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 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

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 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

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 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

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 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

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 – – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

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 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

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 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

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 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Misgovernance Clause

In some instances, states were annexed on the pretext of misgovernance, even when succession was not an – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

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 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -.- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

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 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Udaipur (1852)

This was a state in present-day Chhattisgarh, not to be confused with the more famous – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Jhansi (1853)

The annexation of Jhansi became particularly controversial and led to Rani Lakshmibai’s rebellion during the – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Nagpur (1854)

One of the largest and most significant annexations under the – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

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 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

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– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Expansion of British Territories

The doctrine of lapse led to the annexation of key states, expanding British control and increasing administrative – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

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 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Erosion of Traditional Practices

The rejection of adopted heirs disrupted succession traditions, destabilised the political landscape and weakened India’s – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Prelude to the Indian Rebellion of 1857

The annexations and policies like the Doctrine of Lapse fueled discontent, contributing to the – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Change in British Policy

After the rebellion, the British Crown assumed control, abandoned the doctrine, and adopted a more conciliatory approach toward – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

State (Annexed)

Year

Satara

1848

Jaitpur

1849

Sambalpur

1849

Udaipur

1852

Jhansi

1853

Nagpur

– – – – – – – – – – 

Tanjore

1855

Carnatic

– – – – – – – – –

Awadh

1856