1848), Jaitpur and Sambhalpur (1849),

Baghat (1850), Udaipur (1852), Jhansi (1853) and Nagpur (1854)

Type of State Doctrine of Lapse

Independent and Friendly

States

Doctrine of Lapse was not applicable here. The states were

free to choose successors without any British intervention

States earlier subordinated

by Mughals or Marathas

In the matter of succession, these states had to seek British

approval, which was easily granted. So, the Doctrine was

not recalled here.

States created by the

Company (through sanad)

If there was no legal heir to the throne, the ruler was not

permitted to adopt for succession purpose. As per the

British, it amounted to the delegated power.

• Doctrine of Mal-Administration or Mis-governance.

▪ Awadhhad agreateconomic and strategicimportance,butthedoctrineof

lapse was not applicable to it. So, Dalhousie invented another doctrine of

mis-governance in context of Awadh - Company could annex any state

based on mis-governance caused by an incompetent ruler. Thus, Nawab

Wajid Ali of Awadh was removed from power on this pretext and Awadh

was annexed in 1856 CE.