Question map
Not attempted Correct Incorrect ★ Bookmarked
Loading…
Q75 (IAS/2018) History & Culture › Modern India (Pre-1857) › British annexation policies Official Key

Which one of the following statements does not apply to the system of Subsidiary Alliance introduced by Lord Wellesley ?

Result
Your answer: —  ·  Correct: C
Explanation

The correct answer is option C because securing a fixed income for the Company was not a primary objective of the Subsidiary Alliance system introduced by Lord Wellesley.

The Subsidiary Alliance was used by Lord Wellesley to build an empire in India and subordinate Indian states to the paramount authority[1] of the Company.[2] The system had multiple strategic objectives: maintaining a large army at the cost of Indian states[3], keeping the French from reviving their influence in India during the period when Napoleon's expedition towards the East was a real threat to the British[4], and making Indian states virtually sign away their independence by losing rights of self-defence, diplomatic relations, and sovereignty in external matters, thereby establishing British paramountcy.[2]

While Indian rulers paid a subsidy for maintaining British forces[1], this was meant to cover military expenses rather than generate a fixed income stream for the Company. The financial arrangement was incidental to the larger political and strategic goals of territorial control, military dominance, and countering French influence. Options A, B, and D were all explicit aims of the system, making option C the statement that does not apply.

Sources
  1. [1] Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 5: Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India > Subsidiary Alliance > p. 120
  2. [2] Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 4: The British Conquest of India > Expansion under Lord Wellesley (1798-1805) > p. 76
  3. [3] Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 4: The British Conquest of India > Expansion under Lord Wellesley (1798-1805) > p. 77
  4. [4] Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 5: Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India > Subsidiary Alliance > p. 121
How others answered
Each bar shows the % of students who chose that option. Green bar = correct answer, blue outline = your choice.
Community Performance
Out of everyone who attempted this question.
57%
got it right
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full view
Don’t just practise – reverse-engineer the question. This panel shows where this PYQ came from (books / web), how the examiner broke it into hidden statements, and which nearby micro-concepts you were supposed to learn from it. Treat it like an autopsy of the question: what might have triggered it, which exact lines in the book matter, and what linked ideas you should carry forward to future questions.
Q. Which one of the following statements does not apply to the system of Subsidiary Alliance introduced by Lord Wellesley ? [A] To maintain…
At a glance
Origin: From standard books Fairness: High fairness Books / CA: 10/10 · 0/10

A classic static question directly from standard texts (Spectrum/NCERT). It tests your grasp of the 'strategic intent' behind colonial policies rather than just the clauses. High fairness; if you read the chapter on Wellesley, the 'Napoleonic threat' and 'Paramountcy' are headline themes.

How this question is built

This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.

Statement 1
Was maintaining a large standing army at the expense of Indian princely states an aim of the Subsidiary Alliance system introduced by Lord Wellesley?
Origin: Direct from books Fairness: Straightforward Book-answerable
From standard books
Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 4: The British Conquest of India > Expansion under Lord Wellesley (1798-1805) > p. 77
Presence: 5/5
“The Subsidiary Alliance system was, on the other hand, extremely advantageous to the British. They could now maintain a large army at the cost of the Indian states. They were enabled to fight wars far away from their own territories, since any war would occur in the territories either of the British ally or of the British enemy. They controlled the defence and foreign relations of the protected ally, and had a powerful”
Why this source?
  • Explicitly states the Subsidiary Alliance let the British maintain a large army at the cost of Indian states.
  • Links this arrangement to British ability to fight wars away from their own territory, showing financial shifting of military burden.
Exploring Society:India and Beyond ,Social Science, Class VIII . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 4: The Colonial Era in India > DON'T MISS OUT > p. 94
Presence: 5/5
“Another stratagem (known as 'subsidiary alliance') was to install a British 'Resident' in the courts of Indian rulers to protect them against internal or external threats; in exchange, they would have to maintain British troops at their own expense and conduct foreign relations only through the British. While appearing to preserve the sovereignty of princely states, the system effectively transferred real power to the British while burdening Indian rulers with the costs of their own subjugation! The ruler of Hyderabad was among the first to enter such an alliance in 1798; several others soon followed. These so-called alliances allowed the British to control vast territories without the administrative costs of direct rule, creating what was called 'an empire on the cheap'.”
Why this source?
  • Specifies allied rulers had to maintain British troops at their own expense and conduct foreign relations only through the British.
  • Describes the effect as ‘burdening Indian rulers’ and creating an 'empire on the cheap', implying deliberate cost-shifting.
Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 5: Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India > The Policy of Ring-Fence > p. 120
Presence: 4/5
“The defence of Awadh constituted the defence of Bengal during that time. Thus the states brought under the ring-fence system were assured of military assistance against external aggression—but at their own expense. In other words, these allies were required to maintain subsidiary forces which were to be organised, equipped and commanded by the officers of the Company who, in turn, were to be paid by the rulers of these states. Wellesley's policy of subsidiary alliance was, in fact, an extension of the ring-fence system which sought to reduce the Indian states into a position of dependence on the British government.”
Why this source?
  • Explains allies were required to maintain subsidiary forces organised and commanded by Company officers and paid by the rulers.
  • Frames Wellesley's subsidiary alliance as an extension of prior policy that reduced states to dependence — consistent with aiming to shift military costs.
Statement 2
Was keeping India safe from Napoleonic danger an aim of the Subsidiary Alliance system introduced by Lord Wellesley?
Origin: Direct from books Fairness: Straightforward Book-answerable
From standard books
Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 5: Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India > Subsidiary Alliance > p. 121
Presence: 5/5
“of the subsidiary alliance system was to keep the French from reviving and expanding their influence in India. Around this time, the fear of Napoleon's expedition towards the East was very real for the British who felt that the French could attack the western coast of India from their colony of Mauritius. Hence the clause in the alliance treaty requiring the Indian rulers to dismiss Europeans (other than the British) from their service and not employ any. By means of this system, the Company could station its forces at strategic locations and keep the French at bay. Besides, the subsidiary alliance would expand the Company's hold over the Indian states and gradually bring more and more territory into the Company's fold.”
Why this source?
  • Explicitly states one purpose of the subsidiary alliance was to keep the French (and revive/prevent French influence) out of India.
  • References contemporary fear of Napoleon's expedition and treaty clauses (dismissal of non-British Europeans) designed to 'keep the French at bay'.
Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 5: Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India > Was the British Conquest Accidental or Intentional? > p. 83
Presence: 4/5
“notably India, attracted the English traders (the Company) as it did other Europeans. A desire for quick profits, personal ambitions of individuals, plain avarice and effects of political developments in Europe were some of the factors that made the British increase their political clout in India. At times, they waged wars to protect their commercial interests and, at others, they did so to protect their Indian allies from the attacks of potential rivals. B.L. Grover writes: "Lord Wellesley resorted to aggressive application of the subsidiary alliance system to extend British dominion in India as a defensive counter measure against the imperialistic designs of France and Russia.”
Why this source?
  • Cites an historian (B.L. Grover) asserting Wellesley applied the subsidiary alliance as a defensive countermeasure against imperial designs of France (and Russia).
  • Links Wellesley's use of the system directly to European geopolitical threats rather than solely internal Indian politics.
Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 5: Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India > Background > p. 98
Presence: 4/5
“The English as well as Tipu Sultan used the period 1792 to 1799 to recoup their losses. Tipu fulfilled all the terms of the Treaty of Seringapatam and got his sons released. In 1796, when the Hindu ruler of Wodeyar dynasty died, Tipu refused to place Wodeyar's minor son on the throne and declared himself sultan. He also decided to avenge his humilitating defeat and the terms put by the Treaty of Seringapatam. In 1798, Lord Wellesley succeeded Sir John Shore as the new Governor General. An imperialist to the core, Wellesley was concerned about Tipu's growing friendship with the French and aimed at annihilating Tipu's independent existence or force him to submission through the system of Subsidiary Alliance.”
Why this source?
  • Records Wellesley's specific concern about Tipu Sultan's friendship with the French and his aim to eliminate or subordinate that independent power via the subsidiary alliance.
  • Provides a concrete case showing the alliance was used to neutralize French influence allied with Indian rulers.
Statement 3
Was securing a fixed income for the British East India Company an aim of the Subsidiary Alliance system introduced by Lord Wellesley?
Origin: Direct from books Fairness: Straightforward Book-answerable
From standard books
Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 5: Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India > Subsidiary Alliance > p. 120
Presence: 5/5
“The subsidiary alliance system was used by Lord Wellesley, who was governor-general from 1798-1805, to build an empire in India. Under the system, the allying Indian state's ruler was compelled to accept the permanent stationing of a British force within his territory and to pay a subsidy for its maintenance. The Indian ruler had to agree to the posting of a British resident in his court. The Indian ruler could not employ any European in his service without the prior consultation with the Company. Nor could he go to war or negotiate with any other Indian ruler without consulting the governor-general.”
Why this source?
  • Explicitly states allied Indian rulers were compelled to accept permanent stationing of a British force and to pay a subsidy for its maintenance.
  • Shows the treaty terms (resident, restrictions) that enforced Company control and ensured payments.
Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 4: The British Conquest of India > Expansion under Lord Wellesley (1798-1805) > p. 78
Presence: 5/5
“Lord Wellesley signed his first Subsidiary Treaty with the Nizam of Hyderabad in 1798. The Nizam was to dismiss his French-trained troops and to maintain a subsidiary force of six battalions at a cost of \div£ 241.710 per vear In return, the British guaranteed his state against Maratha encroachments. By another treaty in 1800, the subsidiary force was increased and, in lieu of cash payment, the Nizam ceded part of his territories to the Company. The Nawab of Avadh was forced to sign a Subsidiary Treaty in 1801. In return for a larger subsidiary force, the Nawab was made to surrender to the British nearly half of his kingdom consisting of Rohilkhand and the territory lying between the Ganga and the Jamuna.”
Why this source?
  • Gives a concrete example: the Nizam had to maintain a subsidiary force at a specified annual cost, indicating a recurring payment obligation.
  • Notes that when cash payment was not feasible, territory was ceded to the Company in lieu of payment — a mechanism to secure revenue.
THEMES IN INDIAN HISTORY PART III, History CLASS XII (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 10: REBELS AND THE RAJ > Subsidiary Alliance > p. 266
Presence: 4/5
“Subsidiary Alliance was a system devised by Lord Wellesley in 1798. All those who entered into such an alliance with the British had to accept certain terms and conditions: (a) The British would be responsible for protecting their ally from external and internal threats to their power. (b) In the territory of the ally, a British armed contingent would be stationed. (c) The ally would have to provide the resources for maintaining this contingent. (d) The ally could enter into agreements with other rulers or engage in warfare only with the permission of the British.”
Why this source?
  • Defines the Subsidiary Alliance terms: a British contingent would be stationed in the ally's territory and the ally would provide resources for maintaining it.
  • Frames the maintenance requirement as a contractual financial obligation of the ally to the British.
Statement 4
Was establishing British paramountcy over the Indian states an aim of the Subsidiary Alliance system introduced by Lord Wellesley?
Origin: Direct from books Fairness: Straightforward Book-answerable
From standard books
Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 4: The British Conquest of India > Expansion under Lord Wellesley (1798-1805) > p. 76
Presence: 5/5
“While the practice of helping an Indian ruler with a paid British force was quite old, it was given a definite shape by Wellesley who used it to subordinate the Indian States to the paramount authority of the Company. In reality, by signing a Subsidiary Alliance, an Indian state virtually signed away its independence. It lost the right of self-defence, of maintaining diplomatic relations, of employing foreign experts, and of settling its disputes with its neighbours. In fact, the Indian ruler lost all vestiges of sovereignty in external matters and became increasingly subservient to the British Resident who interfered in the day-to-day administration of the state.”
Why this source?
  • Explicitly states Wellesley used the Subsidiary Alliance to subordinate Indian states to the Company's paramount authority.
  • Describes how states 'signed away' independence and lost control over defence and foreign relations — direct consequence of establishing paramountcy.
Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 34: The Indian States > II. Policy of Ring Fence (1765-1813) > p. 604
Presence: 5/5
“This policy was reflected in Warren Hastings' wars against the Marathas and Mysore, and aimed at creating buffer zones to defend the Company's frontiers. The main threat was from the Marathas and Afghan invaders (the Company undertook to organise Awadh's defence to safeguard Bengal's security). Wellesley's policy of subsidiary alliance was an extension of ring fence—which sought to reduce states to a position of dependence on British Government in India. Major powers such as Hyderabad, Awadh and the Marathas accepted subsidiary alliance. Thus, British supremacy was established.”
Why this source?
  • Links Wellesley's policy to the earlier 'ring-fence' and states it sought to reduce states to dependence on the British Government in India.
  • Concludes that major powers accepted subsidiary alliances and 'Thus, British supremacy was established.'
Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 4: The British Conquest of India > Expansion under Lord Wellesley (1798-1805) > p. 77
Presence: 4/5
“The Subsidiary Alliance system was, on the other hand, extremely advantageous to the British. They could now maintain a large army at the cost of the Indian states. They were enabled to fight wars far away from their own territories, since any war would occur in the territories either of the British ally or of the British enemy. They controlled the defence and foreign relations of the protected ally, and had a powerful”
Why this source?
  • Explains practical advantages to the British: control of defence and foreign relations of allied states.
  • Shows how the system enabled Britain to project power using allied territories, reinforcing paramountcy.
Pattern takeaway: UPSC frequently tests the 'Grand Strategy' of specific Governor-Generals. You must map policies to their geopolitical context (e.g., Wellesley ↔ Napoleonic Threat; Auckland ↔ Russian Threat). Always ask 'Why did they do this?' not just 'What did they do?'
How you should have studied
  1. [THE VERDICT]: Sitter. Direct hit from Spectrum (Chapter: Expansion & Consolidation) or Old NCERT (Bipin Chandra).
  2. [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: British Expansionist Policies (The transition from 'Trading Company' to 'Paramount Power').
  3. [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize the Chronology of States accepting Subsidiary Alliance: Hyderabad (1798), Mysore (1799), Tanjore (1799), Awadh (1801), Peshwa (1802), Bhonsle (1803), Scindia (1804). Mnemonic: 'HMS APBS'. Note that Holkar was the last Maratha confederacy to accept it (1818).
  4. [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: Distinguish between 'Means' and 'Ends'. The subsidy (money) was the *means* to maintain the army, not the *end goal* (profit/income). The end goals were military supremacy (Option A), geopolitical defense (Option B), and political dominance (Option D).
Concept hooks from this question
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S1
👉 Financial burden on princely states ('empire on the cheap')
💡 The insight

Multiple references describe Indian rulers being required to pay for British troops, shifting military costs onto the princely states.

High-yield for questions on British strategies of control: explains how the Company expanded influence without direct administrative costs. Links to themes of indirect rule, fiscal exploitation, and military policy; useful for essay and polity-history overlap questions. Learn by mapping clauses of treaties to their fiscal consequences.

📚 Reading List :
  • Exploring Society:India and Beyond ,Social Science, Class VIII . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 4: The Colonial Era in India > DON'T MISS OUT > p. 94
  • Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 4: The British Conquest of India > Expansion under Lord Wellesley (1798-1805) > p. 77
🔗 Anchor: "Was maintaining a large standing army at the expense of Indian princely states a..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S1
👉 Core terms of the Subsidiary Alliance
💡 The insight

References list the alliance’s terms: stationing a British contingent, ally to provide resources, restriction on foreign relations, and presence of a Resident.

Essential for answering direct-knowledge and source-based questions on Wellesley’s policy. Helps in comparative questions (e.g., indirect vs direct rule) and in analysing how sovereignty was curtailed. Memorise the key clauses and their administrative/political effects.

📚 Reading List :
  • THEMES IN INDIAN HISTORY PART III, History CLASS XII (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 10: REBELS AND THE RAJ > Subsidiary Alliance > p. 266
  • Exploring Society:India and Beyond ,Social Science, Class VIII . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 4: The Colonial Era in India > DON'T MISS OUT > p. 94
  • Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 4: The British Conquest of India > Expansion under Lord Wellesley (1798-1805) > p. 77
🔗 Anchor: "Was maintaining a large standing army at the expense of Indian princely states a..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S1
👉 Ring‑fence policy as precursor to Subsidiary Alliance
💡 The insight

Evidence shows Wellesley’s subsidiary alliance extended an earlier 'ring-fence' practice of providing paid British defence to buffer Company frontiers.

Useful to trace policy continuity in British expansion — shows evolution from defended buffers to formalised alliances. Helps answer questions on continuity/change in colonial policy and on regional security strategies; compare policies of Hastings, Wellesley and later administrators.

📚 Reading List :
  • Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 5: Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India > The Policy of Ring-Fence > p. 120
  • Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 34: The Indian States > II. Policy of Ring Fence (1765-1813) > p. 604
  • Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 5: Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India > Evolution and Perfection > p. 121
🔗 Anchor: "Was maintaining a large standing army at the expense of Indian princely states a..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S2
👉 Subsidiary Alliance: key features and obligations
💡 The insight

The references describe the alliance's concrete terms (stationing of British troops, payment of subsidy, posting of a resident, restriction on employing Europeans), which show how political control was exercised.

High-yield for UPSC: explains the mechanism by which the Company extended influence over princely states and is often asked in polity/history questions. Connects to topics on princely states, colonial administration, and causes of British expansion; useful for source-based and essay questions explaining methods of indirect rule.

📚 Reading List :
  • Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 5: Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India > Subsidiary Alliance > p. 120
  • THEMES IN INDIAN HISTORY PART III, History CLASS XII (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 10: REBELS AND THE RAJ > Subsidiary Alliance > p. 266
  • Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 4: The British Conquest of India > Expansion under Lord Wellesley (1798-1805) > p. 77
🔗 Anchor: "Was keeping India safe from Napoleonic danger an aim of the Subsidiary Alliance ..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S2
👉 European geopolitics (French/Napoleonic threat) as motive for Indian policy
💡 The insight

Multiple references link Wellesley's adoption of the subsidiary alliance to fears of French (Napoleonic) intervention and to preventing revival of French influence in India.

Important for explaining motives behind colonial strategies — ties Indian developments to wider European conflicts. High-yield for questions about causes of British expansion and foreign policy; helps answer 'why' questions rather than just 'what'.

📚 Reading List :
  • Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 5: Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India > Subsidiary Alliance > p. 121
  • Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 5: Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India > Was the British Conquest Accidental or Intentional? > p. 83
  • Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 5: Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India > Background > p. 98
🔗 Anchor: "Was keeping India safe from Napoleonic danger an aim of the Subsidiary Alliance ..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S2
👉 Policy of 'ring-fence' and buffer states
💡 The insight

Sources describe the subsidiary alliance as an extension of the earlier 'ring-fence' policy aimed at creating buffer zones and defending Company frontiers.

Useful to situate subsidiary alliances within a broader strategic continuity of British frontier defence and state-dependence policies. Helps connect military/security motives with political annexation and protectorate formation — frequent themes in UPSC history papers.

📚 Reading List :
  • Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 34: The Indian States > II. Policy of Ring Fence (1765-1813) > p. 604
  • Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 4: The British Conquest of India > Expansion under Lord Wellesley (1798-1805) > p. 77
🔗 Anchor: "Was keeping India safe from Napoleonic danger an aim of the Subsidiary Alliance ..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S3
👉 Subsidiary Alliance — Subsidy and Stationing of Troops
💡 The insight

The core treaty terms repeatedly require stationing of British forces and allied payment for their upkeep, directly tying the policy to regular revenue extraction.

High-yield for UPSC because questions often ask about features and aims of Wellesley's policies; links military presence to fiscal gains and imperial expansion. Master by comparing treaty clauses and examples across states.

📚 Reading List :
  • Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 5: Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India > Subsidiary Alliance > p. 120
  • THEMES IN INDIAN HISTORY PART III, History CLASS XII (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 10: REBELS AND THE RAJ > Subsidiary Alliance > p. 266
🔗 Anchor: "Was securing a fixed income for the British East India Company an aim of the Sub..."
🌑 The Hidden Trap

The 'Treaty of Bassein' (1802) with the Peshwa. It is often cited as the treaty that 'gave the Company the Empire of India' by virtually ending the Maratha independence. Expect a question on the specific terms or significance of this treaty.

⚡ Elimination Cheat Code

Apply the 'Trader vs. Sovereign' filter. Options A, B, and D are 'Sovereign' goals (Defense, Army, Paramountcy). Option C ('Fixed Income') is a 'Trader' goal. Wellesley's era marked the aggressive shift to Sovereignty. The Company didn't want a fixed income; they wanted the territory itself (which they eventually took when states couldn't pay). Therefore, C is the odd one out.

🔗 Mains Connection

Connect this to GS-2 (International Relations): The Subsidiary Alliance is the 19th-century equivalent of 'Base Politics' or 'Proxy Control,' where a superpower stations troops on foreign soil at the host's expense to project power without direct administrative burden.

✓ Thank you! We'll review this.

SIMILAR QUESTIONS

NDA-II · 2015 · Q75 Relevance score: 5.81

Which one of the following statements about Subsidiary Alliance devised by Lord Wellesley in the year 1798 is not correct?

CDS-I · 2022 · Q99 Relevance score: 4.32

Which one of the following was not included in the terms and conditions of Subsidiary Alliance System of Lord Wellesley ?

NDA-I · 2017 · Q64 Relevance score: 3.83

Which one of the following was NOT a feature of the Subsidiary Alliance of Lord Wellesley ?

CAPF · 2010 · Q96 Relevance score: 3.18

Which one among the following is not correct about the Subsidiary Alliance ?

NDA-II · 2016 · Q35 Relevance score: 2.45

Subsidiary Alliance was a system devised by