Sample 3: Doctrine of Lapse Policy

The Doctrine of Lapse was a policy implemented by the British East India Company in the mid-nineteenth century under the administration of Lord Dalhousie(1848 to 1856), the then Governor-General of India. This doctrine contributed significantly to the expansion of British territories in India by annexing princely states without a direct male heir.
Although the British saw it as a tool for administrative efficiency, Indian rulers despised the doctrine, which is credited with sparking the Indian Rebellion of 1857. After the rebellion, the doctrine was abandoned as part of efforts to reconcile with princely states.

Doctrine of Lapse
About	According to the Doctrine of Lapse, when the ruler of a protected state died without a natural heir (son), his kingdom would lapse, that is, become part of the company’s territory. The state would pass to an adopted child only if the British authorities approved the adoption. That is, the adopted children had no legal right over the throne. Many Indian princely states have traditionally adopted heirs in the absence of a direct male successor to ensure the continuation of their rule. The Doctrine of Lapse dictated that if an Indian princely state lacked a surviving male heir or if there was a succession dispute, the British would annexe the state’s territory. Based on the principle that Britain, as the paramount power, could accept or reject adopted heirs of Indian rulers, the doctrine was justified as ensuring good governance in mismanaged states. The Court of Directors introduced this policy in 1847, initially targeting smaller Indian states. Lord Dalhousie later expanded its use to increase British control aggressively. The annexations also helped the financially struggling East India Company increase revenue and reduce subsidiary alliance costs.
Features of Doctrine of Lapse
About	The doctrine of lapse was widely regarded as an imperialist approach by Indian rulers. They opposed this policy because it increased the power of the British government. The Doctrine of Lapse had several key features that defined its implementation
Annexation of States Without a Male Heir	The primary feature of the Doctrine of Lapse was the automatic annexation of any princely state where the ruler died without a natural male heir. The British refused to acknowledge adopted heirs, which was a common practice among Indian rulers.
British Approval Required	Even in cases where adoption was previously accepted, the doctrine required that such adoptions receive explicit British approval before being considered valid for succession.
Inheritance	According to the Doctrine of Lapse, an adopted heir could inherit only the prince’s personal belongings and property, not the rulership of the kingdom. Thus, it directly challenged the traditional Indian practice of adopting an heir to succeed to the throne.
Pension and Titles	Under the Doctrine of Lapse, the adopted son of a princely state’s ruler would be ineligible to receive any pensions previously granted to his father. It also prohibited the usage of titles that his father might have received earlier.
Selective Application	The policy was not uniformly applied to all princely states. Its implementation often depended on strategic and economic considerations. It applied to states without a competent ruler or legal heir to the throne.
Legal Rationale	The Doctrine of Lapse was publicly portrayed as being grounded in Hindu law, but this was misleading. While Hindu law allowed for the adoption of a son to ensure succession, the annexation policy under the Doctrine of Lapse did not recognise adopted heirs, leading to their exclusion from succession rights.
Misgovernance Clause	In some instances, states were annexed on the pretext of misgovernance, even when succession was not an issue.
States Annexed under the Doctrine of Lapse
Satara (1848)	Satara became the first state to be annexed under this policy by Dalhousie in 1848. The Raja of Satara (Appa Sahib) died without a male heir, and despite the adoption of a son, the British annexed the state, citing the doctrine.
Jaitpur and Sambalpur (1849)	These smaller states were annexed in quick succession. The British took control, arguing that the absence of a natural heir nullified the state’s sovereignty.
Udaipur (1852)	This was a state in present-day Chhattisgarh, not to be confused with the more famous Udaipur in Rajasthan.
Jhansi (1853)	The annexation of Jhansi became particularly controversial and led to Rani Lakshmibai’s rebellion during the 1857 uprising.
Nagpur (1854)	One of the largest and most significant annexations under the doctrine.
Awadh (1856)	Although not strictly annexed under the Doctrine of Lapse (as there was a natural heir), Awadh was annexed on the grounds of misgovernance, using similar principles.
Effects of Doctrine of Lapse Policy
About	The Doctrine of Lapse had profound effects on British India. It led to significant territorial expansion but also incited widespread resentment among Indian rulers. Its implementation contributed to the unrest that culminated in the Indian Rebellion of 1857.
Expansion of British Territories	The doctrine of lapse led to the annexation of key states, expanding British control and increasing administrative responsibilities.
Loss of Sovereignty for Princely States	Indian princely states lost sovereignty, sparking unrest. Rulers like the Rani of Jhansi and Nana Sahib were denied their thrones.
Erosion of Traditional Practices	The rejection of adopted heirs disrupted succession traditions, destabilised the political landscape and weakened India’s cultural fabric.
Prelude to the Indian Rebellion of 1857	The annexations and policies like the Doctrine of Lapse fueled discontent, contributing to the 1857 rebellion.
Change in British Policy	After the rebellion, the British Crown assumed control, abandoned the doctrine, and adopted a more conciliatory approach toward Indian rulers.

State (Annexed)	Year
Satara	1848
Jaitpur	1849
Sambalpur	1849
Udaipur	1852
Jhansi	1853
Nagpur	1854
Tanjore	1855
Carnatic	1855
Awadh	1856

[Title: Anglo-Mysore Wars]

After the conquest of Bengal, the British turned to South India, primarily driven by commercial
interests. The English East India Company had already eliminated the French from the region by 1761 through the Carnatic Wars—wars which had also brought to the forefront many weaknesses of the Indian regional powers.
The existing rivalry among the southern rulers and the volatile political situation in the region provided a favourable ground for political intervention by the Company. It took many years to get political control over the region and the English Company fought several wars to subdue the local rulers. The internal weaknesses of these South Indian states decided the final outcome of this struggle for power, and the defeat of Mysore and the Marathas proved fatal for other Indian powers as well.

Power Struggle among Indian States in 18th Century

The 18th century was ridden with power struggle between various groups. There was the struggle for power among the Indian States, and there was also the struggle for power between the Indian States and the English Company.
The Indian states, including Mysore, Marathas, Carnatic, and Hyderabad, fought against each other, primarily driven by their desire for territorial expansion and revenue extraction.
The main cause of conflict among the