DALHOUSIE’S DOCTRINE OF LAPSE

 The doctrine of Lapse – Annexations of Peace

No account of Dalhousie’s work of imperial consolidation can be complete without the mention of the Doctrine of Lapse. Some important Indian states were annexed by the enforcement of the Doctrine. The Doctrine of Lapse can be better understood in the context of Dalhousie’s declared conviction that the old system of ruling through ‘sham royalties’ and ‘artificial intermediate powers’ resulted in the misery of the people. In fact, his logical and straight Scottish mentality wanted to tear the mask of Mughal sovereignty and dispossess Indian Princes who pretended to be descendants of the Mughals.

According to Dalhousie there were three categories of Hindu states in those days in India:

I - Those states which were not tributary and which were not and never had been subordinate to a paramount power.

II - Hindu prices and chieftains which were tributary and owed subordination to the British government as their paramount power in place of the Emperor of Delhi or the Peshwa, etc.

III - Hindu sovereignties and states which had been created or revived by the sanads (grants) of the British government.

Reviewing his policy in 1854, Lord Dalhousie explained that ‘in states covered by class I we have no right to their adoptions. In class II the rulers have to require our assent to adoption, which we have a right to refuse, but which policy would usually lead us to concede. In the principalities of the III class I hold that succession should never be allowed to go by adoption’.

The East India Company had acquired the position of supreme power in India after the fall of the Mughal emperor and the defeat of the Maratha Confederacy. Dalhousie maintained that ‘the British government in the exercise of a wise and sound policy is bound not to put aside or neglect such rightful opportunities of acquiring territory or revenue as may from time to time present themselves, whether they arise from the lapse of subordinate states by the failure of all heirs of every description whatsoever, or from the failure of heirs natural where the succession can be sustained only by the sanction of the government being given to the ceremony of adoption, according to Hindu law’.

Dalhousie recognized the right of the adopted son to succeed to the personal property of the chieftain but drew a distinction between succession to private property and succession to the royal ‘gaddi’ in the latter case, he held, that the sanction of the Paramount power must be obtained. The Paramount Power could refuse ‘adoption’ in case of states covered by categories II and III and declare the states having passed back or ‘lapsed’ to the supreme authority. In such cases the ‘Right of Adoption’ was substituted by the Paramount Powers Right of Lapse’. The Power that gives, it was agreed, could also rightfully take it away.

Dalhousie did not invent the doctrine. As early as 1834 the Court of Directors had laid down that in case of failure of lineal successors the permission ‘to adopt’ was in indulgence that ‘should be the exception, not the rule, and should not be granted but as a special mark of favor and approbation’. Few years later in 1841, the home authorities decided in favor of a uniform policy and directed the Governor General ‘to persevere in the one clear and direct course of abandoning no just and honorable accession of territory or revenue while all existing claims of right are at the same time scrupulously respected’. It was in pursuance of the policy thus laid down that Mandavi state was annexed in 1839, Kolaba and Jalaun in 1840 and the titular dignity of the Nawab of Surat abolished in 1842.

Dalhousie’s contribution was that he uniformly applied this Doctrine of Lse and did not ignore or neglect any opportunity in consolidating the territories of the East India Company. He steadily enforce the principles previously laid down. Mr. Innes has summed up the position thus: ‘His predecessors had acted on the general principle of avoiding annexation if it could be avoided; Dalhousie acted on the general principle of avoiding annexation if he could do so legitimately’. It may be added that the over zealous Governor General treated some states as ‘dependent principalities’ or ‘subordinate states’ which rightly were ‘protected allies’. Dalhousie’s decision, therefore, had to be reversed by the Court of Directors in case of the old Rajput state of Karauli.

The states actually annexed by the application of the Doctrie of Lapse under Lord Dalhousie were Satara (1848), Jaitpur and Sambalpur (1849), Bhagat (1850), Udaipur (1852), Jhansi (1853) and Nagpur (1854).

Satara – was the first Indian State to be annexed. In 18348 the Raja of Satara, Appa Sahib died without leaving a natural son. He had, however, adopted a son somedays before his death but without the consent of the East India Company. Lord Hastings after destroying the Maratha power in 1818 had conferred this principality of Satara on Pratap Singh, the representative of the house of Shivaji and in his ‘sons and heirs and successors’. In 1839, the Prince had been deposed and replaced by his brother Appa Sahib. The Bombay Council held by Sir George Clerk advised against the annexation. Lord Dalhousie decided to regard it as ‘dependent principality’ and declared the state annexed. The Court of Directors approved Dalhousie’s decision. In the House of Commons Joseph Hume described the annexation as a victory of ‘might over right’, but the House of Commons acquiesced in the annexation.

Sambhalpur – Raja Narayan Singh, the ruler of the state, died without adopting a son. The state was annexed in 1849.

Jhansi – The Raja of Jhansi had originally been a vassal of the Peshwa. After the defeat of Bajirao II, Lord Hasting in 1818 had concluded a treaty with Rao Ramchand, constituting ‘him, his heirs and successors’ hereditary rulers of the territory on terms of ‘subordinate cooperation’. After the death of the Raja in 1835, the East India Company recognized a grad 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 recognized 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 recognized an infant descendant of the Bhonsle family, Raghuji III as the Raja. The British resident, Sir Richard Jekins, 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 Bhosale’s palace, a sum of 200,000 pounds being realized by the ignominious sale.

Observations on the Doctrine of Lapse

During the rise and expansion of the British dominion 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’.

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.

Lord Dalhousie broke with precedent and was on many occasions guided by imperial considerations. Even Leo-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 Calcutta’.

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, Bhagat 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 application 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 undoubtedly believe that het existence of all native principalities was the 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’.