Unit 3

BY-BHUMIKA PRAJAPATI Lecture 10

 IMPERIALIST POLICIES

SUBSIDIARY DOCTRINE OF OTHER

ALLIANCE LAPSE POLICIES

1. POLICY OF RING FENCE

2. Policy of Subordinate Isolation [1813-1858]
3. Policy of subordinate union [1858-1935]
4. Policy of equal federation [1935-1947]

Subsidiary Alliance was basically a treaty between the British East India Company and the
Indian princely states, by virtue of which the Indian kingdoms lost their sovereignty to the
English. It also was a major process that led to the building of the British Empire in India. It
was framed by Lord Wellesley, the Governor-General of India from 1798 to 1805. It was
actually used for the first time by the French Governor-General Marquis Dupleix.

The Nawab of Awadh was the first ruler to enter into the subsidiary alliance with the British
after the Battle of Buxar. However, the Nizam of Hyderabad was the first to accept a well-
framed subsidiary alliance.

The British East India Company started an

outright war of non-intervention policy and the
assumption of the territories of previously
subordinated rulers to achieve political
aspiration i.e. bringing the Indian States within
the orbit of British power. The Subsidiary
Alliance System was “Non-Intervention
Policy” used by Lord Wellesley who was the
Governor-General (1798-1805) to establish the
British Empire in India. According to this system,
every ruler in India had to accept to pay a
subsidy to the British for the maintenance of the
British army. In return, the British would protect
them from their enemies which gave the British
enormous expansion.
Features of the Subsidiary Alliance Treaty

•The subsidiary alliance in India was planned by Lord Wellesley, but this term was
introduced by French Governor Dupleix.
•An Indian ruler entering into Subsidiary Alliance with the British had to dissolve his own
armed forces and accept British forces in his territory.
•He also had to pay for the British army’s maintenance. If he failed to make the payment, a
portion of his territory would be taken away and ceded to the British.
•In return, the British would protect the Indian state against any foreign attack or internal
revolt.
•The British promised non-interference in internal affairs of the Indian state but this was
rarely kept.
•The Indian state could not enter into any alliance with any other foreign power.
•He could also not employ any other foreign nationals other than Englishmen in his
service. And, if he were employing any, on the signing of the alliance, he had to
terminate them from his service. The idea was to curb the influence of the French.

•The Indian state could also not enter into any political connection with another
Indian state without British approval.

•The Indian ruler, thus, lost all powers in respect of foreign affairs and the military.

•He virtually lost all his independence and became a British ‘protectorate’.

•A British Resident was also stationed in the Indian Court.

Effects of the Subsidiary Alliance-

•As a result of Indian rulers disbanding their armies, many people were rendered unemployed.
•Many Indian states lost their independence and slowly, most parts of India were coming under
British control.
•The Nizam of Hyderabad was the first to accept the Subsidiary Alliance in 1798.
•Lord Clive also introduced the subsidiary system in Oudh and the Treaty of Allahabad was
signed where the British promised the Oudh territory from enemies like Marathas.

Order in which the Indian States entered into Subsidiary Alliances-

Hyderabad (1798)
Mysore (1799 – After Tipu Sultan was defeated in the Fourth Anglo-Mysore War)
Tanjore (1799)
Awadh (1801)
Peshwa (Marathas) (1802)
Scindia (Marathas) (1803)
Gaekwad (Marathas) (1803)
Doctrine of lapse was the pro-imperialist approach to expand the realm of British Kingdom
in India. It was introduced by Dalhousie.The Doctrine equipped with an idea to annex those
states which have no heir, get lapsed the right of ruling and it will not reverted by adoption.

Before AD1818, East India Company was act as mere trader not as Sovereign ruler but after
it they came with the ambition to control and rule the entire region of Indian State that was
started with ‘Subsidiary Alliance’ and now with ‘Doctrine of Lapse’. These policies were
adopted to control all the authority of state and make it British dominion state. The main
complication was started with those Indian state have no heir and according to the policy,
the state have lost their ruling rights because of no heir.

Features of Doctrine of Lapse-

Before the introduction of this doctrine, the princely states had a ritualised method of
adoption practised for centuries An heir apparent would eventually be selected from a pool
of candidates, who were groomed for succession from an early age, called bhayats if no
competent born-to son were produced (an obviously unsuitable or treasonous born-to son
could be excluded from the succession).
If the ruler died before adopting a successor, one of his widows could adopt an heir, who
would immediately accede to the throne. The adoptee would cut all ties with his birth
family. Once the Doctrine of Lapse came into place the following features were now faced by
the Indian rulers.
•According to this doctrine, any princely state under the direct or indirect (as a vassal)
control of the East India Company, should the ruler not produce a legal male heir, would be
annexed by the company.
•This was not introduced by Lord Dalhousie even though it was he who documented it
and used it widely to acquire territories for the British.
•As per this, any adopted son of the Indian ruler could not be proclaimed as heir to the
kingdom. The adopted son would only inherit his foster father’s personal property and
estates.
•The adopted son would also not be entitled to any pension that his father had been
receiving or to any of his father’s titles.
•This challenged the Indian ruler’s long-held authority to appoint an heir of their choice.

States were annexed by Dalhousie by applying ‘Doctrine of Lapse’-

1. The States of Satara (1848 AD)

2. Jaipur (1849 AD)
3. Sambhalpur (1849 AD)
4. Bahat (1850 A.D)
5. Udaipur (1852 AD)
6. Jhansi (1853 AD)
7. Nagpur (1854 AD)
•It was as per this policy that Nana Sahib, the adopted son of the Maratha Peshwa Baji Rao II
was denied his titles and pension.
•The final moment straw came when Awadh was annexed to the English East India Company
under the terms of the Doctrine of Lapse on the grounds of internal misrule on 7 February 1856
AD. This annexation was one of the reasons for the Revolt of 1857.

But after sometime, the terms of policy were get great aggression and it was Surendra
Sai, the great revolutionary of Orissa who raised voice against the "Doctrine of Lapse"
that aggression created the foundation of revolt.

Effects of Doctrine of Lapse-

•Many Indian states lost their sovereignty and became British territories.
•This led to a lot of unrest among the Indian princes.
•A lot of people were unhappy with the ‘illegal’ nature of this doctrine and this was one of
the causes of the Indian Revolt of 1857.
•Nana Sahib and the Rani of Jhansi had grievances against the British because the
former’s pension was stopped by the British after his foster father died, and the Rani’s
adopted son was denied the throne under the doctrine of lapse.
•Dalhousie returned to Britain in 1856. After the Indian Revolt broke out in 1857, his
governance was widely criticised as one of the causes of the rebellion.

During this period, the British treated native states as independent states. By that time, the British had
not become the supreme power of India. Therefore, they could not interfere everywhere nor could claim
complete sovereignty over those native rulers who became their allies. The wars against Mysore and the
treaty with the Hindu king after the fourth Mysore War, the first and the second Maratha War, the
treaties with Avadh and Hyderabad and the treaty of Amritsar with Ranjit Singh were made during this
period.

The wars and the subsidiary treaties of Wellesley with different rulers, of course, made the British
supreme power in India while their allies became dependent rulers. Yet, while assessing their relations
with native rulers, two following things are clearly visible:

(a) Except the treaty with the Hindu king of Mysore, all treaties with other native rulers were made on an
equal and reciprocal. i.e., give-and-take basis. The British made no claim of suzerainty while entering into
treaty with them.
(b) Every treaty made it specifically clear that the native ruler with whom it was made, would be
entirely free in managing the internal affairs of his state.

By this time, therefore, even Wellesley, who desired and largely succeeded in making the British the
supreme power in India, did not claim complete sovereignty and the right to interfere in the internal affairs
of the allied rulers. The British desired to extend their territory and safeguard it. Therefore, in the beginning
they kept the states of their allied rulers as buffer states between their territory and the territory of an
enemy ruler and, later on, they attempted to manage their foreign policies according to their desires with a
view to checking their combination against them. They succeeded in both their attempts which helped in
extending and consolidating their empire in India. Thus, during this period the British largely treated native
rulers as independent.
 William Lee Warner in his book The Native States of India categorized
the policy of the British with native states up to 1919 into three
periods, viz., the Policy of Ring Fence (1765-1813), the Policy of
Subordinate Isolation (1813-1858) and the Policy of Subordinate Union
(1858-1919).
1. Dalhousie implemented the Doctrine of ___________.
A. Conquest
B. Lapse
C. Law
D. Provincial Autonomy

2. The Subsidiary Alliance was not accepted by _____________.

A. Nizam of Hydrabad and the Ruler of Mysore
B. Bhonsle Raja of Berar and Scindia of Gwalior
C. Rajput States of Jodhpur, Jaipur and Bharatpur
D. Holkar state of Indore

3. What was the Subsidiary Alliance System?

A. An Indian ruler had to maintain British troops in his state
B. The ruler had to give some of his territory or to pay for maintenance of
troops
C. The ruler could not fight or sign treaties with any other power
D. British maintained a large army at the expense of the local rulers
E. All of these

4. Under __________, the British annexed the territories on the pretext of

absence of a natural heir to the throne.
A. Subsidiary Alliance
B. The Doctrine of Lapse
C. The Rowlatt Act
D. The Regulating Act

5. The provinces annexed through the Doctrine of Lapse were _______.

A. Udaipur
B. Oudh
C. Jhansi
D. All of the above
Answer-
1. Lapse
2. Holkar of state of indore
3. All of these
4. Doctrine of lapse
5. All of the above