Final Wave of British Annexation (1848–1856)

By the mid-19th century, under Governor-General Lord Dalhousie (1848–1856), the British pursued a determined policy of territorial expansion to bring maximum area under direct British rule.
Two key instruments were used:

1. Doctrine of Lapse – a political-legal tool.
2. Annexation on grounds of “misgovernment” – a moral-pretext tool.

Doctrine of Lapse

• Introduced by Lord Dalhousie.
• Principle: If a ruler of a protected princely state died without a natural male heir, the kingdom would “lapse” to the Company.
  • Adoption allowed only with Company’s prior approval.
  • Adopted sons had no automatic right to the throne.

First Case: Satara (1848) – King Appa Sahib died without a natural heir and had adopted a son without British approval.

States Annexed under Doctrine of Lapse

State	Year
Satara	1848
Sambalpur	1850
Udaipur	1852
Nagpur	1854
Jhansi	1854
Tanjore	1855
Carnatic	1855

Annexation of Awadh (Oudh) – 1856

Unlike the Doctrine of Lapse cases, Awadh’s annexation was justified on grounds of misgovernment.

Background

• After Battle of Buxar (1764), Awadh entered into a Subsidiary Alliance:
  • Permanent stationing of British forces in Awadh.
  • Posting of a British Resident at Lucknow court.
  • Nawab prohibited from employing Europeans without British consent.
• Until 1801, Awadh acted as a buffer state protecting Bengal from Maratha expansion.
• Treaty of 1801 (Lord Wellesley):
  • Company took responsibility for Awadh’s defence.
  • Awadh army reduced to one-tenth of its strength.
  • Nawab ceded Doab, Gorakhpur, and Rohilkhand.
  • Clause requiring the Nawab to maintain efficient governance — later used as the basis for annexation.

Fall of Awadh – 1856

• Nawab Wajid Ali Shah accused of administrative inefficiency and corruption.
• Dalhousie claimed annexation was a duty to rescue the people from misrule.
• Awadh was annexed; Wajid Ali Shah granted an annual pension of ₹12 lakh.

Challenges for British Justification:

1. Nawabs had been loyal British allies since 1764.
2. Obedient to Company policy for decades.
3. Had legitimate heirs — Doctrine of Lapse could not apply.

Economic Reality:

• Rich agricultural land and huge market for Manchester goods.
• Source of raw cotton for British industry.

Dalhousie’s Expansionist Policy – Final Outcome:
Between 1848 and 1856, Dalhousie’s aggressive use of the Doctrine of Lapse and pretexts like “misgovernment” brought large, resource-rich territories under direct Company control, setting the stage for growing discontent that would erupt in 1857.