The relations of the British with Indian states went through changes at various times in light of the fact that these depended absolutely on grounds of practicality.
The British never failed to focus on their Imperial advantages. Ring fence Policy In this way, their relations with local states were administered by their inclinations which fluctuated at various times. In addition, the perspectives of British authorities and Residents at the courts of local rulers, the characters of various lead representatives general and the affirmation of the British as the vital power since the times of Lord Wellesley additionally resolved the relations of the British with the local states.
William Lee Warner in his book The Native States of India ordered the approach of the British with local states up to 1919 into the following three periods:
- Strategy of Ring Fence, 1765-1813.
- Strategy of Subordinate Isolation, 1813-1858.
- Strategy of Subordinate Union, 1858-1919.
- Strategy of Ring Fence, 1765-1813
During this period, the British regarded local states as autonomous states. At that point, the British had not turned into the preeminent force of India. Hence, they couldn’t meddle wherever nor could guarantee total sway over those local rulers who turned into their partners. The fights Mysore and the settlement with the Hindu lord after the fourth Mysore War, the first and the subsequent Maratha War, the arrangements with Awadh and Hyderabad and the deal of Amritsar with Ranjit Singh were made during this period.
The conflicts and the auxiliary deals of Wellesley with various rulers, obviously, made the British incomparable power in India while their partners became reliant rulers. However, while evaluating their relations with local rulers, two after things are obviously apparent:
(a) Except the settlement with the Hindu lord of Mysore, all deals with other local rulers were made on an equivalent and corresponding level. i.e., compromise premise. The British made no case of suzerainty while going into settlement with them.
(b) Every deal made obviously by the local ruler with whom it was made, would be totally free in dealing with the inward undertakings of his state.
At this point, subsequently, even Wellesley, who wanted and generally prevailed with regards to making the British the preeminent power in India, didn’t guarantee total sway and the option to meddle in the inner issues of the associated rulers. The British wanted to expand their region and shield it. Thusly, initially they kept the conditions of their unified rulers as cradle states between their region and the region of a foe ruler and, later on, they endeavored to deal with their international strategies as per their longings with the end goal of really taking a look at their blend against them. They prevailed in both their endeavors which helped in broadening and merging their domain in India. Subsequently, during this period the British generally regarded local rulers as autonomous.
Focuses to recollect
- The relations of the British with Indian states went through changes at various times.
- Not entirely settled by practicality, the perspectives of British authorities and Residents at the court of the local rulers, the characters of various lead representative commanders and the affirmation of the British as the principal power in India.
- William Lee Warner in his book The Native States of India sorted the approach of the British with local states up to 1919 into three periods, viz., the Policy of Ring Fence (1765-1813), the Policy of Subordinate Isolation (1813-1858) and the Policy of Subordinate Union (1858-1919).
- During the time of the “Strategy of Ring Fence”, the British guaranteed no sway over local rulers, regarded them as autonomous, permitted them opportunity to deal with their interior undertakings and, with the exception of the Hindu leader of Mysore, marked settlements with them on equivalent and proportional premise.
Source utilized : NCERT, Tamil Nadu Board, IGNOU Modern History, NIOS course readings. Wikipedia notes for UPSC test.