Page 72 - DHIS204_DHIS205_INDIAN_FREEDOM_STRUGGLE_HINDI

Unit 6: Reforms of Lord Dalhousie: Doctrine of Lapse and Administrative Reforms

was annexed in 1849. Notes
Jhansi: The Raja of Jhansi had been originally a vassal of the Peshwa. After the defeat of Baji Rao
II, Lord Hastings in 1818 had concluded a treaty with Rao Ramchand, constituting “him, his heirs
and successors” hereditary rulers of the territory on terms of ‘subordinate co-operation’. After the
death of the Raja in 1835, the East India Company recognised a grand-uncle, Raghunath Rao, to
succeed to the principality. The old Raja died a few years later. Another successor Gangadhar Rao,
from the royal family, was recognised in 1838. In November 1853 the ruler died without leaving
a male heir and the state was declared escheat. The claims of the adopted son were disregarded.
Nagpur: This large Maratha state comprised an area of 80,000 square miles. In 1817 Lord Hastings
had recognised an infant descendant of the Bhonsle family, Raghuji III as the Raja. The British
Resident, Sir Richard Jenkins, acted as the Regent for ten years till 1830, when the boy came of age
and the administration was transferred to him. The Raja died in 1853 without adopting an heir to
the throne. The claims of the Rani to adopt a son were set aside and the state was annexed. The
personal possessions of the late Raja were declared to be ‘fairly at the disposal of the Government’
on the plea that those were purchased out of state revenues. Then followed the spoliations of the
Nagpur Palace, the sale by auction of the jewels and furniture of the Bhonsle’s palace, a sum of £
200,000 being realised by the ignominious sale.
Observations on the Doctrine of Lapse:
1. During the rise and expansion of the British domination in India, the East India Company from
time to time had given assurances that not only the rights and privileges of the Indians but
their laws, habits, customs and prejudices would be respected. The right of adoption has
always been a great religious ceremony and greatly prized by the Hindus. Under the Mughals
and the Peshwas the recognition of the supreme power was usually obtained by the payment
of a nazrana or succession duty. Lord Dalhousie revived an obsolete custom and used it for
imperial purposes. The Doctrine of Lapse, like the taxation during the personal rule’ of Charles
I, was the revival of a feudal law and looked like an ‘act of spoliation under the garb of
legality’.
2. The line of demarcation between ‘dependent states’ and ‘protected allies’ was very thin and
amounted to hair splitting. In any case of disputed interpretation the decision of the East India
Company was binding and that of the Court of Directors final. There was no supreme court to
give impartial verdict on the questions of right and wrong.
3. Lord Dalhousie broke with precedent and was on many occasions guided by imperial
considerations. Even Lee-Warner admits that with regard to Satara and Nagpur “imperial
considerations weighed with him... they were placed right across the main lines of
communication between Bombay and Madras and Bombay and Calcutta.”
4. The Court of Directors withheld their sanction to the annexation of Karauli on the ground that
the state was a ‘protected ally’ and not a ‘dependent state.’ Similarly, Baghat and Udaipur were
returned to their respective rulers by Lord Canning.
Dalhousie was an annexationist. He applied the Doctrine of Lapse to achieve his aggressive ends.
Where the ‘doctrine of lapse’ could not be applied, as in the case of Oudh, he annexed it on the
pretext of ‘good of the governed’. Rulers of Indian states believed that their states were annexed
not by the applicaton of the Doctrine of Lapse, but due to the ‘lapse of all morals’ on the part of the
East India Company. “ Whatever might have been the facts”, writes P. E. Roberts, “the natives did
undoubtely believe that the existence of all native principalities was threatened” and the extinction
of all states was regarded to be a question of time only. Actions were conclusive proof of Dalhousie’s
intentions. In fact, Dalhousie’s Doctrine of Lapse was a part of his imperialist policy and was
based on the old doctrine of ‘Might is Right’.
Abolition of Titles and Pensions: Some titular sovereignties were swept away. After the death of
the Nawab ofCarnatic in 1853, Dalhousie concurred with the Madras authorities in not recognising
anyone as his successor. This decision of the Governor-General was partially reversed in 1867. The
Raja of Tanjore died in 1855, survived by two daughters and sixteen widows. The regal title was

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 67