The Doctrine of Lapse stated that while an adopted son could inherit his foster father’s personal property, he could not succeed to the throne of a princely state. In such cases, it was the prerogative of the British Government (paramount power) to decide whether to recognize the heir or annexe the state.
This doctrine was claimed to rest on Hindu law and Indian custom, but the justification was weak. Hindu law on adoption was not conclusive regarding political succession, and historically, examples of Indian rulers annexing states for want of a natural heir were rare. Although Maharaja Ranjit Singh had annexed a few feudatory principalities on account of lapse, and the Company had absorbed a few small Cis-Sutlej states in 1820 for the same reason, there was no precedent of denying an adopted son the right to rule an entire state.
Although associated with Lord Dalhousie (Governor-General, 1848–56), he was not the originator of the policy. The principle had been mentioned earlier, but Dalhousie applied it far more aggressively. Unlike his predecessors, who generally avoided annexation, Dalhousie adopted the reverse approach: he annexed whenever he could do so under the cover of legitimacy.
States Annexed under the Doctrine of Lapse
During Dalhousie’s tenure, many rulers died without natural heirs, allowing him to apply the doctrine. Seven states were annexed under this policy, including:
- Satara (1848)
- Jhansi (1854)
- Nagpur (1854)
- Smaller states: Jaitpur (Bundelkhand), Sambhalpur (Orissa), and Baghat (Madhya Pradesh)
In addition, Awadh (1856) was annexed—not under the Doctrine of Lapse, but on grounds of misgovernment.
Annexation of Awadh (1856)
Awadh was one of the oldest states under the Subsidiary Alliance. However, decades of misrule under extravagant and inefficient Nawabs, compounded by heavy demands from the British, had left the state in chaos.
- The people suffered from oppressive taxation, extortion by officials and landlords, and a bankrupt treasury.
- Financial strain was worsened by the high costs of maintaining subsidiary troops and extra contributions extracted by successive Governors-General.
- In 1819, the Nawab had been elevated to the status of King, but this brought little improvement.
To assess conditions, Resident Sleeman was instructed to tour the state, and his report described widespread anarchy. His successor, Outram (1854), confirmed the findings.
Though Dalhousie himself preferred partial British control while retaining the Nawab’s throne, the Court of Directors in London ordered outright annexation. In 1856, Nawab Wajid Ali Shah refused to sign a treaty surrendering his rights and was deposed and exiled to Calcutta.
This annexation was widely seen as unjust and became a major grievance, fueling the Revolt of 1857.
Impact of Dalhousie’s Annexations
In just eight years (1848–56), Dalhousie annexed eight states, adding nearly a quarter million square miles to British territories in India. His policies marked the near completion of the British conquest, a process that had begun with the Battle of Plassey (1757).
For More Reading: Why Did the English Outperform Other European Powers?