SIGNIFICANCE OF POLICY OF ‘RING FENCE’

The Policy of Ring Fence or Buffer State 1765-1813

Warren Hastings’ wars against Mysore and the Marathas were fought with the object of establishing an equality of status with the Indian rulers. This period also 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 of the Company. Broadly speaking, it was the policy of defense of their neighbors’ frontiers for safeguarding their own territories. The chief danger to the Company’s territories was from the Afghan invaders and the Marathas. To safeguard against these dangers, the Company undertook to organize the defense of the frontiers of Oudh on the condition that the Nawab would defray the expenses of the defending army. The defense of Oudh constituted the defense of Bengal at that time.

With the arrival of Wellesley, the Company’s relations with the Indian states underwent a change. Wellesley sought to reduce the Indian states to a position of dependence on the company. He aimed at bringing the Indian states within the ambit of British political power and military protection. On 12^th July 1803, George Barlow wrote ‘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’. This policy may be described as the extension of the policy of ‘ring fence’. Wellesley described his policy as purely defensive and pacific, for he felt compelled to extend the British dominions to counteract the designs of France. The rulers of Hyderabad, Mysore, Oudh and other lesser states accepted the Subsidiary Alliance System. The defeat of the Marathas in 1803 and Holkar in 1805, virtually established the supremacy of British power. The Subsidiary Alliance System was the Trojan horse tactic in empire building.