Section 6: India, Afghanistan and Burma (1750–1919)

The question asks why Plassey is historically significant — not what happened tactically, but what structural change followed the battle. The key concept is the shift from trade to sovereignty.

After Plassey, Mir Jafar was installed as a puppet Nawab, and the East India Company gained access to Bengal's enormous land revenue system. In 1765 this was formalized as the Diwani — the right to collect taxes — which turned the Company into a governing authority, not merely a trading one.

Plassey's importance is structural and political, not purely military. The Nawab's army vastly outnumbered Clive's force; victory was secured chiefly through Mir Jafar's betrayal, not battlefield superiority. What mattered was what the victory unlocked: revenue control and political dominance.

Option B is correct because it captures the revenue and political control that followed the battle. The other options either misrepresent the military dimension (A), overstate the French defeat (C — France was already weakened by the Carnatic Wars), or invent a Mughal recognition (D).

The question tests understanding of the significance of Plassey, requiring knowledge of its consequences rather than just its events.

Option A attributes the outcome to superior weaponry in open battle. In fact, the Nawab's army was far larger and the battle was decided largely by Mir Jafar's prearranged betrayal — Mir Jafar's contingent held back, causing the Nawab's army to collapse without a full engagement.

Option C claims Plassey eliminated all French forces from India. The French had already been weakened in southern India through the Carnatic Wars (1746–1763); Plassey further reduced their presence in Bengal but did not eliminate all French activity across the subcontinent.

Option D suggests the Mughal Emperor granted legal sovereignty after Plassey. By 1757 the Mughal emperor held symbolic prestige but virtually no real authority; while the Company later obtained the Diwani grant (1765) in a formal ceremony, this was not a recognition of sovereignty freely extended by a powerful imperial court.

Option B is the only answer that correctly identifies the structural consequence — revenue collection and political control over the throne — that made Plassey the start of British political rule, rather than simply one military engagement among many.

The question asks about the precise terms of subsidiary alliances — what Indian rulers had to give up and what they were promised in return.

Under a subsidiary alliance, a ruler agreed to: host a permanent British military force within his territory; pay for that force through cession of revenue-generating land or direct payment; accept a British Resident at his court; and surrender control of foreign policy and diplomacy to the Company. Internal administration typically remained nominally in local hands.

This was indirect rule: the appearance of indigenous sovereignty was preserved (rulers kept their thrones), but substantive external power — the ability to make war, treaties, or alliances independently — was removed. States became protectorates, not fully independent kingdoms.

Option B accurately describes the two core obligations: hosting a British garrison at the ruler's expense and ceding foreign policy control. The other options describe powers the Company did not actually demand under this specific system — internal administration was usually left to local rulers.

The question tests whether students can distinguish the specific terms of subsidiary alliances from other forms of British control such as direct annexation or cultural interference.

Option A claims rulers had to surrender all internal administrative powers. This describes direct annexation, not subsidiary alliance. A defining feature of subsidiary alliances was that internal governance remained nominally in local hands, distinguishing them from outright annexation.

Option C mentions conversion to Christianity and adoption of Western legal codes. The subsidiary alliance system imposed no such religious or legal conditions; it was a military and diplomatic arrangement, not a cultural one.

Option D states rulers paid tribute to the British Crown and allowed Company officials to appoint court positions. Subsidiary alliances directed payments toward the Company (not the Crown, which only took direct control after 1858), and the Company did not typically appoint princely court officials under this system.

Option B correctly identifies the two hallmarks of subsidiary alliances: self-funded British garrisons stationed within the state and surrender of foreign policy — the two mechanisms through which Britain exercised real control while leaving the fiction of indigenous sovereignty intact.