UpdateBot at 13:29, 12 June 2022

2022-06-12T13:29:08Z

New page

{{short description|Policy of the East India Company regarding princely states}}

{{Use Indian English|date=May 2015}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=February 2020}}
{{Princely States topics}}
The '''doctrine of lapse''' was a policy of [[annexation]] initiated by the [[East India Company]] in the [[Indian subcontinent]] about the [[princely states]], and applied until the year 1858, the year after [[Company rule in India|Company rule]] was succeeded by the [[British Raj]] under the [[British Crown]].

Elements of the doctrine of lapse continued to be applied by the post-independence [[Government of India|Indian government]] to derecognize individual princely families until 1971, when the recognition former ruling families were collectively discontinued under the [[Privy_Purse_in_India#Abolition|26th amendment]] to the Indian constitution by the [[Indira Gandhi]]'s government.

==The Doctrine==

According to the doctrine, any Indian [[Princely states|princely state]] under the suzerainty of the [[East India Company]] (EIC) (the dominant [[Empire|imperial]] power in the Indian subsidiary system), would have its princely status abolished (and therefore be annexed into British India) if the ruler was either "manifestly incompetent or died without a male heir".<ref name=" key">[[John Keay|Keay, John]]. ''India: A History''. Grove Press Books, distributed by Publishers Group West. United States: 2000 {{ISBN|0-8021-3797-0}}, p. 433.</ref> The latter supplanted the long-established right of an Indian sovereign without an heir to choose a successor.<ref name="RCM">{{cite book |last1=Majumdar |first1=RC |title=The Sepoy Mutiny and The Revolt of 1857 |date=1957 |publisher=Srimati S. Chaudhuri |location=Calcutta |page=7 |url=https://archive.org/details/sepoymutiny1857/page/n24/mode/2up |access-date=5 June 2022}}</ref> In addition, the EIC decided whether potential rulers were competent enough. The doctrine and its applications were widely regarded as illegitimate by many Indians, leading to resentment against the EIC.

The policy is most commonly associated with [[James Andrew Broun-Ramsay, 1st Marquess of Dalhousie|Lord Dalhousie]], who was the [[Governor General]] of the [[East India Company]] in [[India]] between 1848 and 1856. However, it was articulated by the Court of Directors of the East India Company as early as 1847 and several smaller states had already been annexed under this doctrine before Dalhousie took over the post of Governor-General.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Olson |first1=James Stuart |last2=Shadle |first2=Robert |title=Historical Dictionary of the British Empire - Volume 2 |date=1996 |publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group |location=Westport, Connecticut, USA |isbn=978-0-313-27917-1 |page=653 |url=https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Historical_Dictionary_of_the_British_Emp/f0VnzMelzm8C?hl=en&gbpv=0 |access-date=5 June 2022 |language=en}}</ref> Dalhousie used the policy most vigorously and extensively, though, so it is generally associated with him.

==History==

At the time of its adoption, the East India Company had imperial administrative jurisdiction over wide regions of the subcontinent. The company took over the princely states of [[Satara State|Satara]] (1848), [[Jaitpur State|Jaitpur]] and [[Sambalpur State|Sambalpur]](1849), [[Bhagat]] (1850), [[Udaipur]] (1852), [[Jhansi State|Jhansi]] (1853), [[Nagpur State|Nagpur]] (1854), [[Thanjavur Maratha kingdom|Tore]] and [[Nawab of the Carnatic|Arcot]] (1855) under the terms of the doctrine of lapse. [[Awadh State|Awadh]] (1856) is widely believed to have been annexed under the Doctrine of Lapse. However, it was annexed by Lord 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 by this doctrine.<ref name="wolpert">[[Stanley Wolpert|Wolpert, Stanley]]. ''A New History of India''; 3rd ed., pp. 226-28. Oxford University Press, 1989. However, </ref> Udaipur State would have local rule reinstated by the EIC in 1860.<ref>[http://www.indianrajputs.com/view/udaipur_mp Rajput Provinces of India - Udaipur (Princely State)]</ref>

With the increasing power of the East India Company, discontent simmered among many sections of Indian society, included [[Military discharge|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.<ref>Wolpert (1989), p. 240.</ref>

The princely state of [[Kittur]] ruled by [[Kittur Chennamma|Queen Chennamma]] was taken over by the East India Company in 1824 by imposing a 'doctrine of lapse'. So it is debatable whether it was devised by Lord Dalhousie in 1848, though he arguably made it official by documenting it.

Dalhousie's annexations and the doctrine of lapse had caused suspicion and uneasiness among most ruling princes in India.

== Doctrine of lapse before Dalhousie ==

Dalhousie vigorously applied the lapse doctrine for annexing Indian princely states, but the policy was not solely his invention. The [[List of East India Company directors|Court of Directors]] of the East India Company had articulated this early in 1834.<ref>{{cite book | editor= S.N.Sen | title= History of Modern India | year= 2006 | publisher= New Age International (P) Ltd | isbn= 978-8122-41774-6 | pages= 50 }}</ref> As per this policy, the Company annexed [[Mandvi]] in 1839, [[Kolaba State|Kolaba]] and [[Jalaun State|Jalaun]] in 1840 and [[Surat]] in 1842.

==Impact of the Doctrine of Lapse==

The Doctrine of lapse was widely considered as illegitimate by many Indians. By 1848, the British had immense power in India since they were the De Facto rulers of territories such as [[Mysore district|Mysore]], [[Bengal]], [[Odisha]], [[Bihar]], as well as the princely states of [[Rajasthan]], [[Sindh|Sind]], [[Patiala]], [[Carnatic Sultanate|Carnatic]], [[Mumbai|Bombay]], [[Nabha]], [[Kapurthala|Kapurtala]] and many others.<ref>{{Buist, George. “[http://www.indianculture.gov.in/rarebooks/annals-india-year-1848 Annals of India for the Year 1848].” Indian Culture, 1849.}}</ref>

Thus, the rulers of the remaining provinces which had not been annexed yet by the British did not stand a chance against their mighty forces. Not willing to spend huge amounts of money and soldiers, the Indian rulers had no option but to give in to this policy. This caused increased resentment against the [[British Raj|British Empire in India]], which was one of the causes of the [[Uprising of 1857]].<ref>Swan, O. B. (2020). Inspired History - Class 8. ORIENT BLACK SWAN.</ref>

==Princely states annexed under the doctrine==

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+
!Princely State
!Year Annexed
|-
|Angul
|1848
|-
|[[Arcot State|Arcot]]
|1855
|-
|[[Awadh State|Awadh]]
|1856
|-
|[[Colonial Assam|Assam]]
|1838
|-
|[[Banda State]]
|1858
|-
|[[Guler State|Guler]]
|1813
|-
|[[Jaintia State]]
|1803
|-
|[[Jaitpur State|Jaitpur]]
|1849
|-
|[[Jalaun State|Jalaun]]
|1840
|-
|[[Jaswan State|Jaswan]]
|1849
|-
|[[Jhansi State|Jhansi]]
|1853
|-
|[[Kachari kingdom|Kachar]]
|1830
|-
|[[Kangra State|Kangra]]
|1846
|-
|[[Kannanur State]]
|1819
|-
|[[Kittur]]
|1824
|-
|[[Kodagu Kingdom|Kodagu]]
|1834
|-
|[[Kozhikode]] (Calicut)
|1806
|-
|[[Ballabhgarh]]
|1858
|-
|[[Kullu State]]
|1846
|-
|[[Kurnool]]
|1839
|-
|[[Kutlehar State|Kutlehar]]
|1825
|-
|[[Makrai State|Makrai]]
|1890
|-
|[[Nagpur State|Nagpur]]
|1853
|-
|[[Nargund State]]
|1858
|-
|[[Punjab State|Punjab]]
|1849
|-
|[[Ramgarh State]]
|1858
|-
|[[Sambalpur State|Sambalpur]]
|1850
|-
|[[Satara State|Satara]]
|1848
|-
|[[Surat]]
|1842
|-
|[[Siba State|Siba]]
|1849
|-
|[[Thanjavur Maratha kingdom|Tanjore]]
|1855
|-
|[[Tulsipur State|Tulsipur]]
|1854
|-
|[[Udaipur State|Udaipur]]
|1852
|}

==In independent India==

After Indian independence in 1947, the Indian government continued to recognize the status of former princely families though their states had been integrated into India. Members of the former ruling families were granted monetary compensation in the form of privy purses, which were annual payments in support of the grantees, their families, and their households. In 1947, [[Vallabhbhai Patel|Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel]] proposed the unity of India under the government's rule.

In 1964, Maharaja [[Rajendra Prakash of Sirmur]], the last recognized former ruler of [[Sirmur State]], died without either leaving male issue or adopting an heir before his death, though his senior widow subsequently adopted her daughter's son as the successor to the family headship. The Indian government, however, decided that in consequence of the ruler's death, the constitutional status of the family had lapsed. The doctrine of lapse was likewise invoked the following year when the last recognized ruler of [[Akalkot State]] died in similar circumstances.<ref name="succession">{{cite report |date=1967 |title=Succession to the Gaddis of Sirmur and Akalkot |url=https://www.abhilekh-patal.in/jspui/handle/123456789/1785392 |url-access=registration |publisher=Government of India |page= |access-date=13 September 2021}}</ref>

==See also==

*[[Escheat]]
*[[List of princely states of India]]
*[[Presidencies and provinces of British India]]

== References ==

<references />
{{Princely states annexed by British India}}

[[Category:History of the British Empire]]
[[Category:History of India]]
[[Category:Legal history of India]]
[[Category:Indian Rebellion of 1857]]
[[Category:Princely states of India]]
[[Category:Annexation]]

Doctrine of lapse - Revision history

UpdateBot at 13:29, 12 June 2022