MCQs Based On Modern History- (40)

Correct Option: 2. Peshwa.
Explanation: The Peshwa took the lead in organizing the Maratha chiefs in 1817 to regain their independence, as he was displeased with British control. Despite the Marathas’ efforts, they failed to organize a coordinated resistance.

Correct Option: 1. Peshwa was dethroned and pensioned off.
Explanation: Lord Hastings responded decisively by defeating the Maratha forces. The Peshwa was dethroned and pensioned off, with the British annexing large parts of Maratha territories. The British also created a puppet kingdom (Satara) to maintain Maratha pride under British suzerainty.

Correct Option: 3. Punjab.
Explanation: The British annexed the Punjab in 1849 after the defeat of the Punjab Army during local revolts. The last independent state of India, Punjab, was absorbed into the British Empire after a series of conflicts.

Correct Option: 4. To counter the growing influence of Russia in Central Asia.
Explanation: The British conquest of Sindh was driven by the growing Anglo-Russian rivalry and the strategic importance of controlling Sindh to prevent Russia from attacking India via Afghanistan.

Correct Option: 1. A policy of annexing territories that lacked a natural heir.
Explanation: The Doctrine of Lapse stated that if a ruler of a princely state died without a natural heir, the British could annex the state unless the adoption of an heir was approved by the British. This doctrine was used to annex several states, including Satara and Nagpur.
Doctrine of Lapse:
The Doctrine of Lapse was a policy implemented by the British East India Company, particularly under the rule of Lord Dalhousie (Governor-General of India from 1848 to 1856), which played a crucial role in the annexation of several Indian princely states.
Key Features:
Definition:
The Doctrine of Lapse stated that if a ruler of a princely state under British protection died without a direct, natural heir (a biological male descendant), the British East India Company would annex the state. The territory would be absorbed into the British Empire rather than passing to an adopted heir, even if the adoption was recognized by local traditions.
Underlying Rationale:
-The British argued that adoption of heirs was a traditional practice in many Indian states, and the Company saw this as a way to control the succession.
-Lord Dalhousie and others within the British establishment viewed native rulers as ineffective, corrupt, and unable to properly govern their states. The policy was therefore justified under the premise of good governance.
-The British used the policy as a tool for expanding British territories while claiming to protect the rights of the people in these regions.
Significance:
The policy led to the annexation of several states, causing deep resentment among Indian rulers and their subjects. It contributed to the growing sense of alienation between Indian rulers and the British, which eventually played a significant role in the Revolt of 1857 (also known as the First War of Independence).
States Annexed Under the Doctrine of Lapse:
Some key states that were annexed under the Doctrine of Lapse include:
Satara (1848):
-Satara was a Maratha kingdom. After the death of the Maratha king, Pratapsingh Maharaj, in 1839, the British refused to recognize his adopted son as the legitimate heir and annexed the state in 1848.
-This was one of the first applications of the Doctrine of Lapse.
Nagpur (1854):
The Kingdom of Nagpur was annexed after the death of the ruler, Raghoji III, who had no natural heir. The British annexed the kingdom, despite the ruler’s adoption of an heir, which was not recognized by the British authorities.
Jhansi (1854):
The Kingdom of Jhansi was also annexed following the death of its ruler, Raja Gangadhar Rao, in 1854. His adopted daughter, Rani Lakshmibai, was denied recognition as the rightful ruler, leading to Jhansi’s annexation.
This act directly contributed to Rani Lakshmibai’s resistance during the 1857 Rebellion.
Other States:
Several other smaller states, including Tanjore, Bhavnagar, and Kochin, were also affected by this policy.
Why Was the Doctrine Controversial?
Violation of Tradition:
-The Doctrine of Lapse went against centuries of Indian tradition where the ruler’s adopted son could inherit the throne. The British dismissed these customary practices in favor of their own laws and priorities.
-This undermined the authority of Indian rulers and deeply alienated them from the British.
Political and Military Motives:
The British sought to consolidate their control over India, and annexing states was a key method for extending British territory. The doctrine allowed them to expand the empire without directly facing resistance in many cases, as many rulers had no biological heirs and would be forced to accept British control.
Impact on Indian Rulers:
-The policy was seen as unjust and a direct challenge to the sovereignty of Indian rulers, leading to widespread unrest and resentment, particularly in states with strong local power.
-It created a fear of losing sovereignty among other princely states, which added to the brewing discontent.
End of the Doctrine:
The Doctrine of Lapse was officially abandoned after the Revolt of 1857, partly due to the widespread dissatisfaction it caused. The British were forced to reconsider their policies towards Indian princely states. After the rebellion, the British government took over direct control of India, ending the East India Company’s rule, and introduced more conciliatory policies towards Indian rulers, granting them more autonomy in certain cases.
Summary:
The Doctrine of Lapse was an imperial policy used by the British to annex Indian states when a ruler died without a natural heir. It was a major tool for expanding British territorial control in India, but it caused resentment among Indian rulers and contributed to the tensions that led to the Revolt of 1857.