With reference to the treaties made by the English with native rulers of India in the 18th century, which one of the following pairs is not correctly matched ?

1. The Carnatic Wars: Early British Foothold (basic)

To understand the birth of British political power in India, we must look at the Carnatic Wars (1746–1763). The 'Carnatic' was the name given by Europeans to the Coromandel Coast and its hinterland, a region spanning present-day Tamil Nadu, eastern Karnataka, and southern Andhra Pradesh History, Class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Coming of the Europeans, p.255. While these wars took place on Indian soil, they were deeply rooted in global geopolitics. They were essentially an extension of the fierce rivalry between Britain and France; when these two powers fought in Europe or North America, their trading companies in India followed suit Rajiv Ahir, Spectrum, Advent of the Europeans in India, p.44.

The defining strategy of this era was political intervention. The French, under the ambitious Governor Dupleix, realized they could gain immense power by acting as 'kingmakers' in local succession disputes. This turned local thrones into a proxy battlefield. For example, during the Second Carnatic War, the French and British backed rival candidates for the leadership of Hyderabad and Arcot. The French supported Muzaffar Jung and Chanda Sahib, while the British sided with Nasir Jang and Anwar-ud-din Rajiv Ahir, Spectrum, Advent of the Europeans in India, p.46.

The Battle of Ambur (1749) serves as a perfect illustration of this power play. A combined force of the French and their allies defeated and killed the Nawab of Arcot, Anwar-ud-din. This victory temporarily made the French the dominant power in South India, as their protégé Chanda Sahib became the Nawab History, Class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Coming of the Europeans, p.256. However, this success eventually forced the British to innovate and fight back more aggressively, setting the stage for their ultimate dominance.

Conflict Side	French Protégé	British Protégé
Nawabi of Arcot	Chanda Sahib	Anwar-ud-din / Muhammad Ali
Nizami of Hyderabad	Muzaffar Jung	Nasir Jang

Sources: History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Coming of the Europeans, p.255-257; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., Advent of the Europeans in India, p.44-46

2. Consolidation in Bengal: The Treaty of Allahabad (intermediate)

To understand the Treaty of Allahabad (1765), we must first look at the wreckage of the Battle of Buxar (1764). Unlike Plassey, which was won largely through conspiracy, Buxar was a clear military victory against a formidable tripartite alliance: Mir Qasim (Bengal), Shuja-ud-daula (Awadh), and Shah Alam II (the Mughal Emperor). This victory didn't just make the British masters of Bengal; it made them a power that had humbled the sovereign of all India Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.91. When Robert Clive returned as Governor of Bengal in 1765, he didn't want to annex these vast territories—which would have been an administrative nightmare—but he did want their wealth and legitimacy.

Clive concluded two distinct treaties at Allahabad in August 1765. The first was with Shuja-ud-daula of Awadh, essentially turning his kingdom into a "buffer state" between the British and the Marathas. The second, and more consequential one, was with the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II. In exchange for a fixed annual tribute and the districts of Kara and Allahabad, the Emperor issued a farman (royal decree) granting the East India Company the Diwani of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. This meant the Company now had the legal right to collect revenues from these rich provinces, marking the transition of the EIC from a mere trading body to a political ruler Modern India, Bipin Chandra, The British Conquest of India, p.70.

Signatory	Key Terms & Concessions
Nawab of Awadh (Shuja-ud-daula)	Paid 50 lakh rupees as war indemnity; surrendered Allahabad and Kara; confirmed Balwant Singh's possession of Banaras Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.92.
Mughal Emperor (Shah Alam II)	Granted Diwani Rights (revenue collection) for Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa to the EIC in return for 26 lakh rupees annually.

The brilliance (and ruthlessness) of this treaty lay in the Dual System of Government. The Company took the Diwani (revenue/civil justice) but left the Nizamat (administration/criminal justice) to the puppet Nawab of Bengal. In simple terms: the British had all the power and money without any of the responsibility for the welfare of the people. This arrangement allowed the Company to finance its trade and wars using Indian money, effectively ending the need to import bullion from England.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.91-92; Modern India (NCERT), The British Conquest of India, p.70

3. Resistance in the South: The Anglo-Mysore Wars (intermediate)

The rise of Mysore under Hyder Ali and his son Tipu Sultan represented the most formidable challenge to British expansion in 18th-century South India. Unlike many contemporary rulers, Hyder Ali was a self-made man who rose from the rank of a soldier to become the de facto ruler of Mysore by 1761, sidelining the Wodeyar kings History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Early Resistance to British Rule, p.296. His strength lay in a modernized army and a keen understanding of the shifting alliances between the Marathas, the Nizam of Hyderabad, and the British. The First Anglo-Mysore War (1767–1769) famously ended with Hyder Ali dictating terms at the very gates of Madras, leading to the Treaty of Madras, which forced the British into a defensive alliance Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.96. The Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780–1784) was a turning point. Initially, Hyder Ali scored massive victories, even capturing Arcot. However, the British under Sir Eyre Coote managed to break the alliance Hyder had formed with the Marathas and the Nizam. Mid-war, in 1782, Hyder Ali died of cancer, leaving his son Tipu Sultan to continue the struggle Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.97. The war ended in a stalemate with the Treaty of Mangalore (1784), where both parties returned captured territories. While this provided a temporary peace, the subsequent Third and Fourth wars saw the British, led by Lord Cornwallis and later Lord Wellesley, systematically dismantle Tipu's power. By 1799, the British replaced Tipu with a puppet ruler from the old Wodeyar dynasty and imposed a Subsidiary Alliance, effectively turning Mysore into a protectorate Modern India, Bipin Chandra, The British Conquest of India, p.79.

War	Key Treaty	Main Outcome
1st War	Treaty of Madras	British defensive alliance; Mysore's victory.
2nd War	Treaty of Mangalore	Status quo restored; mutual return of prisoners.
3rd War	Treaty of Seringapatam	Tipu's power crippled; ceding half of Mysore.
4th War	Subsidiary Alliance	Tipu's death; total British supremacy in the South.

Sources: History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Early Resistance to British Rule, p.296; Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.96; Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.97; Modern India, Bipin Chandra, The British Conquest of India, p.79

4. The Maratha Challenge: The Treaty of Purandar (exam-level)

To understand the Treaty of Purandar (1776), we must first look at the chaotic internal politics of the Maratha Empire and the fragmented administration of the British East India Company. After the death of the young Peshwa Madhavrao I, a succession struggle broke out between his uncle, Raghunathrao (Raghoba), and the ministerial party in Pune led by Nana Phadnavis, who supported the infant Peshwa, Madhavrao II. Seeking power, Raghunathrao turned to the British at Bombay, signing the Treaty of Surat (1775). Under this, he ceded Salsette and Bassein to the British in exchange for military support Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.102.

However, this local arrangement sparked a constitutional crisis within the British ranks. The Regulating Act of 1773 had recently made the Calcutta Council (under Governor-General Warren Hastings) superior to the Bombay and Madras Presidencies. Calcutta viewed the Bombay Council's unilateral treaty as both illegal and provocative. Consequently, they sent Colonel Upton to Pune to negotiate directly with the Maratha Regency (the ministerial party). This led to the Treaty of Purandar in 1776, which officially annulled the Treaty of Surat. The British in Calcutta agreed to renounce Raghunathrao and promised him a pension, though they insisted on retaining Salsette for themselves Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.102.

The significance of this treaty lies in the friction it exposed between British administrative centers. The Bombay government, feeling insulted and greedy for territory, refused to follow the Calcutta Council's orders and continued to provide refuge to Raghunathrao. On the Maratha side, Nana Phadnavis eventually violated the treaty terms by granting a port to the French, further heightening British anxieties Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.102. This tug-of-war eventually rendered the Treaty of Purandar a mere "scrap of paper," leading the parties back into open conflict during the First Anglo-Maratha War.

Feature	Treaty of Surat (1775)	Treaty of Purandar (1776)
British Signatory	Bombay Presidency	Calcutta Council (via Col. Upton)
Maratha Signatory	Raghunathrao (Raghoba)	The Regency (Nana Phadnavis)
Outcome	Supported Raghoba's claim	Annulled Surat; abandoned Raghoba

Sources: Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.102

5. Diplomatic Tools: The Subsidiary Alliance System (intermediate)

To understand how a trading company came to rule a subcontinent, we must look beyond the battlefield at their diplomatic masterstrokes. The Subsidiary Alliance System, perfected by Lord Wellesley (Governor-General from 1798–1805), was the ultimate tool for establishing British supremacy without the immediate cost of direct annexation History class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Effects of British Rule, p.267. It was a clever "security contract" where an Indian ruler surrendered their external sovereignty in exchange for British protection against internal and external enemies THEMES IN INDIAN HISTORY PART III, History CLASS XII (NCERT 2025 ed.), REBELS AND THE RAJ, p.266.

Under this system, the British didn't just offer help; they effectively disarmed the Indian state. The following table summarizes the core obligations placed upon any ruler who signed the treaty:

Feature	Requirement for the Indian Ruler
Military	Must dissolve their own army and accept a permanent British armed contingent within their territory.
Financial	Must pay for the maintenance of the British troops (subsidy). Failure to pay led to the loss of territory History class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Effects of British Rule, p.267.
Diplomatic	Cannot employ any other Europeans (especially the French) or negotiate with other rulers without British consent Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.120.
Administrative	Must accept a British Resident in their court, who would act as the Company's watchful eye.

The system evolved in stages. Initially, the Company merely lent troops; later, they fought alongside the ally; eventually, they demanded money to maintain a professional force for the ruler; and finally, they demanded land in lieu of cash Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.122. While the Indian princes felt secure from neighbors, they slowly realized they had become puppets. By losing control over their army and foreign policy, they had effectively sacrificed their independence and status to the Company's paramountcy.

Sources: History class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Effects of British Rule, p.267; THEMES IN INDIAN HISTORY PART III, History CLASS XII (NCERT 2025 ed.), REBELS AND THE RAJ, p.266; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.120, 122

6. Legal Framework: Regulating and Pitt’s India Acts (basic)

To understand the rise of British power in India, we must look at how a private trading entity—the East India Company (EIC)—was gradually reined in by the British Parliament. Initially, the EIC was just a group of merchants, but after winning major battles, they became the masters of vast territories. This shift from commerce to governance led to massive corruption and mismanagement, prompting the British government to step in through the Regulating Act of 1773. This was the first time the British government formally recognized that the Company’s role extended beyond trade to political and administrative functions Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.502.

The 1773 Act was a foundational step, but it had its flaws. It established the office of the Governor-General of Bengal (with Warren Hastings as the first) and created a Supreme Court at Calcutta. However, the Governor-General often clashed with his council and the court. To fix these jurisdictional overlaps, the Amending Act of 1781 (also called the Act of Settlement) was passed to define the boundaries between the executive and the judiciary M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Historical Background, p.2. These legal structures were vital because they centralized power, allowing the British to act as a more unified military and political force against Indian kingdoms like the Marathas and Mysore.

The real turning point came with Pitt’s India Act of 1784. This act established a system of double government. It clearly separated the Company’s commercial activities from its political ones. While the "Court of Directors" managed trade, a new body called the Board of Control (representing the British Crown) was created to supervise civil, military, and revenue affairs. Most significantly, this Act officially termed the Company’s territories as "British possessions in India"—a clear signal that the British State, not just a company, was now the ultimate sovereign Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.503.

Feature	Regulating Act (1773)	Pitt’s India Act (1784)
Primary Goal	To regulate EIC affairs and check corruption.	To establish State control over EIC politics.
Structure	Governor-General of Bengal + 4 Council members.	"Double Government" (Board of Control + Court of Directors).
Territory Status	Company's commercial territories.	Termed as "British possessions in India."

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.502-503; Indian Polity (M. Laxmikanth), Historical Background, p.2

7. Identifying Signatories: Treaty Chronology and Rulers (exam-level)

In the study of modern Indian history, mastering the chronology of treaties is the most effective way to avoid the "Signatory Trap." Many students struggle because they memorize names in isolation, but the key is to anchor each treaty to the specific ruler who was in power at that exact moment. A common pitfall in exams is the confusion between the Nawabs of the Carnatic and the rulers of Mysore.

For instance, Anwar-ud-din was the Nawab of Arcot during the mid-18th century. He famously lost his life at the Battle of Ambur (1749) during the Second Carnatic War History, Class XI (Tamilnadu State Board), The Coming of the Europeans, p.256. Because he died so early, he could never have been a signatory to the Treaty of Mangalore (1784). That treaty was signed decades later by Tipu Sultan to end the Second Anglo-Mysore War, restoring the status quo ante bellum (the state existing before the war) Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.103.

To identify the correct signatories, we can categorize the major 18th-century treaties by their respective power blocs:

Treaty & Year	Indian Signatory/Ruler	Context
Allahabad (1765)	Shah Alam II & Shuja-ud-daula	End of the Battle of Buxar; granted Diwani rights to the British.
Purandar (1776)	The Maratha Regency (Nana Phadnavis)	Conflict between the Bombay Government and the Peshwa's council.
Salbai (1782)	The Marathas (Mahadji Shinde as mediator)	Ended the First Anglo-Maratha War Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.103.
Seringapatam (1792)	Tipu Sultan	End of the Third Anglo-Mysore War; Tipu lost half his territory.

Sources: History, Class XI (Tamilnadu State Board 2024 ed.), The Coming of the Europeans, p.256; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.103; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), After Nehru, p.817

8. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

This question is a classic example of how UPSC tests your chronological clarity and your ability to link specific conflicts to their diplomatic conclusions. Having studied the expansion and consolidation of British power, you have the building blocks: the Battle of Buxar, the Anglo-Maratha Wars, and the Anglo-Mysore Wars. To solve this, you must apply actor-event mapping—matching the correct native ruler to the specific conflict and the resulting treaty. The key is to look for anachronisms where a ruler’s timeline does not overlap with the treaty's date.

Walking through the reasoning, we see that Option (C) is the incorrectly matched pair. The Treaty of Mangalore (1784) ended the Second Anglo-Mysore War and was signed by Tipu Sultan. However, the option lists Anwar-ud-din, who was the Nawab of Arcot and famously died much earlier in 1749 during the Battle of Ambur. As noted in A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Anwar-ud-din belongs to the era of the early Carnatic Wars, making it impossible for him to be a signatory to a 1784 treaty.

UPSC uses name-switching traps to test your precision. The other options are correct historical anchors: the Treaty of Allahabad (1765) followed the Battle of Buxar with Shuja-ud-daula; the Treaty of Purandar (1776) was a pivotal moment in the First Anglo-Maratha War involving the Marathas; and the Treaty of Seringapatam (1792) saw Tipu Sultan ceding half his territory. When you see a list of treaties, always verify the era of the ruler before committing to an answer, as the examiners often pair a famous treaty with a ruler from a completely different decade.