Doctrine of lapse - Wikipedia
Jump to content
Search
Search
Donate
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Donate
Create account
Log in
Doctrine of lapse
21 languages
বাংলা<br>Català<br>Čeština<br>Deutsch<br>Español<br>Français<br>हिन्दी<br>Bahasa Indonesia<br>Italiano<br>日本語<br>മലയാളം<br>मराठी<br>ਪੰਜਾਬੀ<br>Русский<br>Српски / srpski<br>Svenska<br>Kiswahili<br>தமிழ்<br>తెలుగు<br>Українська<br>اردو
Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
East India Company policy of annexation of princely states
Princely state<br>Salute state
British paramountcy
Chamber of Princes
Jagir
Agencies of British India
Residencies of British India
Doctrine of lapse
Political pensioner
Privy Purse
Standstill agreement
Instrument of Accession
Individual residencies<br>Hyderabad
Indore (Holkar)
Jammu and Kashmir
Mysore (Maisur)
Quilon
Sikkim
Agencies<br>Bagelkhand
Baluchistan
Baroda and Gujarat States
Baroda, Western India and Gujarat States
Bhopawar
Bundelkhand
Central India
Deccan States
Eastern States
Gilgit
Gwalior Residency
Jaipur Residency
Madras States
Mahi Kantha
Malwa
Mewar (Udaipur) Residency and Western Rajputana Agency
North-West Frontier
Palanpur
Punjab States
Rajputana
Rewa Kantha
Western India States
Lists<br>States by region
States by name
Rajput States
Jat States
Maratha States
James Broun-Ramsay, 1st Marquess of Dalhousie (1812–1860), who served as Governor-General of India from 1848 to 1856 and famously introduced the Doctrine of Lapse.<br>The doctrine of lapse was a policy of annexation initiated by the East India Company in the Indian subcontinent for the princely states, and applied until the year 1858, the year after Company rule was succeeded by the British Raj under the British Crown.
The policy is associated with James Broun-Ramsay, 1st Marquess of Dalhousie.
Elements of the doctrine of lapse continued to be applied by the post-independence Indian government to derecognise individual princely families until 1971, when the recognition of former ruling families was discontinued under the 26th Amendment to the Indian constitution by the Indira Gandhi government.
Doctrine<br>[edit]
According to the doctrine, any Indian princely state under the suzerainty of the East India Company, the dominant imperial power in the Indian system of subsidiary alliances, would have its princely status abolished, and therefore be annexed into directly ruled British India, if the ruler was either "manifestly incompetent or died without a male heir".[1] This supplanted the long-established right of an Indian sovereign without an heir to choose a successor.[2]
The policy is most commonly associated with Dalhousie, who was the East India Company's Governor-General of British India between 1848 and 1856. However, the doctrine was articulated by the Court of Directors of the Company as early as 1834, and several smaller states had already been annexed under this doctrine before Dalhousie took over the post of Governor-General.[3]
By the use of the doctrine of lapse, the Company took over the princely states of Satara (1848), Jaitpur and Sambalpur (1849), Baghal (1850), Udaipur (Chhattisgarh State) (1852), Jhansi (1853), Nagpur (1854), Tanjore and Arcot (1855). Awadh (1856) is widely believed to have been annexed under the doctrine, but in fact was annexed by Dalhousie under the pretext of mis-governance. Mostly claiming that the ruler was not ruling properly, the Company added about four million pounds sterling to its annual revenue through this doctrine.[4] However, Udaipur State would later have local princely rule reinstated in 1860.
With the increasing power of the East India Company, discontent simmered among many sections of Indian society, including disbanded soldiers; these rallied behind the deposed dynasties during the Indian Rebellion of 1857, also known as the Sepoy Mutiny. Following the rebellion, in 1858, the new British Viceroy of India, whose rule replaced that of the East India Company, renounced the doctrine.[5]
Doctrine of lapse before Dalhousie<br>[edit]
Dalhousie vigorously applied the lapse doctrine for annexing Indian princely states, but the policy was not solely his invention.[6]
The princely state of Kittur, ruled by Kittur Chennamma (the queen at the time), was taken over by the East India Company in 1824, when, after the death of her husband and son, she adopted a new son and attempted to make him heir to the throne, which the British refused to accept. This development has similarities with the later 'doctrine of lapse', which the Court of Directors of the East India Company articulated early in 1834.[6] As per this policy, the Company annexed Mandvi in 1839, Colaba and Jalaun in 1840, and Surat in 1842.
The impact of the doctrine of lapse<br>[edit]
The doctrine of lapse was widely considered illegitimate by many Indians. By 1848, the British had immense power in India, since they were the de facto direct rulers of territories such as the Madras, Bombay, and Bengal Presidencies, Assam, Mysore, and the Punjab,...