Doctrine of Lapse

Doctrine of Lapse Introduction

Doctrine of lapse Before Dalhousie

The doctrine of lapse was not solely invented by Lord Dalhousie, but had already been used by the East India Company before he became Governor-General.

In 1824, before Dalhousie’s time, the princely state of Kittur was annexed by the East India Company using a policy similar to the later doctrine of lapse. The Court of Directors of the East India Company mentioned this annexation policy as early as 1834, which allowed them to annex Indian princely states if the ruler died without a male heir.

Using this early version of the doctrine, the Company annexed Mandvi in 1839, Colaba and Jalaun in 1840, and Surat in 1842. So, while Dalhousie vigorously applied the doctrine to annex many more princely states during his tenure from 1848-1856, the policy itself predated him and had already been used by the Company to expand its territory in India. Dalhousie simply took the doctrine further and applied it more extensively than his predecessors.

Features of Doctrine of Lapse

The Doctrine of Lapse was an annexation policy used by the East India Company during the time when Lord Dalhousie was the Governor-General of India from 1848 to 1856. Here are the main points of this policy:

1. Annexation of States Without Heirs: If a ruler of a princely state under the control of the East India Company died without a male heir, the state would be annexed by the Company.
2. Restriction on Adoption: The policy did not allow rulers to adopt a son to become the legal heir. This meant that even if a son was adopted, he would not be recognized as the rightful heir to the throne.
3. Loss of Sovereignty: States annexed under this doctrine lost their independence and became part of British territories.
4. No Entitlement to Benefits: Adopted sons were not eligible for benefits such as pensions or titles that their biological fathers might have received.
5. Administrative Justification: The doctrine was justified as a measure to fix misrule or incompetence in princely states, but it was mainly used to expand British territory and power.
6. Historical Context: The doctrine of lapse was not solely the creation of Dalhousie; it was articulated by the Court of Directors of the East India Company as early as 1834. Several states were annexed under this policy before Dalhousie’s tenure, including Kittur in 1824.

These points highlight the imperialistic and expansionist nature of the Doctrine of Lapse, which had a significant impact on the sovereignty and governance of many Indian princely states.

Causes of Doctrine of Lapse

States Annexed Under The Doctrine of Lapse

The following states were annexed under the Doctrine of Lapse by the East India Company:

1. Satara (1848): Satara was the first state to be annexed under the Doctrine of Lapse policy. When the ruler died without a male heir, the East India Company took control of the state.
2. Sambalpur (1849): This state was annexed following the death of its ruler without a male heir.
3. Jhansi (1853): The lack of a male successor led to the annexation of Jhansi. This decision played a significant role in the events leading up to the Indian Rebellion of 1857.
4. Nagpur (1854): After the death of the ruler without a male heir, Nagpur was annexed by the East India Company.
5. Baghat (1850): This state was also annexed due to the absence of a male heir.
6. Udaipur (Chhattisgarh) (1852): Not to be confused with Udaipur in Rajasthan, this state was annexed when the ruling family failed to produce a male successor.
7. Jaitpur (1849): Like the others, Jaitpur was annexed due to the lack of a male heir.
8. Awadh (1856): Although Awadh’s annexation was justified on grounds of misrule rather than the Doctrine of Lapse, it was part of the broader policy of territorial expansion.

These annexations were part of the British colonial policy aimed at consolidating control over Indian princely states and increasing the revenues of the East India Company.

Impact of Doctrine of Lapse

The Doctrine of Lapse had a major impact on the Indian princely states and their relationship with the British East India Company:

1. Loss of Sovereignty: Many Indian states lost their independence and came under direct British rule after being annexed under the Doctrine of Lapse. This included states like Satara (1848), Jaitpur (1849), Sambalpur (1849), Nagpur (1854), and Awadh (1856).
2. Resentment Among Rulers: The policy led to strong resentment among native rulers, as it increased the power and control of the East India Company over Indian territory. Rulers like the Rani of Jhansi and Nana Sahib were angered when their pensions were stopped under this doctrine.
3. Expansion of British Territory: The annexation of princely states under the Doctrine of Lapse allowed the East India Company to expand its territory and increase revenue. However, this was seen as an imperialistic move by the British.
4. Contribution to 1857 Revolt: The unrest caused by the Doctrine of Lapse was one of the major causes that contributed to the Indian Rebellion of 1857, also known as the Sepoy Mutiny, against the British East India Company.
5. Abandonment of Policy: The Doctrine of Lapse was eventually abandoned in 1859, two years after the end of the East India Company’s rule in India. However, its impact continued to be felt even after Indian independence.

Criticism to the Doctrine

The Doctrine of Lapse faced significant criticism and opposition for several reasons:

1. Violation of Indian Sovereignty: The doctrine of lapse policy was viewed as an imperialistic measure that undermined the sovereignty of Indian princely states. It challenged the established right of Indian rulers to appoint their own heirs, causing widespread resentment.
2. Misinterpretation of Hindu Law: The British claimed the doctrine was based on Hindu law. However, Hindu law allowed for the adoption of a son for succession, a practice the doctrine did not recognize.
3. Pretext for Annexation: Many saw the doctrine as a British colonial policy to annex Indian states and expand their territory. The claim of “misrule” was often used as a justification for these annexations.
4. Contribution to 1857 Revolt: The unrest caused by annexations under the doctrine of lapse was one of the major grievances leading to the Indian Rebellion of 1857 against the East India Company.
5. Violation of Treaties: The doctrine violated treaties between the British and Indian rulers, which guaranteed succession rights for the princely states.
6. Resentment Among Rulers: The policy created significant resentment among Indian princes, as it increased the East India Company’s control over Indian territory. Rulers like the Rani of Jhansi and Nana Sahib were particularly angered when their pensions were stopped under this doctrine.
7. Abandonment of Policy: The Doctrine of Lapse was eventually abandoned in 1859, two years after the end of the East India Company’s rule in India. However, its impact was felt long after, affecting the political integration of India.
8. Lord Dalhousie introduced the Doctrine of Lapse as a part of his annexation policy in 19th century India, starting with the state of Satara. This policy did not recognize the succession rights of adopted heirs, leading to the transfer of sovereignty and further integration of native rulers into the British Raj.

Independent India

After India gained independence in 1947, the Doctrine of Lapse was no longer enforced by the new government of independent India. However, some elements of the policy continued in a limited form:

1. Derecognition of Princely Families: The independent Indian government continued to derecognize individual Indian princely states until 1971. This was when the 26th amendment to the Indian constitution, led by Indira Gandhi’s government, ended the recognition of former ruling families.
2. Merger of Princely States: Most princely states were merged into the Indian Union after independence through negotiations and agreements. The government, acting as the paramount power, persuaded princely rulers to join India.
3. Abolition of Princely Rule: The Government of India Act 1935 had allowed princely states to choose between India or Pakistan. However, the Indian government convinced most rulers to join India. By 1950, princely rule had ended in most states.
4. Continuation of British Policies: The new Indian government continued some British colonial policies, including treating princely states as subordinate entities. This was achieved through negotiation and persuasion rather than outright annexation.

FAQs on Doctrine of Lapse