Ring Fence Policy

• Sir William Lee-Warner in his book “The Native States of India” identified three periods in British relations with the Indian States until the introduction of the Reforms of 1919.

• The first period, lasting from 1757 to 1813, was termed the “policy of the ring fence.”

• The second period, from 1813 to 1858, was known as “Subordinate Isolation.”

• The third period, from 1858 to 1919, was called “Subordinate Union.”

• Lee-Warner described the first period as a time when the British “endeavoured to live within a Ring-Fence”, avoiding interference with the Indian States.

• During this time, the English East India Company was not strong enough to interfere with the internal affairs of Indian States.

• The Company was only one of the major powers in India, with other influential powers including the Marathas, French, Nizam, and the Sultan of Mysore.

• The result of this situation was that the Company entered treaties with Indian States based on equality and reciprocity.

• The Company followed a policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of the States, as outlined in the Pitt’s India Act of 1784.

• However, on certain occasions, the Company did have to intervene in Indian States’ affairs, such as:

  • Warren Hastings fought the First Maratha War and the Second Mysore War.

  • Lord Cornwallis fought the Third Mysore War and annexed half of its territory.

  • Lord Wellesley fought the Fourth Mysore War and the Second Maratha War, making Hyderabad and Oudh enter into subsidiary alliances with the Company.

  • Lord Minto negotiated the Treaty of Amritsar in 1809 with Maharaja Ranjit Singh, providing protection to the Cis-Sutlej States.

• Lee-Warner emphasized that the British Company’s anxiety to avoid annexation and alliances was evident during this period.

• Key events during this period include:

  • Battle of Buxar (1764), when Oudh was not annexed despite its defeat.

  • Rohilla War, where Warren Hastings conquered and conferred territories on the Wazir of Oudh.

  • The First Maratha War, which ended in the Treaty of Salbai (1782), restoring the status quo.

  • The four Mysore Wars, where the British allies gained advantages while restoring the former Hindu dynasty of Mysore.

• Panikkar pointed out two key aspects regarding the relations between the English Company and the Indian States:

  • All treaties, except the one with Mysore, were negotiated on a basis of equality.

  • The Company did not claim paramountcy or imperial authority, and the treaties displayed a spirit of reciprocity.

  • These treaties also guaranteed the absolute authority of the rulers over their subjects and rejected any claim to interfere in the internal affairs of the States.

Policy of Subordinate Isolation (1813-1858

• During this period, the Company made all Indian States subordinate by forcing them into subsidiary alliances.

• Indian States had to accept the Company as the paramount power in India.

• The States were required to provide either money or territory for the Company to maintain a contingent force for protection.

• The States entering into subsidiary alliances had to expel all non-English and European employees.

• The States could not conduct any foreign relations except through the British Government.

• The British Government was recognized as the arbitrator in disputes with other powers.

• In return, the British Government guaranteed the territorial integrity of the State.

• Sir Thomas Munro criticized the subsidiary system, saying it weakened governments, oppressed people, and degraded society.

• The London Times in 1855 highlighted the chronic anarchy caused by the system, where revenues were misused by mercenaries and courtiers.

• The theory behind this system was that the government was not for the people, but the people were for the king, as long as the king remained loyal to the British.

• Lord Hastings introduced the subsidiary system to 145 States in Central India, 145 States in Kathiawar, and 20 States in Rajputana.

• Lord Hastings advocated for subordination and isolation, opposing the annexation of Indian States.

• His successors, however, favored annexation and annexed Sind, the Punjab, Oudh, and other minor States.

• Lord Dalhousie believed that Lord Hastings was wrong in preserving minor principalities and that the only way to prevent misrule was to annex them.

• Dalhousie developed the theory of constructive feudalism and the doctrine of lapse and escheat.

• The doctrine of lapse stated that if an independent State’s ruler died without a natural heir, the sovereignty of the State would lapse to the Paramount Power.

• The British Government did not recognize the right of adoption of heirs in these States, despite the long-standing practice.

• The doctrine of lapse did not apply to protected allies.

• Lord Dalhousie justified the annexation of States on the grounds of a wise and sound policy to acquire territory or revenue when opportunities arose, especially from the failure of heirs.

• He emphasized that the British Government must act with integrity and good faith, abandoning any claims where doubt existed.

• G. N. Singh argued that the policies of annexation and subsidiary alliances were significant causes of the Mutiny of 1857.

• Colonel Luard remarked that the second period was crucial in British-Indian State relations as it saw a transformation from quasi-independent units to a subordinate alliance system.

• The period marked a shift from the policy of Ring Fence and non-interference to a policy of cooperative partnership between the British and the States.