TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION
LORD DALHOUSIE:
 Early career:
 Arrival in India:
HISTORY OF DOCTRIN OF LAPES:
OPPOSITION TO THE DOCTRINE:
CAUSES AND EFFECTS:
 Causes:
 Effects:
POLICY OF “LAPSE” AND ANNEXATION:
WESTERNIZATION OF INDIA:
INDEPENDENT INDIA:
IMPORTANT FEATURES OF THE DOCTRINE OF LAPSE :
STATES ANNEXED UNDER DOCTRINE OF LAPSE:

CONCLUSION
 INTRODUCTION
The Doctrine of Lapse was an annexation policy put forth by
the British to expand their empire in India until 1859. It deals
with the rules related to questions on the succession of
the Indian princely states. This annexation policy was
introduced in India by Lord Dalhousie. The Doctrine of Lapse
was in force till 1859, even two years after the end of the
Company’s rule in India. Some of the elements of this
Doctrine were used by the Indian Government in the post-
independence period to recognize the individual princely
families.
The doctrine of lapse was mainly a narrative of the rules of
succession for the Indian Hindu princely states. As the East
India Company was largely influenced and controlled by the
British then, all the decisions related to the succession of a
kingdom were to be run through the British government.
The doctrine of lapse policy was majorly a product of the
‘lapse of paramountcy’, closely followed by the British rulers
while ruling over India. Lord Dalhousie believed that Western
rule was much more effective than Eastern rule and, therefore,
should be enforced wherever possible.
LORD DALHOUSIE:
Dalhousie (born April 22, 1812, Dalhousie Castle, Midlothian, Scot.
—died Dec. 19, 1860, Dalhousie Castle) was a British governor-
general of India from 1847 to 1856, who is accounted the creator both
of the map of modern India, through his conquests and annexations of
independent provinces, and of the centralized Indian state. So radical
were Dalhousie’s changes and so widespread the resentment they
caused that his policies were frequently held responsible for
the Indian Mutiny in 1857, one year after his retirement.

Early career:
Dalhousie was the third son of George Ramsay, the 9th Earl of
Dalhousie. His family had traditions of military and public service
but, by the standards of the day, had not accumulated great wealth,
and, consequently, Dalhousie was often troubled by financial worries.
Small in stature, he also suffered from a number of physical
infirmities. Throughout his life he derived energy and satisfaction
from the thought that he was achieving public success in spite of
private handicaps.

After an undistinguished career as an undergraduate at Christ Church,

Oxford, he married Lady Susan Hay in 1836 and entered Parliament
the following year. From 1843 he served as vice president, and from
1845 as president, of the Board of Trade in the Tory (conservative)
ministry of Sir Robert Peel. In that office he handled a number
of railroad problems and gained a reputation for
administrative efficiency. He lost his post when Peel resigned in
1846. In the following year he accepted the new Whig ministry’s
offer of the governor-general ship of India, becoming the youngest
man ever appointed to that post.

Arrival in India:
When Dalhousie arrived in India in January 1848, the country seemed
peaceful. Only two years earlier, however, the army of the Punjab, an
independent state founded by the religious and military sect of
the Sikhs, had precipitated a war that the British had won only with
great difficulty. The discipline and economy enforced by the new
Sikh regime, sponsored by the British, aroused discontent, and in
April 1848 a local rebellion broke out at Multan. This was the first
serious problem faced by Dalhousie. Local officers urged immediate
action, but he delayed, and Sikh disaffection spread throughout the
Punjab. In November 1848 Dalhousie dispatched British troops, and,
after several British victories, the Punjab was annexed in 1849.

Dalhousie’s critics maintained that he had allowed a local rebellion to

grow into a national uprising so that he could annex the Punjab. But
the commander in chief of
the British army had warned him against precipitate action. Certainly,
the steps Dalhousie eventually took were somewhat irregular; the
uprising at Multan had been directed not against the British but
against policies of the Sikh government. In any event, he was created
marquess for his efforts.

HISTORY OF DOCTRIN OF LAPES:

The doctrine of lapse was an acquisition strategy adopted by the East
India Company within the Indian subcontinent, addressing princely
states in 1859. The stated reason for this policy was that the rulers of
these states were not doing enough to protect their people from
“external aggression and internal rebellion”. This policy was applied
until 1859, two years after Company rule was succeeded by the
British Raj.
The doctrine of lapse was first applied in the state of Satara in 1848
when its ruler died without a male heir. The East India Company then
annexed the state, because its ruler had failed to protect his people
from external aggression. This set a precedent for other states, and
over the next decade, the Company annexed several princely states on
similar grounds.
OPPOSITION TO THE DOCTRINE:
Not everyone was in favour of the doctrine of lapse. Many Indian
rulers saw it as a way for the East India Company to gain more
territory, and they were not willing to give up their power without a
fight. In 1857, a group of Indian rulers formed a secret society called
the “Sepoy Mutiny” to overthrow the East India Company. This
uprising was unsuccessful, but it did lead to the end of the doctrine of
lapse.
In 1859, the British government took over the rule of India from the
East India Company. Two years later, the doctrine of lapse was
officially abolished. However, the damage had already been done.
The policy had alienated many Indian rulers, and it was one of the
factors that led to the outbreak of the Indian Rebellion of 1857.

CAUSES AND EFFECTS:

Causes:
The doctrine of lapse was caused by several factors. The East India
Company was seeking to expand its territory and increase its
revenues. At the same time, there was a growing belief in Britain that
it was the country’s destiny to rule the world. This belief led to a
desire to annex any territory that appeared to be weak or unstable.
In addition, the East India Company was facing financial difficulties.
It needed to increase its revenues to pay its debts and fund its
operations. The doctrine of lapse was seen as a way to achieve this
goal.
The British government's forceful seizure or annexation of the Indian
states under the doctrine of lapse was looked down upon by the Indian
rulers. It was made to appear as an administrative decision but was a
secret mission for Dalhousie to gain more power over the Indian
territory. It also had major effects later. Causes behind the Doctrine of
Lapse Policy The doctrine of lapse was put forward as an
administrative decision during the British raj in India. There were
several reasons behind this move of Lord Dalhousie & the East India
Company, such as
• The hidden motive of the East India Company & Lord Dalhousie
was to gain more power & increase their territory.
• It was directly proportional to the British government's increased
revenue.
• The doctrine of lapse policy was a solution to the ever-increasing
debts of the East India Company and for fulfilling the requirement of
funds for various other purposes.
• This move appeared as a corrective measure for the princely states
that did not have a proper heir to the throne or appeared to be
incompetent.

Effects:
The impact of the doctrine of lapse was far-reaching. It led to the
annexation of numerous princely states like Satara, Jhansi, and
Nagpur, which increased the size and power of the East India
Company. It also led to a significant increase in company revenues.
But there was also a lot of controversy about the policy. Numerous
Indians viewed it as an act of imperialism, while numerous British
authorities disapproved of it. The policy was eventually repealed in
1859 as a result of the dispute. Still, the idea of lapse had a lasting
effect that is still evident in modern India.
The "doctrine of lapse" annexation policy has a number of detrimental
and far-reaching consequences. Due to the East India Company's
expanded authority and control over Indian land, the Indian kings
fiercely opposed this approach. The doctrine of lapse had some
notable side effects.
• Firstly, the policy enforcement led to several states' heavy
annexation.
• The acquisition of the princely Indian states led to an increase in the
territory, revenue, and power of the East India Company.
• The states annexed by the doctrine of lapse lost their freedom to
operate and eventually converted into British colonies.
• The policy also led to heavy resentment among the Indian princes of
all the states, eventually leading to a major outbreak of Indian mutiny
and the revolt that followed.
• The adopted son of the famous Jhansi ki rani was also denied
succession to the throne which led to a major fallout.

POLICY OF “LAPSE” AND

ANNEXATION:
Dalhousie also took advantage of every opportunity to acquire
territory by peaceful means. The East India Company, which was no
longer an independent corporation but largely under the control of the
British government, was rapidly becoming the predominant power in
India. It had concluded alliances with Indian rulers, promising to
support them and their heirs in return for various concessions,
including the right to keep a British resident and a military force
within their states. Although this type of agreement gave the British
an effective influence over general policy, Dalhousie sought to
acquire even more power. It was customary for a ruler without a
natural heir to ask the British government whether he could adopt a
son to succeed him. Dalhousie concluded that if such permission were
refused, the state would “lapse” and thereby become part of the
British possessions. On these grounds, Satra was annexed in 1848
and Jhansi and Nagpur in 1854. Dalhousie maintained that there was a
difference in principle between the right to inherit private property
and the right to govern, but his main argument was his own belief in
the benefits of British rule.

His annexation of Oudh in 1856, however, entailed grave political

danger. Here there was no question of lack of heirs; the nawab (ruler)
was simply accused of misgovernment, and the state was annexed
against his will. The transfer of power over the nawab’s protests
offended the Muslim elite. More dangerous was the effect on
the British army’s Indian troops, many of whom came from Oudh,
where they had occupied a privileged position before its annexation.
Under the British government, however, they were treated as equals
with the rest of the population, which represented a loss of prestige.
Moreover, after Dalhousie’s departure in 1856, the
landed aristocracy of Oudh lost many of its privileges. In these
various ways, the annexation of Oudh contributed to the mutiny and
rebellion of the following year.

WESTERNIZATION OF INDIA:
Dalhousie’s energy extended beyond the mere acquisition of
territories. His greatest achievement was the moulding of these
provinces into a modern centralized state. His confidence in Western
institutions and his ability as an administrator immediately led him to
attend to the development of
a communication and transportation system. He gave much attention
to the planning of the first railways. Drawing on the knowledge he
had acquired in London at the Board of Trade, he laid the foundation
of future railway development, outlining the basic concept of trunk
and branch lines and making provisions to safeguard both the railway
workers and the property owners affected by railway construction. He
planned and instituted a network of electric telegraph lines, promoted
the completion of the Grand Trunk Road between Calcutta and Delhi
and its extension into the Punjab, and instituted a centralized postal
system, based on a low uniform rate paid in advance by the purchase
of stamps, thus replacing a variety of methods characterized by
uncertainty of delivery and high rates. His social reforms included
strong support for the suppression of female infanticide in the Punjab
and in the northwest generally and the suppression of human
sacrifice among the hill tribes of Orissa. Besides encouraging the use
of the vernacular languages in schools, he gave particular
encouragement to the education of girls.

He left India in 1856, and the controversies aroused by his policy of

annexation, which were widely—and justly—criticized as
contributory factors to the mutiny and rebellion of 1857,
overshadowed his achievements in modernization. Exhausted by his
years of overwork in India, he died in 1860. His marquessate became
extinct.

INDEPENDENT INDIA:
The doctrine of lapse was not an issue during the British Raj, as the
policy was abandoned in 1859. However, the annexation of princely
states continued unabated during the British Raj. In 1947, when India
became independent, there were over 560 princely states. These states
were legally autonomous, but in practice, they were under the control
of the British Raj. The Indian government annexed most of these
princely states in 1947-48 because they were not viable and could not
be defended. The last princely state to be annexed was Hyderabad, in
1948.

IMPORTANT FEATURES OF THE

DOCTRINE OF LAPSE:
The doctrine of lapse was majorly looked upon as an imperialistic
approach by the Indian rulers. They did not favour this policy as it
assigned more power to the British government. The key features of
the doctrine of lapse were as follows:
• The doctrine of lapse policy applied to the states that did not have a
competent ruler or a legal heir to the throne.
• It automatically implied the removal of the princely status of the
states and coming under the control of Lord Dalhousie and his
administration.
• The Doctrine of Lapse policy asserted that if a state does not have a
legal heir, it has to seek permission from the British government to
adopt a son for succession to the throne.
 • The British government had the right to deny a son's adoption for
succession outright.
• It was advertised that the doctrine of lapse was based on Hindu law,
but that was not the case, unfortunately. The Hindu law permitted the
adoption of a son for succession, but the annexation policy did not
favour it.
• According to this doctrine policy, the adopted son will also not be
entitled to any kind of benefits, including the pension and titles that
his father might have received earlier.
• Nana Sahib, the adopted son of Maratha Peshwa Baji Rao II, was
also denied his father’s pension and titles.

STATES ANNEXED UNDER DOCTRINE

OF LAPSE:
The ‘doctrine of lapse’ by Lord Dalhousie aimed at regulating the
succession of Indian princely status and bringing it under the control
of the East India Company. It aimed to annex the states that did not
have a competent ruler or an immediate legal heir. Satara was the first
state annexed under the doctrine of lapse in 1848 as the state's ruler
died, and no male heir was present. Here is a list of the states annexed
by the doctrine of lapse.

States Annexed by Doctrine of Year of Annexation

Lapse
Satara 1848
Jaitpur 1849
Sambalpur 1849
Baghat 1850
Udaipur 1852
Jhansi 1853
Nagpur 1854

CONCLUSION
The British Empire adopted the idea of lapse as a strategy of
annexation in India. Any region that was not directly ruled by the
British would inevitably become a part of the empire, according to
this policy. Hyderabad and Junagadh were two of the many Indian
states that were absorbed into the British Raj as a result. The policy
was eventually dropped in 1948, but not before years of protests and
rallies by Indian civilians; yet, it remained a crucial aspect of Indian
history.
The Doctrine of Lapse, which was perceived as an annexation
strategy by the British Empire, held that any region that was not
directly governed by the British would inevitably become part of the
empire and be annexed by the British, including Hyderabad and
Junagadh. The policy was eventually abandoned in 1948, but
remained pivotal for Indian history.
REFERENCE:
 https://unacademy.com/content/upsc/study-material/modern-
indian-history/doctrine-of-lapse/
 https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/doctrine-of-
lapse-meaning-objective-its-impact-1443009076-1
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_lapse