Editing Doctrine of lapse

{{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]] for the [[princely state]]s, 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]]. 

The policy is associated with [[James Broun-Ramsay, 1st Marquess of Dalhousie]].

Elements of the doctrine of lapse continued to be applied by the post-independence [[Government of India|Indian government]] to derecognise individual princely families until 1971, when the recognition of former ruling families was discontinued under the 25th amendment to the Indian constitution by the [[Indira Gandhi]] government.

== Doctrine ==
According to the doctrine, any Indian princely state under the [[suzerainty]] of the East India Company, the dominant imperial power in the Indian system of [[subsidiary alliance]]s, would have its princely status abolished, and therefore be annexed into directly ruled 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> This 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>

The policy is most commonly associated with [[James Andrew Broun-Ramsay, 1st Marquess of Dalhousie|Dalhousie]], who was the East India Company's [[Governor-General of India]] of [[Company rule in India|British India]] between 1848 and 1856. However, the doctrine was articulated by the Court of Directors of the Company as early as 1834, 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://books.google.com/books?id=f0VnzMelzm8C |access-date=5 June 2022 |language=en}}</ref>

By the use of the doctrine of lapse, the Company took over the princely states of [[Satara State|Satara]] (1848), [[Jaitpur State|Jaitpur]], [[Sambalpur State|Sambalpur]] (1849), [[Baghal State|Baghal]] (1850), Udaipur (Chhattisgarh State) (1852), [[Jhansi State|Jhansi]] (1854), [[Nagpur State|Nagpur]] (1854), [[Thanjavur Maratha kingdom|Tanjore]] and [[Nawab of the Carnatic|Arcot]] (1855). [[Awadh State|Awadh]] (1856) is widely believed to have been annexed under the doctrine, but in fact was annexed by 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., Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 226–228.</ref> However, Udaipur State would later have local princely rule reinstated in 1860.

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>

=== Doctrine of lapse before Dalhousie ===
Dalhousie vigorously applied the lapse doctrine for annexing Indian princely states, but the policy was not solely his invention.<ref name=Sen>{{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>

The princely state of [[Kittur]], ruled by [[Kittur Chennamma]] (the queen at the time), was taken over by the East India Company in 1824, when after the death of her husband and son she adopted a new son and attempted to make him heir to the throne, which the British refused to accept. This development has similarities with the later 'doctrine of lapse', which the [[List of East India Company directors|Court of Directors]] of the East India Company articulated early in 1834.<ref name=Sen/> As per this policy, the Company annexed [[Mandvi]] in 1839, [[Colaba State|Colaba]] and [[Jalaun State|Jalaun]] in 1840, and [[Surat]] in 1842.

== The impact of the doctrine of lapse ==
The doctrine of lapse was widely considered illegitimate by many Indians. By 1848, the British had immense power in India, since they were the ''de facto'' direct rulers of territories such as the [[Madras Presidency|Madras]], [[Bombay Presidency|Bombay]], and [[Bengal Presidency|Bengal]] Presidencies, [[Assam Province|Assam]], [[Mysore district|Mysore]], and the [[Punjab Province (British India)|Punjab]], as well as the indirect rulers of princely states of [[Rajputana Agency|Rajputana]], [[Khairpur (princely state)|Sindh]], [[Patiala State|Patiala]], the [[Carnatic Sultanate|Carnatic]], and many others.<ref>{{cite book|last=Buist|first=George|url=http://www.indianculture.gov.in/rarebooks/annals-india-year-1848|title=Annals of India for the Year 1848|publisher=Indian Culture, 1849.}}</ref>

Most of the rulers of the remaining states which had not yet been annexed by the British were in a weak position against their mighty forces. Not willing to spend huge amounts of money and soldiers, the Indian rulers had little option but to give in to this policy. This caused increased resentment against the British Empire in India, and 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
|-
|[[Ahom Kingdom|Assam]]
|1838
|-
|[[Banda State|Banda]]
|1858
|-
|[[Guler State|Guler]]
|1813
|-
|Jaintia
|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 
|1819
|-
|Kittur
|1824
|-
|[[Ballabhgarh State|Ballabhgarh]]
|1858
|-
|Kullu 
|1846
|-
|[[Kurnool State|Kurnool]]
|1839
|-
|[[Kutlehar State|Kutlehar]]
|1825
|-
|[[Kingdom of Nagpur|Nagpur]]
|1853
|-
|[[Sikh Empire|Punjab]]
|1849
|-
|Ramgarh 
|1858
|-
|[[Sambalpur State|Sambalpur]]
|1849
|-
|[[Satara State|Satara]]
|1848
|-
|Surat
|1842
|-
|[[Siba State|Siba]]
|1849
|-
|[[Thanjavur Maratha kingdom|Tanjore]]
|1855
|-
|[[Tulsipur State|Tulsipur]]
|1854
|-
|[[Udaipur State, Chhattisgarh|Udaipur]]
|1852
|}

==In independent India==

In late 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, although 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 [[Akkalkot 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:Legal history of India]]
[[Category:Indian Rebellion of 1857]]
[[Category:Princely states]]
[[Category:Annexation]]