The Doctrine of Lapse

One of the more perfidious schemes of the East India Company to grab huge swaths of Indian territory was by the use of the Doctrine of Lapse. It was nothing more than a policy of annexation as related to the princely states of India and was still in force until 1859. Certain elements of it were used well until 1971 to remove the remaining recognition of princely families and render them powerless. So despite of its drawbacks, it seems post-independence India found a use for this rather wicked doctrine as well.

There is no simple way to explain the Doctrine of Lapse yet it basically falls under the category of land grabbing.

Accordingly, any princely state under the dominion of the East India Company would have its princely status revoked ( and thus leading to annexation into British territory) if the ruler was either

“manifestly incompetent or died without a male heir.” It comprised of the following points:

1. Policy to expand British territory in India on basis of pro-imperialistic approach.
2. State must be handed over to British, if they have no heir or ruler.
3. Adoptions of child were not accepted for heir.
4. Policy was not in support to give title and pension to adopted child of rulers.
5. Adopted heir would inherit only the personal property of the ruler
6. Ended the title and pension.

An adopted heir could be recognized but only on the say so of the EIC and getting their approval was basically impossible. Nana Sahib went so far as to send an envoy to England to appeal his case, with no success. His case was particularly painful – on the death of his adopted father, the exiled Maratha Peshwa Baji Rao II in 1851, (he had been exiled to Bithur after the conclusion of the Third Maratha War in 1819) Nana Sahib was denied the pension which had been granted to Baji Rao – the sum of 80’000 pounds in today’s money, under the pretext that he was not an heir and the kingdom which had been bestowed upon him through adoption, no longer existed. Although independently still wealthy, Nana Sahib was denied a title and all grants were suspended.

By this declaration, the long established right of an Indian ruler to choose his own successor was made null and void. It also gave the EIC the complete right to decide who was competent and who wasn’t. It is no surprise that this heavy-handed, discriminatory and frankly cruel doctrine was very much resented by many Indians. It is a small wonder, when 1857 came around, disbanded soldiers and the general populace rallied behind these deposed dynasties – a point in fact is Kanpur. It was its application in Oudh by Dalhousie that can be directly said to be one of the many causes of the mutiny – it was used against Nana Sahib to depose him as an adopted son and against the rulers of Oudh to charge them with misrule. It can be no coincidence that the EIC gathered a further 4 million pounds to its annual revenue by this doctrine alone and little wonder that the mutinies in Oudh took on such a sinister and brutal face. Here, it was not just disgruntled soldiers – it was the entire population that bore the British a grudge. Greed on the part of the EIC is undoubtedly one of the driving issues behind the rebellion of 1857.

Although Dalhousie is blamed for his rather vigorous use of the doctrine, it must be held to account it was not solely his invention. The directors of the East India Company had been using it as early as 1834, and subsequently annexed Mandvi in 1839, Kolaba and Jalaun in 1840, and Surat in 1840. The EIC already had administrative jurisdiction over large areas of India – in order to get their hands on as much as possible, the Doctrine of Lapse became a useful tool. However, Lord Dalhousie, as Governor General of the EICo between 1848 and 1856 applied it with such vigour that is it no wonder that this policy is widely associated with only him.