📌 Topic 04 of 6 · Chapter 12 · Advent of Europeans & British Expansion
Subsidiary Alliance & Doctrine of Lapse
Wellesley’s Subsidiary Alliance (1798), Dalhousie’s Doctrine of Lapse (1848–1856) — how British annexed Indian states.
🏛️ Subsidiary Alliance (Lord Wellesley, 1798)
The Subsidiary Alliance was introduced by Lord Wellesley (Governor-General 1798–1805) as a tool to extend British control over Indian states without direct annexation.
Terms of Subsidiary Alliance:
- Indian ruler must accept British troops in their territory
- Indian ruler must pay for the maintenance of British troops
- Indian ruler must dismiss all European employees except British
- Indian ruler must accept a British Resident at court
- Indian ruler must not wage war or negotiate with other states without British permission
- In return, British “protected” them from external threats
States that Signed Subsidiary Alliance:
| State | Year | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Nizam of Hyderabad | 1798 | First to sign; became British puppet |
| Mysore | 1799 | After Tipu Sultan’s defeat; Wodeyar dynasty restored as puppet |
| Tanjore, Surat | 1799 | Signed; lost independence |
| Awadh | 1801 | Signed; later annexed in 1856 |
| Peshwa (Maratha) | 1802 | Treaty of Bassein; Marathas lost independence |
⭐ Impact of Subsidiary Alliance: The Subsidiary Alliance was a brilliant but exploitative system. Indian rulers appeared independent but were actually British puppets. They lost control of foreign policy and military. The cost of maintaining British troops often bankrupted Indian states — forcing them to cede territory. It was a major tool of British imperialism.
🏛️ Doctrine of Lapse (Lord Dalhousie, 1848–1856)
The Doctrine of Lapse was introduced by Lord Dalhousie (Governor-General 1848–1856). It stated that if an Indian ruler died without a natural heir, his state would “lapse” to the British.
Key Features:
- Adopted heirs not recognised — contrary to Hindu tradition (which allowed adoption)
- Applied only to dependent states (not independent kingdoms)
- Used to annex states that had no natural heir
States Annexed under Doctrine of Lapse:
| State | Year | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Satara | 1848 | No natural heir; first state annexed under Doctrine of Lapse |
| Jaitpur, Sambalpur | 1849 | No natural heir |
| Baghat | 1850 | No natural heir |
| Udaipur | 1852 | No natural heir (later restored) |
| Jhansi | 1853 | Raja Gangadhar Rao died; adopted son not recognised; Rani Lakshmibai protested |
| Nagpur | 1854 | No natural heir |
| Awadh | 1856 | NOT Doctrine of Lapse — annexed on grounds of “misgovernance” |
📝 Exam Tip:
• Subsidiary Alliance = Lord Wellesley (1798) = Nizam first to sign
• Doctrine of Lapse = Lord Dalhousie (1848–1856) = no natural heir = state annexed
• Jhansi = 1853 = Doctrine of Lapse = Rani Lakshmibai protested
• Awadh = 1856 = NOT Doctrine of Lapse = “misgovernance”
• Both policies caused widespread resentment → contributed to 1857 Revolt
• Subsidiary Alliance = Lord Wellesley (1798) = Nizam first to sign
• Doctrine of Lapse = Lord Dalhousie (1848–1856) = no natural heir = state annexed
• Jhansi = 1853 = Doctrine of Lapse = Rani Lakshmibai protested
• Awadh = 1856 = NOT Doctrine of Lapse = “misgovernance”
• Both policies caused widespread resentment → contributed to 1857 Revolt