Doctrine of Lapse || lord Dalhousie Policy of Annexation


hello friends welcome to upsc logix
and my name is Siddharth and today I’m going to discuss Lord Dalhousies policy
of annexation so Lord Dalhousie was the governor-general of India from 1848 to
56 and he has been credited for the maximum number of annexations using a
different or a variety of reasons for annexation of Indian territory and he
annexed almost a quarter of a million square miles of Indian Territory to the
British Empire in fact this was more than any other governor-general and this
policy of doctrine of lapse was actually was one of the reasons for the revolt of
1857 so let us have a look at Lord Dalhousies policy of annexation and the
misuse of doctrine of lapse so let us have a look at the history before Lord
Dalhousie came into power and misused doctrine of lapse so it was the court of
directors of the East India Company that had articulated this particular policy
as early as 1834 and they said that any particular territory that did not have a
legitimate heir or the ruler was miss governing or simply the company had a
need for a particular territory so any of such particular eventualities, the
company had the right to attach the state or the land to the British Empire
so the company annexed Mandvi in 1839 kolba and jalaun in 1840 and Surat in 1842
using this particular policy of doctrine of lapse . so these were the particular
Indian states that were attached to the British Empire before Lord Dalhousie
became the governor-general of India in 1848 so let us now have a look at Lord
Dalhousie policy of annexation and Lord Dalhousie was the Governor General
who has been credited with the maximum number of annexations in fact Lord
Dalhousie was a Governor General for almost eight years from 1848 to 56 where
after there was the revolt of 1857 so he used a variety of justifications for
annexations that included his judgment that a late ruler had lacked
a legitimate heir number two was that the ruler was miss
governing or number three that the company simply needed a particular
territory so the total area that was annexed during Lord Dalhousie tennure came up to somewhere in the vicinity of a quarter of a million
square miles or six hundred eighty thousand square kilometers and this was
substantially more than any other Governor General in fact it was almost
25% of the entire annexation that had been done by the company since its
inception but it wasn’t that Lord Dalhousie would annex any property that
the court of Directors wished in fact he refused point-blank when he was asked to
annex Hyderabad and intervene in Bahawalpur when the court of Directors
had asked him to do so so before we have a look at the acquisitions let us
understand what doctrine of lapse was it meant that the company named itself heir
to all the rulers who lacked male heir whom the company recognized so it wasn’t that
if a particular ruler had adopted, the company did not recognize it as a heir
to the state in fact jjhansi was one such state where Rani Laxmi Bai had adopted
and the company decided that it did not recognize that particular heir so let us
have a look at the timeline of acquisition that were done during Lord
Dalhousie tenure and in 1848 he annexed satara then in 1853 he annexed Nagpur then
in 1854 he annexed Jhansi all three of them were annexed because they lacked a male
heir and in 1854 he annexed eight of the smaller states that lack a male heir in
1848 49 the second anglo-sikh war happened then in 18-49 he annexed trans
sutlej Punjab then 1852 the second Burma War happened and he annexed Pegu . In
1856 he annexed oudh on the grounds of MIS governance now Lord Dalhousie
just did not stop at applying doctrine of lapse
or annexing territories on his whims and fancies he also de recognized certain
dynasties so in 1851 he stopped the pension of Peshwas of Maratha then in
1854 he stopped the pension of nawab of bengal in 1855 he stopped the pension of
nawab ofCarnatic and in 1855 itself he stopped the pension of Rajah of Tanjore
so we can see that Lord Dalhousie used a number of reasons to annex properties
such as lack of legitimate here then the ruler was miss governing or simply that
the company needed that particular territory in fact the Raja of Satara
and Jhansi had each adopted of son prior to their deaths in 1847 and 53 and
despite the formal adoption the company had refused to acknowledge the adopted
sons as heirs and it was only in the case of Nagpur where the ruler did not
have any son natural or adopted and that Nagpur was annexed by the company on Rajas
death in 1853 this brings us to the end of this particular video and I hope you
have enjoyed this video so if you are watching it for the first time
don’t forget to Like and subscribe to the channel and don’t forget to press
the bell icon to get the latest notifications from UPSC logixs and thank
you so much for watching and Jai hind


2 Responses

Leave a Reply