SSC CGL 2025 Tier-I · 17 September 2025, Shift 3 · General Awareness · Question 7 of 100

We transcribed this text from the pictures on a candidate's response sheet for this shift; the answer is the key SSC colour-marked on that sheet. Solution last reviewed 11 September 2026.

Where this paper and its answers come from

SSC does not publish CGL question papers or a public answer key. From 2025 the candidate response sheet prints every question and option as a picture, so the text here is transcribed from those pictures for this shift and checked against them independently; where the layout carries meaning, the picture is shown as well. Each answer is the key SSC colour-marked on that sheet. SSC released a tentative key for challenge and later its final one, both only to candidates behind a login, and the sheet does not say which of the two it carries. The solutions are written by UnlockIAS.

What was the primary objective of the Ring-Fencing Policy adopted by the British in India during the 18th century?

(a)To expand British territory by annexing Indian states
(b)To economically exploit coastal trading companies
(c)To create buffer states to defend British territories
(d)To impose direct rule over all princely territories

Answer

Why

Correct — C. Lee-Warner's The Native States of India gives the name Ring Fence to the Company's policy towards Indian states from 1757 to 1813.

Warren Hastings held that British territory was best defended by a ring of Indian states, dependent on the British but strong enough, with British help, to resist invasion.

Awadh, kept as a buffer against the Marathas, shows the policy at work: option (c).

Why the others are wrong

(a)
To expand British territory by annexing Indian states — Annexation is the opposite. Pitt's India Act, 1784, called schemes of conquest repugnant to British policy, and annexation came later, under the Doctrine of Lapse.
(b)
To economically exploit coastal trading companies — The policy dealt with Indian states on the Company's frontiers, not with trading companies. Its aim was security, not commerce.
(d)
To impose direct rule over all princely territories — Ring Fence left allies to run their own affairs. Awadh was promised protection in war with no interference in its internal affairs.

Concept

G.S. Chhabra's history of modern India, following Lee-Warner, treats Ring Fence (1757–1813) as the first stage of British policy towards the states.

Alliances were for self-defence: the Company protected its own borders and those of allies guaranteed by treaty.

Wellesley's Subsidiary Alliance departed from it, and under Lord Hastings, from 1813, the Company renounced Ring Fence for Subordinate Isolation.

The stem places the policy in the 18th century. Clive's 1765 treaty with Awadh and Warren Hastings's alliance with Awadh both fall there, though the policy ran until 1813.

Key facts

Lee-Warner's The Native States of India calls British policy towards the states from 1757 to 1813 the Ring Fence.
The Treaty of Allahabad, 1765, kept Awadh as an ally and a buffer against the Marathas.
Pitt's India Act, 1784, called schemes of conquest and extension of dominion repugnant to British policy.
Ring Fence gave way to Subordinate Isolation under Lord Hastings.

Study next

Wellesley's Subsidiary Alliance and its termsSubordinate Isolation under Lord HastingsThe Doctrine of Lapse under Dalhousie

Common traps

Reading 'ring-fencing' as annexing the ring: the ring was of allied states, kept independent to absorb the first blow.
Crediting the policy to Wellesley: his Subsidiary Alliance was a departure from Ring Fence.

Here the policy is tested on its purpose. Its successors are asked at 9 Sep 2024, 16:00, GA Q.23 (Subsidiary Alliance, keyed Wellesley) and 13 Sep 2024, 09:00, GA Q.21 (Doctrine of Lapse, keyed Dalhousie).

Related PYQs

No directly related past PYQ was found.

Topic: General Policy — all 218 SSC CGL questions on it, every solved shift.