THE FORWARD POLICY | SUBSIDIARY ALLIANCE

Explain the Forward Policy. How was it successful?

Lord Wellesley succeeded Sir John Shore in 1798 when Napoleon was threatening India after having conquered Egypt. By the time Wellesley was at the Cape of Good Hope on the way to India, he had formed his plans of following a ‘Forward Policy’. In this he was supported by the British Government.

Wellesley and the Subsidiary Alliance System – Wellesley wanted to make the British the dominant power in India. For this he decided to make use of the Subsidiary Alliance System.

Main features of the Subsidiary Alliance System:

The Indian ruler would have to surrender his foreign policy in the hands of the company. He was not to declare war, make peace or sign any treaty with any other ruler except through the Company. His relations with other rulers would be handled by the Company.

The Indian ruler would also have to surrender defense in the hands of the company. The Company would maintain an army in the territories of the Indian ruler to maintain order. Such an army would consist of Indian ‘sepoys’ but would be officered by Englishmen.

The ruler would have to pay for the maintenance of the regiments that the Company stationed in his territories. To prevent lapses in payment, the ruler would have to cede some districts to the Company and the revenue of these districts would be taken over by the Company. In addition, cash payments could also be demanded by the Company.

The Indian ruler would have to accept a British resident at his court. The resident would be the representative of the Company. He would stay at the Residency and would in practice have vast powers.

The native ruler was not to engage any Europeans other than those place at his service by the Company. This measure was particularly directed against the French.

The native ruler would administer his own state and the Company would not interfere in his internal administration.

It would be the company’s responsibility to protect the native state against every foreign enemy, European or Indian.

 

Advantages of the Subsidiary Alliance System to the Company:

The system disarmed the Indian ruler and placed him under the ‘protection’ of the Company. But ‘protection’ implied ‘control’. Thus, in the territory of the Indian state there were contingents of the Company’s army. The Indian ruler could not form any alliance against the company.

The system enabled the company to maintain a contingent at the expense of the native ruler. Since many rulers entered into Subsidiary Alliances, the Company had numerous contingents for which the rulers had to pay. Thus, large parts of the Company’s armed forces were supported by the native rulers.

The Company was able to control strategic military positions without having to conquer them. The company controlled large areas militarily without the necessity for administering them. Thus, the company’s military frontiers were far in advance of the Company’s political frontiers. In case of war, much of the fighting was done in the territories of the native states and the territories of the Company were often spared the ravages of war.

The Subsidiary Alliance System enabled the Company to prevent French intrigues in the Subsidiary states.

Whenever there was a dispute between two subsidiary states or even between two states of which one was a subsidiary state, then the Company would handle the dispute. So, the Company’s power and prestige rose immensely.

The company maintained a number of military officers in the Subsidiary state at the expense of the native rulers and a number of political officers at the Residency at its own expense. This increased the number of well-paid posts in the hands of the directors. A post int eh Company’s service was greatly coveted by Englishmen because though the salary was comparatively small, there were plenty of opportunities to get rich quickly. Thus, the patronage in the hands of the Company’s Directors increased tremendously.

Since most of the Subsidiary states were required to cede districts to maintain the Company’s armed contingent, the total area of such districts was considerable. Thus, the Company acquired direct control over numerous additional districts.

Since the Subsidiary state was virtually under the Company’s control, the Company could exploit the States economically, practically to the same extent as the company exploited the territories under its direct control.

 

Disadvantages of the Subsidiary System to the Subsidiary states:

On signing a Subsidiary alliance treaty, the Indian state was known as a Subsidiary state. It accepted a subordinate position. The Subsidiary state fell into the clutches of British power and lost its independence. Once a ruler entered into subsidiary alliance, he could not opt out of it.

The resident could if he wished would interfere even in the internal affairs of the subsidiary state. Foreign affairs and defense were in his hands completely. The resident would compel the native ruler to sign a treaty with another ruler; here the resident was within his rights, but this treaty might involve the native states in vast expenditure, if the native ruler was not in a position to raise the money. Thus, to fulfil treaty obligations, it would be necessary to raise additional money on defense, it would perhaps be necessary to cut down expenditure on the internal administration. Hence, the resident could always use various pretexts to interfere in the internal administration and in most cases his interference would be int eh interests of the British power rather than of the native state.

The subsidiary state was generally in financial difficulties. Besides the districts ceded to pay for its defense, the state had to pay heavy subsidies under the terms of the subsidiary alliance treaty. The ruler’s civil servants and the company’s officials indulged in waste and corruption. Hence, the state was usually in default. So, the people were taxed more heavily. This added to the misery of the people. Excessive taxation reduces incentive to work and so the production of the state, mainly agricultural production, would fall. Fall in production would result in decrease in revenues even though the rates were raised.

Now the fall in the revenue would necessitate a further raising of the rates; this would mean a further fall; and so the vicious circle would continue. The only course left open to the ruler would be to cede more districts to the company. When the company would agree to commute a subsidy for territory, it would deliberately undervalue the revenues of the territory in order to secure more territory. Thus, the subsidiary alliance system kept the subsidiary state on the verge of bankruptcy and the people under ever increasing misery and oppression.

The worst evil of the subsidiary alliance system was that it safeguarded the ruler at the expense of the people of the subsidiary state. Normally an autocrat is compelled to be benevolent at times. If there is a palace conspiracy against the ruler, he relies on the people; if there is a foreign aggression, he relies on the people and above all if he continues in his tyrannical ways, the people will revolt. Thus, fear of a palace conspiracy, a people’s revolt or foreign aggression compels a ruler to tone down his oppression and tyranny. But in the case of a subsidiary ruler, he had the full protection of the British power, he was safe. Thus, the British power made use of the feudal princes to crush and exploit the people of the subsidiary states.