Which one among the following is common to the treaty of Yandaboo (1826), the treaty of Salbai (1782) and the treaty of Gandamak (1879) ?

1. Evolution of British Paramountcy in India (basic)

To understand the Evolution of British Paramountcy, we must first look at its root: the word 'paramount' means supreme. In the context of British India, this was the political concept that the British Crown was the supreme authority to which all Indian Princely States were subordinate. This wasn't an overnight change but a century-long transition from the British being mere 'merchants' to becoming the 'arbiters' of Indian politics Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.84. Initially, the British East India Company sought to interact with Indian states on a footing of equality, but as their military and economic might grew, they shifted toward a policy of Subordinate Isolation, where they dictated the foreign policy of Indian rulers while claiming the right to interfere in their internal administration.

The consolidation of this supremacy was achieved through a series of strategic treaties and wars that secured the frontiers and neutralized regional rivals. For instance, the Treaty of Salbai (1782) provided a vital twenty-year peace with the Marathas, allowing the British to focus on other threats. Later, treaties like the Treaty of Yandaboo (1826) and the Treaty of Gandamak (1879) were used to push British influence to the natural geographic boundaries of the subcontinent—the Himalayas and the Hindu Kush mountains. These agreements often forced regional powers to cede territory, accept British residents, and surrender their right to conduct independent foreign policy, effectively turning them into vassal states.

Feature	Policy of Equality (Initial)	Policy of Paramountcy (Later)
Status	Company was one of many regional powers.	British Crown was the undisputed Supreme Power.
Foreign Policy	States could form alliances freely.	States surrendered foreign relations to the British.
Intervention	Strictly avoided (theoretically).	British intervened to suppress 'misrule' or 'rebellion'.

By the late 19th century, under Viceroys like Lord Curzon, it was made explicit that the Indian princes ruled their states merely as agents of the British Crown Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Survey of British Policies in India, p.539. Interestingly, the British deliberately kept the legal definition of 'Paramountcy' vague. The Butler Committee (1927) famously noted that 'Paramountcy must remain paramount,' leaving it as a 'hydra-headed' concept that could expand based on the 'shifting necessities of time' Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, The Indian States, p.606. This ambiguity allowed the British to exercise near-total control over the internal and external life of the Indian states without needing a specific law for every intervention.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.84; A Brief History of Modern India, Survey of British Policies in India, p.539; A Brief History of Modern India, The Indian States, p.606

2. Diplomatic Tools: Subsidiary Alliance and Doctrine of Lapse (intermediate)

To understand how a trading company became the master of a subcontinent, we must look at the diplomatic traps they set. The British didn't always use bullets; often, they used legalistic and diplomatic tools to hollow out Indian sovereignty from the within. Two of the most potent weapons in this arsenal were the Subsidiary Alliance and the Doctrine of Lapse.

The Subsidiary Alliance, perfected by Lord Wellesley (1798–1805), was a masterclass in strategic vassalage. Under this system, an Indian ruler didn't lose his throne immediately; instead, he traded his independence for "protection." The British would station a permanent armed force within the ruler’s territory to guard against internal and external threats THEMES IN INDIAN HISTORY PART III, REBELS AND THE RAJ, p.266. However, the price was steep: the ruler had to pay for this force (the "subsidy"), accept a British Resident at his court who acted as the real power behind the throne, and surrender all rights to conduct independent diplomacy or employ other Europeans Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.120. This turned Indian states into mere shells, as they could no longer go to war or negotiate with neighbors without British permission.

Feature	Subsidiary Alliance (Wellesley)	Doctrine of Lapse (Dalhousie)
Core Logic	Security in exchange for sovereignty.	Annexation in the absence of a natural heir.
Impact	Ruler stays, but British control the military and foreign policy.	The state is completely annexed and ruled directly by the British.
Primary Target	Nizam of Hyderabad, Nawab of Awadh.	Satara, Jhansi, Nagpur, Sambalpur.

Decades later, Lord Dalhousie accelerated this expansion through the Doctrine of Lapse. While the Subsidiary Alliance was about control, the Doctrine was about outright ownership. It dictated that if a ruler of a dependent state died without a natural male heir, the state would "lapse" to the British. Crucially, the British refused to recognize adopted sons as legitimate successors to the throne, even though Indian tradition allowed it. This policy wasn't just a legal quirk; it was a deliberate strategy to mop up remaining independent pockets of India, leading to the annexation of major states like Jhansi and Satara, which eventually fueled the fire of the 1857 Revolt.

Sources: THEMES IN INDIAN HISTORY PART III, REBELS AND THE RAJ, p.266; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.120; History, Class XI (Tamilnadu State Board), Effects of British Rule, p.267

3. The First Anglo-Maratha War and Treaty of Salbai (intermediate)

The First Anglo-Maratha War (1775–1782) was not just a simple conflict between two powers; it was a complex drama of internal Maratha succession and British administrative friction. It began when Raghunathrao, an aspiring Peshwa, sought British help to claim the throne. This led to the Treaty of Surat (1775), where he ceded Salsette and Bassein to the Bombay Presidency in exchange for troops Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.102. However, this sparked a conflict of authority within the British ranks: the Calcutta Council, led by Warren Hastings, condemned this 'private' war and attempted to annul it with the Treaty of Purandhar (1776), which favored the Maratha regency headed by Nana Phadnavis Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.102. This internal British tug-of-war, combined with Nana Phadnavis's flirtation with the French, ensured that the conflict dragged on for years.

The deadlock was finally broken by the Treaty of Salbai (May 1782). Negotiated through Mahadji Sindhia, this treaty was a masterstroke of 18th-century diplomacy. It provided a much-needed strategic breather for the British, who were simultaneously facing threats from Mysore and the French. Under its terms, the English retained Salsette, but crucially, they restored territories conquered since 1776—including Bassein—to the Marathas Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.103. Raghunathrao was pensioned off, and the peace was guaranteed for twenty years. This period of quiet was essential for the British to focus on consolidating their power elsewhere in India without the fear of a Maratha strike.

From a broader strategic perspective, this war was an application of Warren Hastings' 'Ring-Fence' policy. The British aim was not yet total annexation, but rather the creation of buffer zones to protect their valuable territories in Bengal from the twin threats of the Marathas and Afghan invaders Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.120. By securing peace via the Treaty of Salbai, the British effectively neutralized their most potent rival for two decades, buying the time necessary to build the resources required for eventual total dominance.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.102; A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.103; A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.120

4. North-West Frontier Policy and the Great Game (intermediate)

To understand the British North-West Frontier policy, we must first look at the map. After the British annexed Sindh (1843) and Punjab (1849), their borders finally touched the difficult, mountainous terrain of the Baluch and Pathan tribes Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, p.132. However, the real concern wasn't just the local tribes; it was the giant shadow of Tsarist Russia expanding across Central Asia. This era of intense strategic rivalry between the British and Russian Empires for supremacy in Central Asia is famously known as the 'Great Game' Bipin Chandra, Modern India, p.174.

The British obsession was to find a 'scientific frontier'—a border that was geographically easy to defend. Afghanistan became the 'buffer state' in this pursuit. If the British could control Afghan foreign policy, they could keep Russia at a safe distance. This led to a flip-flop in British strategies depending on which Viceroy was in power:

Policy Type	Key Proponent	Core Philosophy
Masterly Inactivity	John Lawrence	Avoided interference in Afghan internal wars; peace as long as the frontier wasn't disturbed.
Forward Policy	Lord Auckland	Proactive military intervention to secure 'vassal' rulers in Afghanistan before Russia could.
Proud Reserve	Lord Lytton	Aiming for 'scientific frontiers' and clear spheres of influence through diplomatic pressure and force.

The conflict peaked during the Second Anglo-Afghan War, resulting in the Treaty of Gandamak (1879). Under this treaty, the Amir of Afghanistan agreed to conduct his foreign relations only through British advice in exchange for a subsidy and protection Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, p.135. To finalize the territorial limits, the Durand Line was drawn in 1893, acting as a boundary between British India and Afghanistan, though it often split tribal lands in two Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, p.132. Finally, Lord Curzon brought a degree of stability by creating the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) in 1901, opting for a policy of 'withdrawal and concentration'—withdrawing troops from advanced posts and letting tribal militias maintain order Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, p.133.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.132; A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.133; A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.135; Modern India, India And Her Neighbours, p.174

5. Expansion into the North-East: Anglo-Burmese Wars (exam-level)

In the early 19th century, the British Empire in India faced a rising power to its East: the Konbaung Dynasty of Burma (Myanmar). The Burmese were expanding aggressively westward, conquering Arakan and Manipur, and eventually threatening the Brahmaputra Valley in Assam. This expansion created friction along the ill-defined borders of Bengal Rajiv Ahir, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.126. For the British, this wasn't just a border skirmish; it was a strategic threat to the stability of their most profitable province, Bengal, and an opportunity to secure the northeastern frontier.

The First Anglo-Burmese War (1824–1826) was a grueling conflict that ended with the Treaty of Yandabo in 1826. This treaty was a watershed moment for the geography of modern India, as it effectively brought the North-East under British influence. Under its terms, the Burmese were forced to:

• Pay a massive war indemnity of one crore rupees.
• Cede the coastal provinces of Arakan and Tenasserim.
• Abandon all claims over Assam, Cachar, and Jaintia.
• Recognize Manipur as an independent state.
• Accept a British Resident at the royal court in Ava Rajiv Ahir, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.127.

While the first war was driven by border security, the Second Anglo-Burmese War (1852) was fueled by 19th-century industrial logic—specifically commercial greed. British timber merchants were eyeing the vast teak forests of Upper Burma, and British manufacturers saw the Burmese population as a potential market for cotton goods Bipin Chandra, India And Her Neighbours, p.170. By the end of these conflicts, the British had not only secured their frontier but had also integrated the North-East into the administrative and economic fold of the British Raj, fundamentally altering the region's political destiny.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.126-127; Modern India (Old NCERT), India And Her Neighbours, p.170

6. Anglo-Afghan Relations and the Treaty of Gandamak (exam-level)

To understand the **Treaty of Gandamak (1879)**, we must first understand the 'Great Game'—the 19th-century strategic rivalry between the British and Russian Empires for supremacy in Central Asia. The British were obsessed with securing a **'Scientific Frontier'** for India, viewing Afghanistan as the vital buffer state. After the disastrous First Anglo-Afghan War (1839-42), the British followed a policy of **'Masterly Inactivity'** under John Lawrence, avoiding interference in Afghan internal politics. However, this shifted to Lord Lytton’s more aggressive **'Policy of Proud Reserve'**, which aimed to preempt Russian influence by demanding a British presence in Kabul Rajiv Ahir, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.135. Following the outbreak of the **Second Anglo-Afghan War**, the British forced the new Amir, Yakub Khan, to sign the Treaty of Gandamak in May 1879. This treaty was a classic example of British **'vassalage' diplomacy**, where a state remained nominally independent but surrendered its sovereignty in external matters. The key provisions included:

• The Amir agreed to conduct his **foreign policy** only with the advice and consent of the Government of India.
• A **permanent British Resident** was to be stationed at Kabul—a highly symbolic and provocative move for the Afghan people.
• In exchange, the British promised the Amir an annual subsidy and military support against any foreign aggression Rajiv Ahir, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.131.

The treaty, however, proved fragile. Much like the First Afghan War, the presence of a British Resident sparked a popular uprising, forcing Yakub Khan to abdicate and leading to a second phase of the war. Eventually, the British recognized **Abdur Rahman** as the new Amir, who accepted the treaty’s core condition: British control over Afghan foreign relations in exchange for internal autonomy and a subsidy. This established the 'buffer' status that defined the North-West Frontier for decades.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.131; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.135

7. Strategic Impact: Treaties as Instruments of Control (exam-level)

In the grand architecture of British expansion, treaties were far more than mere peace agreements ending a war; they were sophisticated instruments of control. While outright annexation was often the final goal, the British frequently used treaties as a "legalized" intermediate step to weaken a rival, secure a frontier, or establish vassalage without the immediate administrative cost of direct rule. These agreements were designed to be asymmetric, ensuring that the local power lost its strategic autonomy while the British East India Company gained territorial or diplomatic leverage.

A classic example of treaties as a strategic pause is the Treaty of Salbai (1782). Signed after the First Anglo-Maratha War, it secured twenty years of peace between the Marathas and the English. This was not just a cessation of hostilities; it was a masterstroke that allowed the British to consolidate their holdings, specifically retaining Salsette, and concentrate their resources on other rivals like Mysore and the French Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.103. By the time the peace expired, the internal dynamics of the Maratha confederacy had shifted, making them more vulnerable to subsequent British maneuvers.

As the Empire expanded toward the frontiers, treaties were used to create buffer states and secure borders. The Treaty of Yandaboo (1826) ended the First Anglo-Burmese War by forcing Burma to cede massive territories like Assam and Arakan and accept a British Resident. This effectively removed Burma as a regional threat and opened the North-East for British influence. Similarly, the Treaty of Gandamak (1879) transformed Afghanistan into a protected state; the Amir was forced to conduct foreign policy only under British advice and host a British Resident in Kabul. These treaties followed a consistent pattern: they stripped the local ruler of the right to independent external relations, essentially making them a satellite of the British Raj.

Treaty	Primary Strategic Impact	Key Territorial/Diplomatic Gain
Salbai (1782)	Strategic breathing space (20 years)	Possession of Salsette
Yandaboo (1826)	Frontier security & North-East expansion	Cession of Assam & Arakan
Gandamak (1879)	Creation of a Buffer State	British control of Afghan foreign policy

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.103; A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.102

8. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Throughout your modules on British Expansionism, we examined how the East India Company transitioned from a trading entity to the undisputed sovereign power of the subcontinent. This question tests your ability to synthesize the strategic outcomes of different military conflicts across a century of history. Whether it was the First Anglo-Maratha War (Salbai), the First Anglo-Burmese War (Yandaboo), or the Second Anglo-Afghan War (Gandamak), the underlying pattern is the same: the British used these agreements to neutralize regional rivals and create a security buffer around their core Indian territories, a concept often discussed in A Brief History of Modern India.

To arrive at the correct answer, (B) These treaties enabled the British to control the South Asian powers, you must identify the common geopolitical thread. The Treaty of Salbai (1782) secured a twenty-year peace with the Marathas, allowing the British to focus on other rivals. The Treaty of Yandaboo (1826) saw the cession of Assam and Arakan, effectively ending Burmese independence and securing the North-East frontier. Finally, the Treaty of Gandamak (1879) forced the Amir of Afghanistan to conduct foreign policy under British guidance. As highlighted in India's Struggle for Independence, each treaty functioned as a tool of imperial consolidation, ensuring that no regional power could challenge British hegemony or invite foreign interference from powers like France or Russia.

As a student of UPSC, you must watch out for the common traps in the other options. Option (A) is a reversal trap; these treaties were signed by individual powers to settle terms with the British, not to form an alliance against them. Options (C) and (D) are red herrings that use broad, positive-sounding terminology like "cultural spread" or "enhanced trade." While the British certainly sought economic gain, these specific legal instruments were strategic military settlements designed for territorial security and diplomatic dominance, rather than cultural exchange or regional trade integration.