Consider the following statements related to Wellesley's administration: 1. In the six years of Wellesley's administration, the army accounted for 42·5 percent of the Company's total expenditure. 2. Wellesley's administrative measures were restricted to the affairs of the Company and had nothing to do with the commercial and military affairs of the Indian ruling families. Which of the statement/s given above is/are correct ?
- (a)1 only
- (b)2 only
- (c)Both 1 and 2
- (d)Neither 1 nor 2
Correct — A, 1 only. Statement 1 is true: under Wellesley's administration the army absorbed about 42.5 percent of the Company's total expenditure, reflecting his aggressive, expansionist policy. Statement 2 is false: through the Subsidiary Alliance, Wellesley's measures reached deep into the commercial and military affairs of the Indian ruling families — they were not confined to the Company alone.
- (b)2 only — Statement 2 is the incorrect one, since the Subsidiary Alliance interfered directly in the armies and finances of Indian states.
- (c)Both 1 and 2 — Statement 1 is correct, but statement 2 is false, so they cannot both hold.
- (d)Neither 1 nor 2 — Statement 1's figure of about 42.5 percent army expenditure is correct, so 'neither' is wrong.
Richard Wellesley (Governor-General, 1798–1805) pursued rapid territorial expansion through the Subsidiary Alliance, under which allied Indian rulers disbanded their own forces, hosted Company troops at their own expense and surrendered control of external relations. Military spending accordingly dominated the Company's budget, and the system drew Indian states firmly under British paramountcy.
Statement 1's spending figure fits Wellesley's militarised regime. Statement 2 is contradicted by the very nature of the Subsidiary Alliance, which controlled the armies and revenues of Indian rulers — so its claim that his measures had 'nothing to do' with their military and commercial affairs is false, leaving '1 only'.
- Wellesley was Governor-General of India from 1798 to 1805.
- About 42.5 percent of the Company's expenditure under him went to the army.
- He expanded British power through the Subsidiary Alliance system.
- The Subsidiary Alliance controlled the military and external affairs of allied Indian states.
Statement 1 is true and statement 2 is false, so the answer is '1 only'.
- Accepting statement 2 because it sounds administratively narrow — the Subsidiary Alliance reached into Indian states' armies and finances.
- Doubting the 42.5 percent figure and marking 'neither'.
A two-statement item on a Governor-General — verify the spending fact and test the claim that his measures did not touch Indian rulers against how the Subsidiary Alliance actually worked.
Which one of the following statements does not apply to the system of Subsidiary Alliance introduced by Lord Wellesley?
- (a) To maintain a large standing army at other's expense
- (b) To keep India safe from Napoleonic danger
- (c) To secure a fixed income for the Company
- (d) To establish British paramountcy over the Indian States
Answer(c) To secure a fixed income for the Company
Same concept — Wellesley's Subsidiary Alliance. UPSC asks which aim did not apply to it; this NDA item tests the reach of his administration into Indian states' military and commercial affairs.
- practice — not a real PYQ
The Subsidiary Alliance system in India was introduced by
- (a)Lord Cornwallis
- (b)Lord Wellesley
- (c)Lord Dalhousie
- (d)Warren Hastings
Answer(b) Lord Wellesley — he used it to expand British control from 1798.
- practice — not a real PYQ
Under the Subsidiary Alliance, an allied Indian ruler had to
- (a)maintain his own independent army
- (b)host Company troops at his own expense
- (c)control his own foreign relations
- (d)pay no subsidy to the Company
Answer(b) host Company troops at his own expense — a core term of the alliance.