Page 74 - DHIS204_DHIS205_INDIAN_FREEDOM_STRUGGLE_HINDI

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

In 1848 Colonel Sleeman was sent as Resident to Lucknow: Sleeman wrote lengthy reports about Notes
the prevalence of misgovernment in Oudh. Colonel Sleeman, however, did not favour annexation
but favoured increasing control of the administration through European agency. He wrote: “Were
we...to annex or confiscate Oudh or any part of it, our good name in India would undoubtedly
suffer; and that good name is more valuable to us than a dozen Oudhs... Here the giant’s strength
is manifest, and we cannot ‘use it like a giant’ without suffering in the estimation of all India”. In
1854 Sleeman was replaced by Outram. Outram also reported that the administration in Oudh
was rotten and the lot of the people was miserable. Three possible courses were debated in the
Governor-General’s Council, viz.,
1. To force the Nawab to abdicate and annex the state;
2. To retain the Nawab and his dignity, but to take all actual administration of the state into the
hands of the Company for ever; and
3. The British Resident at Lucknow to assume charge of actual administration for a limited time.
The general opinion in the Governor-General’s Council was in favour of annexation. Properly
tutored by the exaggerated reports of Dalhousie, the Court of Directors gave their verdict in
favour of annexation and ordered Lord Dalhousie to accomplish the task before laying down his
office. Dalhousie acted with promptitude. He asked Nawab Wajid Ali Shah to sign the abdication.
On his refusal, the state was annexed by a proclamation on February 13,1856. Dalhousie’s
justification was: “The British Government would be guilty in the sight of God and man. If it were
any longer to aid in sustaining by its countenance an administration fraught with suffering to
millions”. Some Conservative Direetors of the Company had serious misgivings about the wisdom
of this policy. A censure motion was brought in the General Court of the East India Company which
described the annexation of Oudh as one of the worst example of Indian spoliation in the history of
British rule in India. John Shepherd, a Director of the Company, commented that the annexation
would be ‘as liable to destroy the liberties of Indians so as to promote their rights and welfare.
Indian opinion regarded the annexation of Oudh as a gross violation of material faith’ and
unwarranted by international law. Some writers have described this annexation as Dacoitee in Excelsis.
6.2 Lord Dalhousie’s Reforms

Administrative Reforms: Several reforms touching almost every department of administration
were introducted by Lord Dalhousie. This great imperialist took care to consolidate the gains of
the East India Company. To relieve the Governor-General for his wider responsibilities, Bengal
was placed under the charge of a Lieutenant-Governor. For the newly acquired territories, he
introduced the system of centralised control. This was known as ‘Non Regulation’ system. Under
this system he appointed a Commissioner over a newly acquired territory who was made directly
responsible to the Governor-General.
Military Reforms: Dalhousie’s annexations had extended British India from Bengal in the east to
the Panjab and Sind in the west. The dreams of an Asiatic Kingdom had been realised. A strategic
control of these extensive areas necessitated better distribution of the troops. Thus the headquarters
of the Bengal Artillery were shifted from Calcutta to Meerut, the permanent headquarters of the
army were gradually shifted to Simla and this process was completed in 1865. The hill station of
Simla grew increasingly important and became the seat of the Government of India for a major
part of the year.
Dalhousie foresaw danger in the great numerical increase of the Indian army particularly during
the Second Anglo-Sikh War. He proposed reduction in the strength of the Indian element in the
army which despite some reduction stood at 2,23,000 men in 1856, as against 45,000 Europeans.
He impressed upon the Home authorities the necessity of increasing the strength of European
soldiers in India so that an equipoise could be kept between the British and Indian troops. He
described the European force in India “as the essential element of our strength.” Three regiments
were added to the army. He protested against the despatch of two European regiments for service
to China and Persia.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 69