Doctrine of lapse: Difference between revisions

The '''doctrine of lapse''' was a policy of [[annexation]] initiated by the [[East India Company]] in the [[Indian subcontinent]] in relation to the [[princely states]], and applied until 1859, two years after [[Company rule in India|Company rule]] was succeeded by the [[British Raj]]. 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 former ruling families were collectively derecognised.

==The doctrine==

According to the doctrine, any Indian [[Princely states|princely state]] under the suzerainty of the [[East India Company]] (EIC) (the dominant [[Empire|imperial]] power in the Indian subsidiary system), would have its princely status abolished (and therefore be annexed into British India) if the ruler was either "manifestly incompetent or died without a male heir".<ref name="keay">[[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> The latter supplanted the long-established right of an Indian sovereign without an heir to choose a successor.{{Citation needed|date=July 2014}} In addition, the EIC decided whether potential rulers were competent enough. The doctrine and its applications were widely regarded as illegitimate by many Indians, leading to resentment against the EIC.

The policy is most commonly associated with [[James Andrew Broun-Ramsay, 1st Marquess of Dalhousie|Lord Dalhousie]], who was the [[Governor General]] of the [[East India Company]] in [[India]] between 1848 and 1856. However, it was articulated by the Court of Directors of the East India Company as early as 1847 and several smaller states had already been annexed under this doctrine before Dalhousie took over the post of Governor-General.{{Citation needed|date=January 2020}} Dalhousie used the policy most vigorously and extensively, though, so it is generally associated with him.

At the time of its adoption, the East India Company had imperial administrative jurisdiction over wide regions of the subcontinent. The company took over the princely states of [[Satara State|Satara]] (1848), [[Jaitpur State|Jaitpur]] and [[Sambalpur State|Sambalpur]](1849), [[Bhagat State|Bhagat]] (1850), [[Udaipur State, Chhattisgarh|Udaipur (Chhattisgarh)]] (1852), [[Jhansi State|Jhansi]] (1853), [[Nagpur State|Nagpur]] (1854), [[Thanjavur Maratha kingdom|Tore]] and [[Nawab of the Carnatic|Arcot]] (1855)  under the terms of the doctrine of lapse. [[Oudh State|Oudh]] (1856) is widely believed to have been annexed under the Doctrine of Lapse. However it was annexed by Lord Dalhousie under the pretext of misgovernance. Mostly claiming that the ruler was not ruling properly, the Company added about four million pounds sterling to its annual revenue by virtue of this doctrine.<ref name=wolpert>[[Stanley Wolpert|Wolpert, Stanley]]. ''A New History of India''; 3rd ed., pp. 226-28. Oxford University Press, 1989.</ref> Udaipur State, however, would have local rule reinstated by the EIC in 1860.<ref>[http://www.indianrajputs.com/view/udaipur_mp Rajput Provinces of India - Udaipur (Princely State)]</ref>

The princely state of [[Kittur]] ruled by [[Kittur Chennamma|Queen Chennamma]] was taken over by the East India Company in 1824 by imposing a 'doctrine of lapse'. So it is debatable whether it was devised by Lord Dalhousie in 1848, though he arguably made it official by documenting

it. Dalhousie's annexations and the doctrine of lapse had caused suspicion and uneasiness among most ruling princes in India.

Dalhousie applied the doctrine of lapse vigorously for annexing Indian princely states, but the policy was not solely his invention. The [[List of East India Company directors|Court of Directors]] of the East India Company had articulated this early in 1834.<ref>{{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> As per this policy, the Company annexed [[Mandvi]] in 1839, [[Kolaba State|Kolaba]] and [[Jalaun State|Jalaun]] in 1840 and [[Surat]] in 1842. As per the policy, Kings without a male heir or son cannot declare an adopted child or any relative as the heir. He is required to relinquish his rights to the throne and surrender his kingdom to the East India Company.

|Banda

|Jaintia

|1854

|Kannanur

|[[Kozhikode]]

|Kullu

|1854

|Nargund

|Ramgarh

|1849

|[[Udaipur State, Chhattisgarh|Udaipur, Chhattisgarh]]

|1854

In 1964, Maharaja Rajendra Prakash, the last recognised former ruler of [[Sirmur State]], died without either leaving male issue or adopting an heir before his death, though 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 status of the family had lapsed. The doctrine of lapse was likewise invoked the following year when the last recognised ruler of [[Akalkot 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=3 March 2021}}</ref>

*[[Ankit4setoa]]

*[[UID_2441001348]]

*[[Pro player]]