Which one among the following was not one of the causes of the Third Anglo-Maratha War?

1. Structure of the Maratha Confederacy (basic)

To understand the eventual conflict between the British and the Marathas, we must first look at how the Maratha power was organized. At its peak, the Maratha state was not a centralized monarchy but a Confederacy—a loose alliance of powerful military families. This shift began under Peshwa Bajirao I (1720–40). He realized that as Maratha's influence expanded across the Indian subcontinent, a single administrative center could not govern everything effectively. By creating a confederacy, he also managed to appease the traditional Maratha warrior class (Kshatriyas) while the Brahmin Peshwas held executive authority Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.101.

In this arrangement, the descendant of Chhatrapati Shivaji remained the nominal head at Satara, but the real power lay with five prominent houses. Each family was assigned a specific sphere of influence where they were entitled to conquer and rule in the name of the King. This gave the Marathas a unique ability to expand rapidly, as each chief was motivated to enlarge his own domain. These five houses were:

• The Peshwa: Based in Poona (Pune), acting as the functional head of the confederacy.
• The Scindia (Shinde): Based in Gwalior.
• The Holkar: Based in Indore.
• The Bhonsle: Based in Nagpur.
• The Gaekwad: Based in Baroda.

However, this decentralization was a double-edged sword. While it promoted expansion, it bred centrifugal tendencies—a fancy way of saying these chiefs often prioritized their own interests over the unity of the Maratha state. There was often "irreconcilable hostility" between the houses, and the British eventually exploited this lack of cooperative spirit to dismantle the confederacy piece by piece Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.108.

Chief/House	Primary Seat of Power
Peshwa	Poona (Pune)
Scindia	Gwalior
Holkar	Indore
Bhonsle	Nagpur
Gaekwad	Baroda

Sources: Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.101; Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.108

2. The Subsidiary Alliance System and the Treaty of Bassein (basic)

To understand the expansion of the British Empire, we must look at the Subsidiary Alliance System — a masterstroke of diplomacy and military strategy perfected by Lord Wellesley (Governor-General, 1798–1805). Imagine a ruler who is told, "I will protect you from all your enemies, but in exchange, you must let my army live in your house and let me decide who your friends are." This was the essence of the system. It allowed the British to maintain a massive army at the expense of Indian rulers while effectively stripping those rulers of their sovereignty A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.120.

Under this system, an allying Indian state had to accept several non-negotiable terms:

• Permanent British Force: A British armed contingent was stationed within the state's territory History Class XII (NCERT), Rebels and the Raj, p.266.
• Funding the Army: The ruler had to pay for this force, often by ceding territory or paying a cash subsidy History Class XI (TN State Board), Effects of British Rule, p.267.
• The British Resident: A British official, the 'Resident,' was posted at the ruler’s court to keep a close watch on internal affairs.
• Foreign Policy Surrender: The ruler could not go to war or negotiate with any other power without British permission.
• No Other Europeans: The ruler was forbidden from employing any other Europeans (like the French) in their service A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.120.

The Treaty of Bassein (1802) is a classic, high-stakes application of this system. Following the death of the brilliant statesman Nana Fadnavis, the Maratha Confederacy dissolved into internal warfare. When Peshwa Baji Rao II was defeated by the rival Holkar clan, he fled to the British for help. In his desperation, he signed the Treaty of Bassein, accepting the Subsidiary Alliance History Class XI (TN State Board), The Marathas, p.234. While it gave the Peshwa his throne back, it was a "humiliating" surrender of Maratha independence. The other Maratha chiefs, like the Scindias and Bhonsles, saw this as a national insult, which directly triggered the Second Anglo-Maratha War.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.120; History Class XII (NCERT), Rebels and the Raj, p.266; History Class XI (TN State Board), Effects of British Rule, p.267; History Class XI (TN State Board), The Marathas, p.234

3. Lord Hastings and the Policy of Paramountcy (intermediate)

When Lord Hastings (not to be confused with Warren Hastings) arrived as Governor-General in 1813, he inherited a British position that was dominant but not yet undisputed. While previous governors like Wellesley had used the Subsidiary Alliance to make Indian states dependent, Hastings moved toward a more aggressive, absolute doctrine known as the Policy of Paramountcy. Under this policy, the Company claimed that its authority was supreme or "paramount" in India. Consequently, its power was greater than that of any Indian state, and it justified the annexation or control of any kingdom to protect British interests Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.83.

This shift from being one of many powers to being the single supreme power was driven by both economic and political needs. The Charter Act of 1813 had ended the East India Company’s monopoly on Indian trade, forcing the Company to expand its territorial markets to maintain profitability Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.106. Hastings viewed India as a conquered country rather than just a series of acquired territories, and he set out to eliminate any remaining threats to this total supremacy—most notably the Maratha Confederacy.

The most significant application of this policy occurred during the Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817–1818). Hastings used the suppression of the Pindaris—irregular military looters who had previously served the Marathas—as a strategic pretext. By accusing the Marathas of harboring these "predatory bands," Hastings forced a final confrontation that effectively dismantled the Maratha Empire. By 1818, the British had established a system where India was divided into British Indian Provinces (under direct rule) and Princely States (under indirect rule). The latter were allowed internal autonomy only as long as they accepted the suzerainty or paramountcy of the British Crown NCERT Class XII, Challenges of Nation Building, p.14.

Policy Phase	Primary Goal	Key Characteristics
Ring Fence	Defense	Creating buffer zones to protect Company borders.
Subsidiary Alliance	Subordination	States pay for British troops and lose independent foreign policy.
Paramountcy	Supremacy	British authority is absolute; states are subordinates to the "Paramount Power."

Sources: Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.83; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.106; Politics in India since Independence, Textbook in political science for Class XII (NCERT 2025 ed.), Challenges of Nation Building, p.14

4. The Pindari Menace and British Intervention (intermediate)

To understand the downfall of the Maratha Empire, we must look at a group often misunderstood as mere 'bandits': the Pindaris. The Pindaris were not a single tribe or ethnic group; rather, they were a diverse collection of irregular military bands composed of various castes and classes. Historically, they served as mercenaries attached to the Maratha armies, providing their own horses and weapons in exchange for the right to plunder the enemy's territory during war Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 5, p.106. This arrangement worked as long as the Maratha chiefs were powerful and constantly on the move. However, after the Marathas were weakened in the early 19th century, these thousands of armed men lost their primary source of employment and began plundering neighboring territories—including those under British protection—to survive.

The British response, led by Lord Hastings (Governor-General from 1813 to 1823), was a masterstroke of geopolitical strategy. While the Pindari raids were a genuine security concern, Hastings used them as a pretext to fulfill his 'imperialistic design' of establishing British Paramountcy across India. He argued that the Maratha chiefs were responsible for the Pindaris' actions because they had historically sheltered and employed them. By 1817, Hastings organized a massive military campaign to suppress the Pindaris, which effectively forced the Maratha leaders into a corner, as any support they gave to their former mercenaries was viewed as an act of war against the Company Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 5, p.106.

The following table summarizes the shift in the Pindaris' role and the British justification for intervention:

Feature	The Maratha Era	The British Intervention Era
Primary Role	Mercenary scouts/plunderers for Maratha chiefs.	Disorganized bands plundering for survival.
Economic Status	Paid through 'Chauth' and war booty.	Unemployed due to Maratha decline.
British View	A secondary military nuisance.	A 'menace' justifying total Maratha suppression.

This tension reached a breaking point in 1817. As the British moved against the Pindari leaders like Amir Khan and Karim Khan, the Maratha chiefs—sensing that their own sovereignty was the ultimate target—were provoked into the Third Anglo-Maratha War Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, After Nehru..., p.817.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.106; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), After Nehru..., p.817

5. Adjacent Conflicts: Anglo-Nepal War and Rajputana Treaties (intermediate)

Under the Governor-Generalship of Lord Hastings (1813–1823), the British East India Company shifted from a policy of cautious intervention to one of aggressive 'Paramountcy'. While the Maratha wars often take center stage, Hastings’ consolidation also required securing the northern Himalayan frontiers and the vast plains of Rajputana. This period saw the British eliminate the dual threats of the Gorkhas from the north and the chaotic influence of the Pindaris over central India, effectively turning once-hostile or unstable regions into loyal buffers.

The Anglo-Nepal War (1814–1816) arose from geographic friction. Following the Gorkha rise to power in 1760, they expanded their kingdom. Prevented from moving north by a strong Chinese presence, they pushed south into the Terai plains. When the English annexed Gorakhpur in 1801, the two expanding powers finally shared a border, leading to inevitable disputes over the regions of Butwal and Sheoraj Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.126. After a difficult mountain campaign, the war ended with the Treaty of Sagauli (1816). This treaty was a strategic masterstroke for the British: Nepal ceded the hill districts of Garhwal and Kumaon (which gave the British control over key trade routes to Central Asia and future hill stations like Shimla), withdrew from Sikkim, and accepted a British Resident in Kathmandu Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.126.

Simultaneously, the British turned their attention to the Rajputana States. For decades, the Rajputs had been ravaged by Maratha raids and the irregular plunder of Pindaris. Lord Hastings recognized that bringing these states under British protection would isolate the Marathas and secure the flank of the Company’s territory. In 1818, a series of treaties were signed where the Rajput states—including Jodhpur, Jaipur, Bundi, and Bharatpur—accepted the Subsidiary Alliance Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.122. These treaties replaced Maratha dominance with British Paramountcy, effectively turning the Rajput princes into subordinate allies who paid tribute in exchange for protection from external aggression.

Sources: Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.122; Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.126; Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, After Nehru..., p.817

6. Triggers of the Third Anglo-Maratha War (exam-level)

The Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817–1818) was the final, decisive conflict that established British Paramountcy over India. By 1817, the Maratha Confederacy was in a state of suffocating decline. The primary driver of the war was the intense resentment Maratha chiefs felt toward the restrictive Subsidiary Alliances and treaties, such as the Treaty of Bassein, which had effectively turned them into British vassals Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 5, p. 106.

The immediate trigger for the war, however, was the Pindari Campaign. The Pindaris were irregular military bands—often described as 'organized looters'—who had historically served as auxiliaries to Maratha armies. When Lord Hastings (the Governor-General) launched a massive military operation to suppress the Pindaris, he moved British troops deep into Maratha territories. The Maratha chiefs, particularly Peshwa Baji Rao II, perceived this military buildup as a direct violation of their sovereignty and a pretext for the British to strike the final blow against Maratha power Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 5, p. 107.

The situation reached a breaking point due to the Treaty of Poona (1817). Under this treaty, the British forced the Peshwa to formally give up his claim to the leadership of the Maratha Confederacy. In a final act of defiance, Baji Rao II organized a secret united front and burnt down the British Residency at Khirki in November 1817 History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p. 234. This sparked a series of battles where the Bhonsle and Holkar families also joined the fray, but their lack of unity allowed the British to defeat them individually.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Chapter 5: Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.106-107; History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p.234-241

7. Consequences and the End of Maratha Power (exam-level)

By the early 19th century, the Maratha Empire was a shadow of its former self, yet it remained the only power capable of challenging British hegemony. The Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817–1818) was the final struggle for Maratha independence. It was triggered by the restrictive terms of the Subsidiary Alliance (like the Treaty of Bassein) and Lord Hastings' aggressive campaign against the Pindaris. While the Pindaris were irregular military bands, the British used the Pindari threat as a strategic pretext to station troops deep within Maratha territory, effectively forcing a final showdown with the Maratha chiefs who felt their sovereignty was being choked Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., Chapter 5, p.107.

The war saw the collapse of the Maratha Confederacy in a series of swift military defeats. The Peshwa's forces were crushed at Khirki, the Bhonsle's at Sitabuldi, and the Holkar's at Mahidpur. These defeats were not just tactical military losses but signaled the complete breakdown of the Maratha political structure. The British systematically stripped the chiefs of their power through a series of humiliating treaties:

The ultimate consequence was the total dissolution of the Maratha Confederacy. The British took the radical step of abolishing the office of the Peshwa entirely. Baji Rao II was pensioned off and sent to Bithur, near Kanpur, effectively removing him from his power base in Maharashtra. To pacify the local population and maintain a link to the past, a small principality called Satara was carved out and given to Pratap Singh, a direct descendant of Shivaji Maharaj Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., Chapter 5, p.107. This marked the transition of the British from a regional power to the paramount power in India, a journey that had arguably begun decades earlier after the Third Battle of Panipat (1761) had weakened Maratha unity History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p.232.

Sources: Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., Chapter 5: Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.107; History , class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), The Marathas, p.232

8. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Now that you have mastered the evolution of British expansionism, this question brings together the concepts of Subsidiary Alliances, Paramountcy, and the final collapse of the Maratha Confederacy. The Third Anglo-Maratha War was not an isolated incident but the culmination of long-standing friction. As you learned, the Maratha chiefs felt humiliated by the loss of their sovereignty through restrictive agreements like the Treaty of Bassein and the Treaty of Poona. At the same time, the British under Lord Hastings were determined to eliminate any remaining rivals to their total dominance. This conflict demonstrates how the British used diplomatic pressure and military provocation to force a final confrontation with the Marathas, as detailed in A Brief History of Modern India by Rajiv Ahir (Spectrum).

To arrive at the correct answer, (C) The Pindari designs to seek support from the Marathas to drive the English away from India, you must distinguish between a pretext and an actual cause. While the British used the suppression of the Pindaris (irregular military bands) as a reason to mobilize their armies, the Pindaris themselves were not political visionaries planning a national liberation movement. They were opportunistic plunderers, not strategic masterminds seeking to "drive the English away." In contrast, Option A and Option B represent the true underlying motivations of the two protagonists, while Option D correctly identifies the immediate casus belli—the Peshwa's attack on the Khirki Residency—which signaled the start of open hostilities.

This question features a classic UPSC trap: using a factually relevant group (the Pindaris) but attributing to them a false motive. You likely recall the Pindaris being a "cause" of the war, but the examiner is testing if you know whose cause it was. It was a British cause to justify intervention, not a Pindari design for independence. When tackling such questions, always look for the direction of agency—who was actually driving the political agenda? Options A, B, and D all describe the strategic realities of the era, while Option C creates a fictional narrative that sounds plausible only if you confuse a military excuse with a political objective.