Which one among the following was the result of the First Anglo-Maratha War of 1775-82 ?

1. The Maratha Confederacy and Internal Power Struggles (basic)

Concept: The Maratha Confederacy and Internal Power Struggles

2. British Expansionism: The Three Presidencies and Conflict of Authority (basic)

In the early days of British rule, the East India Company operated through three independent administrative units known as the Presidencies: Bengal (Fort William), Madras (Fort St. George), and Bombay. Initially, these were independent of one another, each reporting directly to the Court of Directors in London. However, as the British transitioned from mere traders to a political power, this lack of coordination became a liability. The Presidencies often pursued conflicting foreign policies, making separate treaties with Indian rulers or starting wars without consulting one another Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.119.

To address this chaos and bring the Company under the oversight of the British Crown, the Regulating Act of 1773 was passed. This was a landmark moment that initiated a centralizing tendency in British administration M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Historical Background, p.5. It elevated the Governor of Bengal, Warren Hastings, to the newly created position of Governor-General of Bengal. Crucially, it made the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay subordinate to Bengal in matters of war and diplomacy History Class XI (Tamilnadu state board), Effects of British Rule, p.265.

Feature	Pre-1773 Era	Post-1773 Era
Hierarchy	All three Presidencies were equal and independent.	Bengal became the supreme authority (Governor-General).
Decision Making	Bombay and Madras could declare war or peace independently.	Bombay and Madras were required to follow Bengal's lead in foreign policy.
British Govt. Role	Minimal oversight over Company affairs.	Formal involvement to regulate Company administration Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.502.

Despite these legal changes, a Conflict of Authority persisted on the ground. Communication between Calcutta (Bengal) and the other Presidencies was slow, and local governors often took unilateral military actions. For instance, during the late 18th century, the Bombay Presidency's interference in Maratha politics often clashed with the strategies devised by Warren Hastings in Bengal. This friction defined the early Anglo-Indian wars, as the British struggled to speak with one voice while facing powerful rivals like the Marathas and Mysore.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.119; Indian Polity (Laxmikanth), Historical Background, p.5; History Class XI (Tamilnadu State Board), Effects of British Rule, p.265; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.502

3. Diplomatic Triggers: Treaty of Surat vs. Treaty of Purandar (intermediate)

To understand the First Anglo-Maratha War, we must look at the internal friction within both the Maratha Empire and the British East India Company. Following the death of the fourth Peshwa, Madhav Rao, a bitter succession struggle broke out between his uncle, Raghunath Rao (Raghoba), and the supporters of the infant Peshwa Madhav Rao II, led by the astute Nana Phadnavis Modern India, Bipin Chandra, Chapter 4, p.72. Seeking to regain power, Raghunath Rao turned to the British in Bombay. The Bombay government, eager to replicate the 'kingmaker' successes of Bengal and secure the strategic islands of Salsette and Bassein, jumped at the chance and signed the Treaty of Surat (1775) A Brief History of Modern India, Spectrum, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.102.

However, this move triggered a constitutional crisis among the British. Under the Regulating Act of 1773, the Governor-General in Bengal held supremacy over the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras. The Calcutta Council, led by Warren Hastings, condemned the Treaty of Surat as unauthorized and aggressive. They sent Colonel Upton to Poona to negotiate directly with the Regency (the Maratha ministers), resulting in the Treaty of Purandar (1776). This new treaty annulled the Surat agreement, renounced Raghunath Rao's claim, and promised him a pension, though the British notably kept Salsette A Brief History of Modern India, Spectrum, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.102.

This diplomatic tug-of-war created a 'dual-policy' mess. The Bombay government defied Calcutta by continuing to provide refuge to Raghunath Rao. The tension peaked in 1777 when Nana Phadnavis, sensing British weakness and internal division, violated the Purandar terms by granting a port on the west coast to the French A Brief History of Modern India, Spectrum, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.102. This French 'threat' finally forced the hands of the Calcutta Council, leading them to abandon their own Treaty of Purandar and support the Bombay Presidency's military ambitions, thus fully igniting the First Anglo-Maratha War.

Feature	Treaty of Surat (1775)	Treaty of Purandar (1776)
Primary Actors	Bombay Presidency & Raghunath Rao	Calcutta Council & Poona Regency (Nana Phadnavis)
British Goal	Territorial gain and installing a puppet Peshwa	Asserting central authority and maintaining peace
Outcome	Maratha territories (Salsette/Bassein) ceded to Bombay	Surat treaty annulled; Raghunath Rao pensioned off

Sources: Modern India, Bipin Chandra (Old NCERT), The British Conquest of India, p.72; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.102

4. Adjacent Conflict: The Second Anglo-Mysore War (intermediate)

The Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780-1784) represents one of the most precarious moments for British rule in India. It is often called an 'adjacent conflict' because it overlapped significantly with the First Anglo-Maratha War, forcing the British to fight on multiple fronts. The primary cause was a deep sense of betrayal: Haidar Ali felt the British had violated the 1769 Treaty of Madras by failing to assist him when the Marathas attacked Mysore in 1771. Tensions peaked when the British captured the French port of Mahe, which was located within Haidar’s jurisdiction and served as his vital link for French military supplies Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, p.97.

At the start of the war in 1780, Haidar Ali formed a powerful 'anti-British confederacy' with the Nizam of Hyderabad and the Marathas. He descended upon the Carnatic like a whirlwind, defeating British forces under Colonel Baillie and capturing Arcot. However, the British Governor-General Warren Hastings proved to be a master of 'divide and rule' diplomacy. He managed to detach the Nizam from the alliance by ceding the Guntur district and neutralised the Marathas by signing the Treaty of Salbai in 1782 Bipin Chandra, Modern India (NCERT), p.74. This left Haidar Ali to face the British military machine, led by Sir Eyre Coote, largely alone.

While Haidar suffered a defeat at the Battle of Porto Novo in 1781, he remained a formidable foe until his death from cancer in December 1782. His son, Tipu Sultan, continued the struggle with equal vigour for another year. Ultimately, both sides grew exhausted and reached a stalemate, leading to the Treaty of Mangalore (1784). This treaty followed the principle of status quo ante bellum, meaning both parties returned the captured territories and prisoners to each other, effectively ending the war as a draw Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, p.97.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.97; Modern India (Bipin Chandra, Old NCERT), The British Conquest of India, p.74

5. British Strategic Policies: The 'Ring Fence' Doctrine (intermediate)

Imagine you live in a house and want to keep it safe. Instead of just locking your own doors, you pay for the security of your neighbors' houses so that any intruder is stopped before they even reach your street. This was the essence of the 'Ring Fence' Doctrine, a defensive strategy primarily associated with Warren Hastings during his tenure as Governor-General (1772–1785). The primary objective was to create buffer zones around the Company's core territories—especially Bengal—to protect them from the twin threats of the Marathas and Afghan invaders. For instance, the British undertook the defense of Awadh not out of altruism, but to ensure that any invasion from the northwest would be halted in Awadh before it could touch the borders of Bengal Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, The Indian States, p.604.

Under this policy, the British offered military assistance to their neighbors to defend their frontiers, often insisting that the costs of these troops be borne by the protected state. This was a masterstroke of strategic economy: the Company's frontiers were secured using the resources and manpower of other rulers. This policy was vividly reflected in the wars against the Marathas and Mysore. Following the Treaty of Salbai (1782), which ended the First Anglo-Maratha War in a stalemate, the British gained a twenty-year period of peace. This 'breathing room' allowed them to consolidate their administrative grip over Bengal while their rivals were preoccupied with internal conflicts Bipin Chandra, Modern India, Wars Under Warren Hastings and Cornwallis, p.74.

The Ring Fence doctrine eventually evolved into a more aggressive form of control. While Hastings focused on mutual defense and buffer states to keep enemies at a distance, Lord Wellesley later extended this logic into the Subsidiary Alliance system. The transition shifted the focus from merely defending a neighbor's borders to reducing those states to a position of total dependence on the British Government Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, The Indian States, p.604.

Feature	Ring Fence Policy (Hastings)	Subsidiary Alliance (Wellesley)
Primary Goal	Create buffer zones to protect British borders.	Establish British paramountcy over Indian states.
Nature	Defensive and limited in scope.	Expansionist and interventionist.
Status of State	Remained an independent ally (in theory).	Became a dependent protected state.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India, The Indian States, p.604; Modern India, Wars Under Warren Hastings and Cornwallis, p.74

6. Military Highlights: From Wadgaon to Gwalior (exam-level)

The First Anglo-Maratha War (1775-1782) was a seesaw struggle that showcased the military grit of both the Maratha Confederacy and the British East India Company. The conflict began with a severe blow to British prestige at the Battle of Wadgaon (1779). Here, the Marathas utilized superior knowledge of the terrain to lure the British into a trap at Talegaon, cutting off their food and water supplies. Surrounded and desperate, the British were forced to sign the humiliating Convention of Wadgaon, which required them to surrender all territories acquired since 1775 and abandon the cause of Raghunath Rao Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.103.

However, the war did not end there. Warren Hastings, the Governor-General in Bengal, refused to acknowledge the surrender at Wadgaon, famously remarking that such a treaty could not bind the Company. He launched a vigorous counter-offensive by dispatching fresh troops from Bengal. In a remarkable feat of logistics and strategy, Colonel Goddard marched across Central India, capturing Ahmedabad in 1780 and Bassein later that year Bipin Chandra, Modern India, The British Conquest of India, p.74. Simultaneously, a detachment under Captain Popham achieved the unthinkable by capturing the "impregnable" fortress of Gwalior in August 1780, shifting the momentum back toward the British Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.103.

Despite these British gains, the Marathas remained a "determined enemy with immense resources," preventing a total British victory. The conflict eventually reached a military stalemate, leading to the Treaty of Salbai in 1782. This treaty essentially restored the status quo ante bellum (the state existing before the war), with the British retaining only Salsette and Broach. While the war had no clear winner, its strategic fallout was immense: it secured twenty years of peace for the British, allowing them to consolidate their grip on Bengal while the Maratha chiefs exhausted their strength in internal power struggles Bipin Chandra, Modern India, The British Conquest of India, p.74.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.103; Modern India (Bipin Chandra, Old NCERT), The British Conquest of India, p.74

7. The Treaty of Salbai (1782): Restoration of Status Quo (exam-level)

The Treaty of Salbai (1782) marks the formal conclusion of the First Anglo-Maratha War (1775–1782). To understand this treaty, we must first recognize that the war was a fluctuating struggle where neither side could deliver a knockout blow. While the Marathas, led by the brilliant Mahadji Sindhia, had secured a humiliating victory over the British at the Battle of Wadgaon in 1779, the British later regained prestige by capturing Ahmedabad and Gwalior Bipin Chandra, Modern India (Old NCERT), Chapter 4, p. 74. By 1781, after General Camac defeated Sindhia at Sipri, both parties were exhausted and sought a strategic exit Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, p.103.

The treaty is famously characterized as a restoration of the status quo ante bellum (the state existing before the war). Under its terms, the British were allowed to retain Salsette and Broach, but they had to return all other territories conquered since the Treaty of Purandhar (1776) to the Marathas, including Bassein. Additionally, the British agreed to stop supporting Raghunath Rao’s claim to the Peshwaship, recognizing Madhavrao Narayan as the rightful Peshwa. In return, the Marathas promised that they would not allow any other European power (specifically the French) to establish settlements in their territories Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, p.103.

The true significance of the Treaty of Salbai lies not in the land exchanged, but in the twenty years of peace it guaranteed between the British and the Marathas. This "breathing space" was a masterstroke of diplomacy for the British. It allowed Warren Hastings to concentrate British resources on the Second Anglo-Mysore War against Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan, and to consolidate their hold over Bengal without the fear of a Maratha invasion from the west Bipin Chandra, Modern India (Old NCERT), Chapter 4, p. 74. For the Marathas, it provided a temporary reprieve, though they unfortunately spent much of this time embroiled in internal factionalism rather than strengthening their confederacy.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.103; Modern India (Old NCERT), The British Conquest of India, p.74

8. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Now that you have explored the internal power struggles of the Maratha Peshwaship and the British East India Company's expansionist ambitions, you can see how these building blocks triggered the First Anglo-Maratha War. The conflict was a complex tug-of-war between British support for Raghunath Rao and the Maratha confederacy led by Nana Phadnavis. While the Marathas initially scored a tactical victory at the Battle of Wadgaon, the British later regained footing through military successes at Ahmedabad and Gwalior. This see-saw of power explains why neither side could claim total dominance, leading directly to the Treaty of Salbai (1782), which is the key to identifying the correct answer: (C) There was no victory for either side.

To arrive at this conclusion, a student must look at the final outcome rather than individual military encounters. As noted in Modern India, Bipin Chandra (Old NCERT), the war ended in a stalemate that restored the status quo ante bellum. The British retained Salsette but were forced to return other captured territories, effectively resulting in twenty years of peace. Reasoning through this requires understanding that UPSC often tests the "net result" of a treaty. Since the treaty didn't significantly alter the map or destroy the military capacity of either power, it is characterized as having no decisive victor.

It is crucial to avoid common traps found in the other options. While the British eventually became India's masters, claiming (A) The British won is historically inaccurate for this specific 1775-82 phase. Similarly, (B) The Marathas won is a trap; despite their initial success at Wadgaon, they could not capitalize on it to expel the British. Finally, option (D) is a distractor; while it is historically true that Hyder Ali took advantage of the British being distracted by the Marathas to gather strength, this was a consequence during the war, not the result of the war's conclusion. Always look for the direct legal and political settlement that ended the conflict.