Page 76 - DHIS204_DHIS205_INDIAN_FREEDOM_STRUGGLE_HINDI

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

As a result of the findings of an expert commission, a new Post Office Act was passed in 1854. Notes
Under the new system a Director-General was appointed to superintend the work of Post Offices
in all the Presidencies; a uniform rate of half an anna per letter, irrespective of the distance over
which it might be sent, was introduced; postage stamps were issued for the first time. As a result
of these reforms the Post Office which had so far been a drain on the treasury became a source of
revenue. The social, administrative, financial and educational developments resultant from the
extension and improvement of this system speak volumes for Dalhousie’s desire for promoting
the material progress of India.
Public Works Department: Before Lord Dalhousie the construction of Public Works had been a
part of the job of the Military Board. A separate Public Works Department was set up for the first
time and large amount of funds began to be spent on works of public utility. Irrigational works
were undertaken on an extensive scale. The main stream of the Ganges Canal was completed and
declared open on April 8,1854; the Ganges Canal was described ‘as a work which stands unequalled
in its class and character among the efforts of civilised nations’. Construction work connected with
the Bari Doab Canal in the Panjab was taken in hand. Many bridges were constructed and the
work on the Grand Trunk Road was taken up with more enthusiasm.
Commercial Reforms: Ports of India were thrown open to the commerce of the world. Free-trade
principles were becoming a passion with Englishmen of the mid-nineteeth century. The harbours
of Karachi, Bombay and Calcutta were developed and a large number of light-houses were
constructed.
Indian agriculture received special attention. The digging of canals, the development of railway
facilities and construction of works of public utility ushered in a new commercial era. Indian
resources particularly of cotton, flax and tea were developed to supply raw material for the mills
of Lancashire and Manchester, importing in return cheap manufactured goods from England.
Indian trade began to be more and more dominated by Englishmen.
Dalhousie’s Responsibility for the Revolt of 1857: A storm had been gathering in India for a
number of years. It burst out in 1857, a year after Lord Dalhousie left India. Dalhousie’s policy,
however, justified and legitimate it might have been, had caused great disquietude among the
Indian Princes. The Ruling Princes, in the words of V. A. Smith, “knew nothing about subtle
distinctions of ‘dependent’ and ‘subordinate’ states.....They simply saw that principality after
principality was escheated and annexed for one reason or another, so that no ruler of a native state
felt safe.....the pace was too fast and the cumulative effect of the transactions was profoundly
unsettling”. The Doctrine of Lapse disregarded the customs and prejudices of the Indian people.
It broke away from precedents and gave new interpretations to outdated and outmoded doctrines.
V. A. Smith blames Lord Dalhousie for lack of foresight. Smith writes: “The outgoing Governor-
General certainly had not the slightest prevision of the storm that was to break the next year in
May, and had not made any arrangements to meet it... he must share with his predecessors the
censure due for permitting the continuance of a most dangerous military situation in India. He
had not taken any precautions to protect the enormous store of munitions at Delhi, which was left
in the hands of the native army, or to secure the essential strategical position of Allahabad.
Whatever thought was devoted to military preparation in India was directed to the Panjab.
Everywhere else the old haphazard distribution of the troops continued and nobody in authority,
military or civil, seems to have realized the obvious perils incurred”. T. R. Holmes absolves
Dalhousie of reponsibility for the weak military condition of the East India Company and blames
the Commander-in-Chief for his failure to remedy the indiscipline in the army and for his neglect
to safeguard Delhi and Allahabad. T. R. Holmes, on the other hand, believes that the rebellion that
broke out in Oudh was “due not to annexation, but to the harshness with which the Talukdars
were treated”; the excesses committed in Jhansi are attributed “to the failure of Havelock’s earlier
attempts to relieve the Residency.” Holmes credits Dalhousie for his wise policy and constructive
administrative work and says: “By the construction of roads and telegraphs, and by the
administration which he bestowed upon the Panjab, he contributed much to the power by which
the Mutiny was quelled.”

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 71