Question 1

Consider the following statements regarding the nature of British conquest in India:
1. John Seeley was a prominent historian who argued that the British came to India with the clear intention of establishing a large and powerful empire from the outset.
2. The initial territorial acquisitions by the East India Company were often a reaction to local political factionalism and primarily aimed at protecting commercial interests.
3. From 1798 onwards, under administrators like Lord Wellesley and Lord Hastings, British motives in India became consciously imperialistic, with a set design for conquest.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only two. Statement 1 is incorrect. John Seeley is the leading proponent of the view that the British conquest of India was made 'blindly, unintentionally, and accidentally', and in a 'fit of absent-mindedness', not with a clear, pre-planned intention. Statement 2 is correct. The initial phase of territorial acquisition was characterized by Company officials interfering in local politics to promote and protect their trade interests, especially upon realizing the factionalized nature of the Indian political landscape. Statement 3 is correct. The period from 1798 to 1818, particularly under Lord Wellesley and Lord Hastings, is identified as a phase where British motives were 'consciously imperialistic', and India was treated as a conquered country.

Question 2

Consider the following statements regarding the periodisation of British imperial history:
1. The 'first empire' in British imperial history was primarily oriented towards expansion in Asia and Africa.
2. The commencement of the 'second empire' is marked by the Peace of Paris around 1783, which initiated a strategic pivot towards the East.
3. The very beginning of Britain's imperial history is traced back to the conquest of territories in America in the 16th century.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only one. Statement 1 is incorrect. The 'first empire' was not focused on Asia and Africa; it stretched across the Atlantic towards America and the West Indies. Statement 2 is correct. The 'second empire' is described as beginning around 1783 with the Peace of Paris and involved a strategic 'swing towards the East—Asia and Africa'. Statement 3 is incorrect. Britain's imperial history is stated to have started with the conquest of Ireland in the 16th century, not with conquests in America.

Question 3

Consider the following two statements:
Statement-I: Lord Wellesley aggressively applied the subsidiary alliance system to extend British dominion in India.
Statement-II: Wellesley's policy was primarily a defensive counter-measure against the perceived imperialistic designs of France and Russia.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

Accepted Answer

Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is the correct explanation for Statement-I.. Statement-I is correct; Lord Wellesley is known for his aggressive application of the subsidiary alliance system to expand British territory. Statement-II is also correct; Wellesley's actions were explicitly framed as a defensive measure to counter the imperial ambitions of European rivals, specifically France and Russia. Statement-II provides the direct geopolitical rationale for the policy mentioned in Statement-I, making it the correct explanation.

Question 4

Consider the following statements regarding the Nawabs of Bengal prior to Siraj-ud-Daulah's accession:
1. Murshid Quli Khan was immediately succeeded by his son, Sarfaraz Khan.
2. Alivardi Khan secured his position as the Subahdar of Bengal by killing the reigning Nawab, Shujauddin, in battle.
3. During his rule, Alivardi Khan ceased the practice of paying tributes to the Mughal Emperor.
How many of the statements given above are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only one. Statement 1 is incorrect. Murshid Quli Khan, who ruled until 1727, was succeeded by his son-in-law, Shujauddin. Sarfaraz Khan, Murshid Quli Khan's son, only became the ruler in 1739 after Shujauddin's death. Statement 2 is incorrect. Alivardi Khan killed Sarfaraz Khan, not Shujauddin, in a battle in 1741 to become the new Subahdar of Bengal. Statement 3 is correct. Alivardi Khan, during his rule from 1741 to 1756, stopped paying tributes to the Mughal emperor. Therefore, only one statement is correct.

Question 5

Consider the following statements:
Statement-I: The English East India Company fortified Calcutta without the permission of Nawab Siraj-ud-Daulah.
Statement-II: This fortification was undertaken as a direct consequence of the Company granting asylum to Krishna Das, a political fugitive, against the Nawab's will.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

Accepted Answer

Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect.. Statement-I is correct. One of the key preludes to the Battle of Plassey was that the English fortified Calcutta without the nawab’s permission. Statement-II is incorrect. It establishes a false causal relationship. The fortification of Calcutta and the granting of asylum to Krishna Das were two separate and parallel grievances that the Nawab had against the Company. They are listed as distinct factors contributing to the conflict, not as a direct cause-and-effect sequence where one action led to the other.

Question 6

Upon his accession, Siraj-ud-Daulah faced numerous internal challenges. Consider the following individuals who were hostile to him:
1. Shaukat Jang, his cousin and the Nawab of Purnea.
2. Ghasiti Begum, his childless widowed aunt.
3. Mir Jafar, his army's commander.
4. Mohan Lal, a Kashmiri officer appointed as overall administrator.
How many of the individuals listed above were part of the opposition against Siraj-ud-Daulah?

Accepted Answer

Only three. Statement 1 is correct; Shaukat Jang was a rival to Siraj-ud-Daulah, who was later defeated and killed in battle. Statement 2 is correct; Ghasiti Begum was a hostile aunt. Statement 3 is correct; Mir Jafar was a rebellious commander of the army. Statement 4 is incorrect; Mohan Lal was not an opponent but was appointed by Siraj-ud-Daulah as his overall administrator, acting almost like a prime minister. Therefore, only three of the listed individuals were hostile to Siraj-ud-Daulah.

Question 7

Consider the following statements regarding the rise of Haidar Ali:
1. He recognized that a swift cavalry was the most effective counter to the French-trained Nizami army.
2. To modernize his forces, he established an arms factory at Dindigul with the assistance of the English.
3. He became the de facto ruler of Mysore in 1761 by directly usurping royal authority from Chikka Krishnaraja Wodeyar II.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

None. Statement 1 is incorrect. Haidar Ali believed that the exceedingly mobile Marathas could be contained by a swift cavalry, while the cannons of the French-trained Nizami army required an effective artillery. Statement 2 is incorrect. Haidar Ali took the help of the French, not the English, to set up an arms factory at Dindigul. Statement 3 is incorrect. The ministers Nanjaraj and Devaraj had already reduced King Chikka Krishnaraja Wodeyar to a mere puppet. Haidar Ali usurped the royal authority from these ministers to become the de facto ruler, not directly from the king.

Question 8

Consider the following statements regarding the First Anglo-Mysore War (1767-69):
1. In his diplomatic maneuvering, Haidar Ali formed an active military alliance with both the Marathas and the Nizam against the English.
2. The war concluded with the Treaty of Madras after Haidar Ali's forces successfully captured the city of Madras.
3. A key provision of the Treaty of Madras was a defensive alliance, obligating the English to aid Haidar Ali if he were attacked by another power.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only one. Statement 1 is incorrect. Haidar Ali paid the Marathas to ensure their neutrality; he did not form an active military alliance with them. He formed an alliance only with the Nizam. Statement 2 is incorrect. Haidar Ali did not capture Madras. He appeared before the gates of Madras, which created panic and forced the English to negotiate the treaty. Statement 3 is correct. The Treaty of Madras included a provision for mutual assistance, wherein Haidar Ali was promised the help of the English in case he was attacked by any other power.

Question 9

Consider the following statements regarding the conditions and objectives of Lord Wellesley's Subsidiary Alliance system:
1. The allying Indian state was compelled to accept the permanent stationing of a British force within its territory and pay a subsidy for its maintenance.
2. In return for concessions, the British adopted a policy of non-interference in the internal matters of the allied state.
3. A primary objective of the system was to counter the potential expansion of French influence, particularly given the threat from their colony of Mauritius.
4. The ruler of the allying state was prohibited from employing any foreign national in his service without prior consultation with the Company.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only three. Statement 1 is correct as the ruler had to accept a permanent British force and pay for its maintenance. Statement 2 is correct; the British did adopt a policy of non-interference as a stated term of the alliance, even if it was violated in practice by the British Resident. Statement 3 is correct as a key objective was to counter the French, whose potential expedition towards the East was a major concern. Statement 4 is incorrect. The restriction was specifically on employing any 'European' without prior consultation, not any 'foreign national'. This is a crucial distinction, as the policy was aimed at rival European powers, not necessarily all foreigners.

Question 10

Given below are two statements:

Statement-I: The Subsidiary Alliance system as implemented by Lord Wellesley was an extension of the earlier 'ring-fence' policy.

Statement-II: The practice of hiring out European troops to Indian rulers for their wars was first introduced by the French Governor Dupleix.

Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

Accepted Answer

Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct but Statement-II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I.. Statement-I is correct. The Subsidiary Alliance is explicitly described as an extension of the ring-fence system, evolving from defending a neighbour's frontier to establishing dependence. Statement-II is also correct. The practice of lending European troops to Indian rulers was pioneered by the French Governor Dupleix. However, Statement-II does not explain Statement-I. The evolution from the ring-fence policy to the subsidiary alliance was a strategic shift in British policy from creating buffer zones to establishing direct control and dependence. While Dupleix's actions set a precedent for European military involvement, they do not explain the specific evolution of one British policy into another.

Question 11

Consider the following statements regarding the Maratha polity in the 18th century:
1. Bajirao I established the Maratha confederacy partly to manage expanding power and to appease the kshatriya section of the Marathas.
2. After the assassination of Peshwa Narayanrao, a council of chiefs led by Nana Phadnavis sought to install Raghunathrao as the new Peshwa.
3. The Pindaris, who were attached to various Maratha armies, began plundering Company territories because the weakening of Maratha power deprived them of regular employment.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only two. Statement 1 is correct. Bajirao I (1720–40) started the confederacy of prominent Maratha chiefs to manage the rapidly expanding Maratha power and to appease the kshatriya section of the Marathas. Statement 2 is incorrect. The council of twelve Maratha chiefs (Barabhai), led by Nana Phadnavis, opposed Raghunathrao. They made an effort to name the infant son of the deceased Narayanrao, ‘Sawai’ Madhavrao, as the new peshwa and rule for him as regents. Statement 3 is correct. The Pindaris were mercenaries attached to Maratha armies. When the Marathas became weak, the Pindaris could not get regular employment and consequently started plundering neighbouring territories, including those of the Company. Therefore, only two statements (1 and 3) are correct.

Question 12

Examine the following two statements:
Statement-I: The English establishment in Bombay initiated the First Anglo-Maratha War by intervening in the succession disputes that plagued the Maratha confederacy in the 1770s.
Statement-II: The Charter Act of 1813, which curtailed the East India Company's trade monopolies, was a significant factor that compelled the British to seek new markets and intervene in the affairs of Indian states.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

Accepted Answer

Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct but Statement-II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I.. Statement-I is correct. The English in Bombay took advantage of the internal dissensions among the Marathas over succession following the death of Peshwa Madhavrao to intervene, leading to the First Anglo-Maratha War (1775–82). Statement-II is also correct. The Charter Act of 1813 did end the Company's trade monopoly (except for tea with China), which created a need for new markets and was a driver for British expansionist policy under Lord Hastings. However, Statement-II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I. The First Anglo-Maratha War began in 1775, which predates the Charter Act of 1813 by nearly four decades. The Act was a motivating factor for later British aggression, associated with the period leading to the Third Anglo-Maratha War, not the first.

Question 13

Consider the following statements regarding the treaties signed between the English and the Amirs of Sindh:
1. The Treaty of 1832 permitted English merchants to permanently settle down in Sindh to facilitate trade.
2. The Treaty of 1832 allowed the English to ply warships on the Indus river for carrying military materials.
3. The original Treaty of ‘Eternal Friendship’ included a specific article to exclude Americans from Sindh.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

None. Statement 1 is incorrect. The Treaty of 1832 explicitly provided that no English merchant would be allowed to settle down in Sindh. Statement 2 is incorrect. The same treaty stipulated that no warships would ply on the Indus, nor would any materials for war be carried. Statement 3 is incorrect. The exclusion of Americans was an additional article included in the renewal of the treaty in 1820, not in the original Treaty of ‘Eternal Friendship’.

Question 14

Given below are two statements:
Statement-I: In 1799, Lord Wellesley initiated efforts to revive commercial relations with Sindh.
Statement-II: The primary motivation for this diplomatic effort was the desire to create a buffer against a potential combined invasion of India by Russia and France via a land route.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

Accepted Answer

Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect.. Statement-I is correct. Lord Wellesley did make efforts in 1799 to revive commercial relations with Sindh. Statement-II is incorrect. Wellesley's hidden aim was to counteract a perceived alliance of the French, Tipu Sultan, and Shah Zaman, the Kabul monarch. The concern about a combined Russo-French invasion via a land route emerged later, prompting Lord Minto to send delegations in 1807 after the alliance of Tilsit.

Question 15

Consider the following statements regarding the political changes in Sindh during the 18th century:
1. An English factory was established at Thatta in 1758 based on a parwana from the Kallora prince, Ghulam Shah.
2. The Durrani monarch confirmed the claims of Mir Fath Ali Khan after the Talpuras established their hold over Sindh.
3. The Talpura ruler Sarfraz Khan compelled the English to close their factory in 1775.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only two. Statement 1 is correct. In 1758, an English factory was built at Thatta following a parwana given by the Kallora prince, Ghulam Shah. Statement 2 is correct. After the Talpuras, under Mir Fath Ali Khan, usurped power in 1783, the Durrani monarch confirmed their claims. Statement 3 is incorrect. Sarfraz Khan, who forced the English to close their factory in 1775, was a Kallora ruler. The Talpuras had not yet come to power at that time; they descended from the hills in the 1770s and only established complete hold in 1783.

Question 16

Consider the following statements regarding British treaties with its neighbours in the 19th century:
1. The Treaty of Sagauli (1816) required Burma to pay one crore rupees as war compensation to the British.
2. The Treaty of Yandabo (1826) resulted in Nepal ceding the districts of Garhwal and Kumaon.
3. As a consequence of the Treaty of Yandabo, Burma had to abandon its claims on Assam, Cachar, and Jaintia.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only one. Statement 1 is incorrect. The payment of one crore rupees as war compensation was a provision of the Treaty of Yandabo (1826) with Burma, not the Treaty of Sagauli with Nepal. Statement 2 is incorrect. The cession of Garhwal and Kumaon was a provision of the Treaty of Sagauli (1816) with Nepal, not the Treaty of Yandabo with Burma. Statement 3 is correct. The Treaty of Yandabo (1826) explicitly required the Government of Burma to abandon its claims on Assam, Cachar, and Jaintia.

Question 17

Consider the following statements:
Statement-I: The Second Anglo-Burmese War (1852) was primarily a result of Lord Dalhousie's imperialist policy and British commercial interests.
Statement-II: The war was triggered by Burmese westward expansion, their occupation of Arakan and Manipur, and the subsequent threat to Assam and the Brahmaputra Valley.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

Accepted Answer

Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect.. Statement-I is correct. The Second Anglo-Burmese War was a result of British commercial needs, specifically the desire for timber resources and market access in upper Burma, coupled with the imperialist policy of Lord Dalhousie. Statement-II is incorrect. The reasons mentioned in Statement-II, such as Burmese westward expansion, occupation of Arakan and Manipur, and the threat to Assam, were the causes of the First Anglo-Burmese War (1824–26), not the Second.

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India

Unlock All Questions