Chapter 22 : British Expansion in India

Beginning of British Rule in India

• The beginning of British rule in India can be traced back to the establishment of the first trading factory of the East India Company (EIC) in Masulipatnam in 1611. 
• The EIC slowly expanded its trading operations and started factories in various parts of India, including Surat, Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta (Kolkata).
• The EIC was a British joint-stock company founded in 1600 to establish trade relations with countries in the East Indies, including India, China, and Indonesia.
• The British successfully eliminated the major trading powers such as the Portuguese, Dutch, and French to rule over India.
• The forces of EIC defeated the Portuguese in the Battle of Swally (1612) near Surat and ended the dominance of the Portuguese.
• The Battle of Plassey in 1757 was the decisive point in establishing British Raj in India.
• After this battle, EIC became the de facto ruler of Bengal and expanded its control over other regions.
• After the Battle of Buxar (1764), EIC appointed residents in the states of India and the Company officials started interfering in the internal affairs of states.

Establishment of British Governance in India 

The establishment of British Governance in India took place with the help of charters, acts, doctrines, and various policies given below:

• Regulating Act, 1773: Governor General in Bengal with the help of four Councillors will head the governance in India. The Regulating Act also established a supreme court in Calcutta to oversee legal matters of EIC in India.
• Subsidiary Alliance: Lord Wellesley framed the Scheme of the Subsidiary Alliance to control Indian princely states. The first ruler to accept the Subsidiary Alliance was Nizam of Hyderabad in 1798. As a result of this, many Indian states lost their autonomy and came under British rule.
• Charter Acts: There were four charter acts introduced every 20 years to establish strong control over India. The charter act of 1793 mandated that members of the Board of Control and their employees be paid from Indian revenue. The Charter Act of 1813 ended the commercial monopoly of EIC except for trade with China and trade in tea. The monopoly was completely ended after the Charter Act of 1833. The last Charter Act of 1853 introduced an open competition system for the recruitment of civil servants.
• The Doctrine of Lapse: Lord Dalhousie introduced the Doctrine of Lapse in 1848. This was an annexation policy to extend the British Paramountcy. According to this policy, any Indian princely state without a legal male heir would be annexed by the company. Under this doctrine, Satara was the first state to be annexed.
• Government of India Act of 1858: GOI act abolished the rule of EIC and transferred the powers of governance, revenues, and territories directly to the British Crown. The system of double government and Doctrine of Lapse was also ended. It has devised a new office of Secretary of State for India as the medium of contact between the government in Britain and the Indian administration.
• Indian Councils Act 1861 & 1892: The Act of 1861 started associating Indians with the law-making procedure. Indians were nominated as non-official members in the council of viceroy. The Indian Councils Act of 1892 further expanded the number of members in both the central and provincial councils. The power to discuss the budget was also provided to members.
• Government of India Act 1909: The GOI Act,1909 or Morley-Minto reforms allowed the association of Indians with the executive Councils of the Viceroy and Governors for the first time. The act introduced communal awards. It has led to communal differences in the country.
• Government of India Act 1919: The GOI Act 1919 introduced bicameralism and direct elections in the country. It had provided for the public service commission. Provincial budgets from the Central budget were also separated. There was a limited extension of voting power given to Indians.
• Government of India Act 1935: The GOI Act of 1935 introduced provincial autonomy. The provinces of British India were given a greater degree of autonomy and the power to make laws. 

Rule of British Crown in India from 1757 to 1947 

• The British Crown ruled India from 1757 to 1947, a period of nearly 200 years.
• The British followed the policy of Divide and Rule to develop animosity between Hindus and Muslims against each other. 
• The partition of Bengal in 1905 and the inducement to form the Muslim League of India (1907) was part of the Divide and Rule policy.
• The British also adopted an economic exploitation policy in India. They taxed the Indian people and used the money to fund development initiatives in Britain.
• During World War I, In 1914 Britain declared war on Germany on India’s behalf without consulting Indian leaders. Therefore, over 1.5 million Indian soldiers participated in the British Indian army and many lost their lives.
• The British Crown had a number of administrative reforms including the establishment of a centralized system of government, the introduction of modern education and the construction of infrastructure such as roads, railways, and ports. 
• They had tried to vandalise rich Indian culture and values and replace them with Western values.
• They have also introduced draconian laws and ordinances to curb freedom in India. Ex. Rowlatt Act, Official Secrets Act, etc

Subsidiary Alliance – Ideation

• Following Mir Jafar’s victory in the 1757 Battle of Plassey, the British East India Company adopted the method, with Robert Clive negotiating a series of conditions with him, which were later incorporated into the 1765 Treaty of Allahabad as a result of the company’s victory in the 1764 Battle of Buxar.
• Richard Wellesley, Clive’s successor, first followed a non-interventionist approach to the different Indian governments that were allies of the British East India Company, but subsequently adopted and developed the subsidiary alliance doctrine.
• In a February 1804 communication to the East India Company Resident in Hyderabad, he described the objective and ambition of this change.
• Lord Wellesley organized the subsidiary alliance in India, but it was French Governor Dupleix who coined the name.

Features of Subsidiary Alliance System

• The ruler of the Allied Indian State was required to approve the permanent stationing of a British force within his territory and to pay a subsidy for its maintenance under the subsidiary alliance plan.
• In order to form a Subsidiary Alliance with the British, an Indian king had to disband his own military forces and accept British forces in his area.
• He also had to pay for the upkeep of the British troops. If he did not pay, a section of his land would be taken away from him and given to the British.
• In exchange, the British promised to defend the Indian state from any foreign attack or internal uprising.
• The British vowed not to intervene in the Indian state’s internal affairs, but this promise was rarely honored.
• Any other foreign country could not form an alliance with the Indian state.
• He was also unable to hire any foreign nationals other than Englishmen to work for him. And, if he had any, he had to fire them as soon as the partnership was signed. The goal was to limit the French influence.
• Without British sanction, there were no political ties within Indian states.
• As a result, the Indian king lost all power over foreign affairs and the military.
• He lost almost all of his autonomy and became a British ‘protectorate’. In the Indian Court, a British resident was also stationed.

Various stages of Subsidiary Alliances

• In the First Stage, the English pledged to provide a fixed army to the native rulers in exchange for a fixed sum of money.
• In its second stage, the English committed to keeping a permanent military force to assist their ally in exchange for a set annual sum of money.
• In its third stage, the English pledged to maintain not only a fixed subsidiary force to assist their partner in exchange for a certain annual sum of money, but also to keep the force within the ally’s borders.
• The English promised to keep a permanent and fixed subsidiary force within the territory of their ally in its fourth and final form, which was instituted by Lord Wellesley. However, instead of receiving money, they were granted permanent access to a portion of the ally’s territory.
• In reality, the Policy of Subsidiary Alliance was a policy of surrendering sovereignty, implying that the state lost its rights to self-defense, diplomatic contacts, the employment of foreign experts, and the resolution of problems with its neighbors.

This is how the subsidiary alliance structure came into being for expanding the Company’s Indian region.

Impact of the Subsidiary Alliance Policy

The Nizam of Hyderabad

• In 1798, it broke the Nizam’s ties with the French and made it illegal for the Nizam to form alliances with the Maratha without British permission. The Nizam of Hyderabad became the first to sign the Subsidiary Alliance.

The Nawab of Awadh

• In the year 1799, Mysore became the second state. Then, in AD 1801, Wellesley forced the Nawab of Awadh to join the Policy of Subsidiary Alliance.

Peshwa Baji Rao II

• In AD 1802, Peshwa Baji Rao II used this policy to subdue his realm. In AD 1803, many Maratha states, such as Bhosle and Scindia, agreed to the policy’s stipulations.
• The last Maratha Confederation, the Holkars, agreed to the subsidiary alliance’s requirements as well.

Treaty of Allahabad

• The subsidiary system was also adopted in Oudh by Lord Clive, and the Treaty of Allahabad was formed, in which the British committed to protecting the Oudh area from adversaries such as the Marathas. Gorakhpur, Rohilkhand, and the Doab were forcibly given for the maintenance of troops by the Company.

The Indian States’ Subsidiary Alliances were formed in the following order:

1. Hyderabad (1798)
2. Mysore (1799 – After Tipu Sultan was defeated in the Fourth Anglo-Mysore War)
3. Tanjore (1799)
4. Awadh (1801)
5. Peshwa (Marathas) (1802)
6. Scindia (Marathas) (1803), Gaekwad (Marathas) (1803)

Subsidiary Alliance System: Advantages to the British

The British benefited from the subsidiary alliance in all the ways and had advantages such as;

Additions to the resources of Company

• The subsidiary system added to the English Company’s resources, and it was partly with the help of these resources that the English Company was able to establish itself as the country’s dominant power.
• The Indian States that formed subsidiary alliances provided money or territories from which the English Company could maintain troops.
• Their troops were always at the English Company’s discretion. As a result, while the troops were ostensibly funded by the Indian States for their defense, they actually increased the English Company’s resources.

Enhanced Influence and military force at the expense of the local authorities

• The English Company was able to advance their military frontier ahead of their political frontier thanks to the system of subsidiary alliances.
• Although the English Company was not tasked with the administration of the States that joined the subsidiary system, its influence was increased.

Lesser Risk for War-related damage

• The English Company’s territories did not suffer because the battles were fought in the majority of cases in the territories of the States joining the subsidiary alliance.

Indian states lost their sovereignty

• The Indian states lost their sovereignty. They were not permitted to establish diplomatic ties with each other without the company’s knowledge or approval.
• Their chances of succeeding in their joint efforts to depose the company were diminished. They never posed a threat to the Company’s existence on their own.
• As a result, the English gradually became his state’s de facto overlords. The local kings were reduced to a ‘protectorate’ by the British.

Removed French Influence

The French influence was completely wiped out as they were unable to work in the native rulers’ courts.

Continued Expansion

• Maintenance of the subsidiary force was so costly that it placed a significant financial burden on the local Indian monarch, which he largely failed to sustain.
• As a result of the subsidiary alliance policy, the British forced him to surrender more of his territory and it aided in the Company’s continued expansion in India.

Subsidiary Alliance System: Demerits

Powers on matters of state

• The English gradually took over most of the original Indian ruler’s fertile and militarily significant lands.
• It pushed the native state’s subjects into poverty and impoverishment by putting the entire financial responsibility of maintaining the army on them.
• In theory, English citizens were exempted from meddling with the native ruler’s internal administration under the policy. In practice, however, the Britishers had complete power over the rulers in all matters of state.

Unemployment

• Another disadvantage of the construction of subsidiary troops was the development of anarchy as a result of the thousands of soldiers dispatched by the Indian rulers becoming unemployed.
• The freebooting activities of dissolved soldiers were particularly noticeable in central India, where the Pindaris menace posed a serious threat to the populace.

Weakened Indian Patriotism

• The native kings progressively lost respect, patriotism, and even their primary role of ruling and strengthening their forces. As a result, their character and ability to lead their states deteriorated, making it easier for the British to gain entire control of the state.
• The English, with far greater resources than a single ruler, defended every allied ruler against every foreign assault and domestic uprising, the state’s subjects were no longer able to dethrone their incapable king by revolting against him.
• As a result of this tactic, the British acquired entire control of the state’s activities, deeming the native ruler and his subjects severely powerless.

The Doctrine of Lapse

• The Doctrine of Lapse was an annexation policy implemented by the East India Company in the Indian subcontinent regarding princely states that lasted until 1859. Lord Dalhousie, Governor-General of India (1848–56), devised a formula to cope with concerns about Hindu Indian state succession. It was employed as an administrative policy to expand the British aristocracy. Aspirants for the IAS Exam should be aware of the facts surrounding the Doctrine of Lapse from both the UPSC prelims and mains viewpoints. 

Policy of Paramountcy

• Lord Hastings (Governor-General from 1813 to 1823) instituted a new policy of “paramountcy.”
• The Company claimed that because its authority was paramount or supreme, it could annex or threaten to annex any Indian kingdom.
• Later British policies were guided by this viewpoint.
• Because of Russian invasion fears, the British shifted control to the north-west during these periods.
• Between 1838 and 1842, the British fought a long war with Afghanistan, establishing indirect Company rule there. Sind had been taken over. Punjab was annexed in 1849.

Different Policies of British Rule

• Policy of Ring Fence (1765 – 1813)
  • Warren Hastings’ wars against the Marathas and Mysore reflected this policy, which aimed to create buffer zones to defend the Company’s borders.
  • The main threat came from Marathas and Afghan invaders (the Company agreed to organise Awadh’s defence in order to ensure Bengal’s security).
  • The East India Company would send troops to bolster the defences of its allies, with the cost of their maintenance borne by the rulers of such a state. In this way, the local ruler’s defence would be dependent on the East India Company.
  • Wellesley’s subsidiary alliance policy was an extension of the ring fence policy, which sought to reduce states’ reliance on the British government in India.
  • Subsidiary alliances were accepted by major powers such as Hyderabad, Awadh, and the Marathas. As a result, British supremacy was established.
• Policy of Subordinate Isolation (1813 – 1857)
  • The imperial concept developed, and the theory of paramountcy emerged—Indian states were expected to work in subordinate cooperation with the British government, acknowledging its supremacy.
  • The states gave up all forms of external sovereignty while retaining control over internal administration.
  • British residents were promoted from foreign diplomatic agents to executive and command officers of a superior government.
  • The Charter Act of 1833 effectively ended the Company’s commercial functions while maintaining its political functions.
  • It established a policy requiring prior approval/sanction for all succession matters.
  • In 1834, the Board of Directors issued guidelines directing the annexation of states whenever and wherever possible.
  • The annexation policy of Dalhousie resulted in the usurpation of eight states, including major ones like Satara and Nagpur.
• Policy of Subordinate Union (1857 – 1935)
  • In 1858, the Crown took direct control.
  • The annexation policy was abandoned due to the states’ loyalty during the 1857 revolt and their potential use as breakwaters in future political storms.
  • Rather than annexing, the new policy was to punish or depose.
  • After 1858, the Mughal emperor’s fiction of authority ended; sanction for all matters of succession was required from the Crown, as the Crown stood forth as the unquestioned ruler and supreme power.
  • The ruler now inherited the gaddi as a gift from the supreme power, because the fiction of Indian states standing on equal footing with the Crown as independent, sovereign states ended with the Queen adopting the title of ‘Kaiser-i-Hind’ (Queen Empress of India).
• Policy of Equal Federation (1935 – 1947)
  • Under its scheme of an all-India federation, the Government of India Act of 1935 proposed a Federal Assembly with 125 out of 375 seats for princes and the Council of States with 104 out of 160 seats for princes, subject to ratification by states representing more than half of the population and entitled to more than half of the seats in the Council of States.
  • This scheme never materialised, and it was abandoned after the outbreak of World War II (September 1939).
• Policy of Masterly Inactivity
  • In response to the disasters of the First Afghan War, John Lawrence (1864–69) instituted a policy of masterly inactivity, which was the result of practical common sense, intimate knowledge of the frontier problem, and Afghan passion for independence.
  • There was no intervention in the succession war even after Dost Mohammed died in 1863.
  • Lawrence’s policy was based on two conditions: that the border remain peaceful, and that no candidate in a civil war seek foreign assistance.
  • Lawrence attempted to make friends with Sher Ali as he ascended to the throne.
  • Sir John Lawrence’s foreign policy was one of self-reliance and self-control, of defence rather than defiance, of waiting and watching so that when the time came, he could strike harder and in the right direction.
• Policy of Proud Reserve
  • Lytton, a Conservative government nominee under Benjamin Disraeli (1874-80), was appointed Viceroy of India in 1876.
  • He initiated a new foreign policy of “proud reserve,” with the goal of establishing scientific frontiers and preserving “spheres of influence.”
  • According to Lytton, ambiguity in relations with Afghanistan could no longer be tolerate

The Doctrine of Lapse

Expansion Strategy

• The expansion of British territory in India was based on a pro-imperialist approach.
• If there is no heir or ruler, the state must be given up to the British.

No adoption of children for the ruling

• Prior to the advent of this ideology, princely states had a centuries-old ritualized practice of adoption.
• If no competent born-to-son could be found, an heir apparent would be chosen from a pool of candidates known as bhayats, who were groomed for succession from an early age. All ties to the adoptee’s birth family would be severed.
• Adoptions of children seeking an heir were not permitted.
• Giving a title and pension to a ruler’s adopted child was against policy.
• Only the ruler’s personal possessions would be passed down to the adopted successor.

Direct Control on the Indian States

• According to this idea, any princely state under the direct or indirect (as a vassal) sovereignty of the East India Company would be annexed by the company if the ruler did not produce a legal male successor.
• Any princely state that was under the direct or indirect control of the East India Company and whose king lacked a valid male successor would be annexed by the company.
• As a result, any Indian ruler’s adopted son could not be declared heir to the throne.

Rejection of Adoption

• The Indian kings were now confronted with the following features once the Doctrine of Lapse was in effect.
• In the case of dependent nations, Dalhousie claimed the paramount power’s right to approve such adoptions and to act at its discretion in their absence.
• In effect, this meant rejecting last-minute adoptions and annexing states without a direct natural or adopted heir by the British.

Indian Mutiny and Revolt of 1857

• Despite the fact that the doctrine’s scope was limited to dependent Hindu republics, the Indian rulers and the old nobility who served them were alarmed and resentful of the annexations.
• They are widely recognized as having contributed to the resentment that led to the commencement of the Indian Mutiny (1857) and the subsequent widespread revolt.