Subsidiary Alliance, Doctrine of Lapse and Paramountcy

The British used three main tools to bring India's princely states under control: the Subsidiary Alliance (Wellesley), the Doctrine of Lapse (Dalhousie), and the claim of British paramountcy.

Subsidiary Alliance (Lord Wellesley, 1798 to 1805)

An alliance in which an Indian ruler accepted British protection and, in return, agreed to:

1. keep a British army in his state and pay for it (in cash or by giving territory);
2. accept a British Resident at his court;
3. not employ other Europeans (especially the French) without British consent;
4. not make wars or treaties with other states without British consent.

The British promised not to interfere in the state's internal affairs, but in fact they often did.

Effects: Rulers lost their independence, their armies were disbanded (leaving many soldiers jobless), and the states were burdened by subsidy payments, while the Company became the real power. The idea was first used by Dupleix, but Wellesley made it a system.

Doctrine of Lapse (Lord Dalhousie, 1848 to 1856)

• If a ruler of a dependent Hindu state died without a natural heir, the state would lapse to the Company. Adopted sons could not inherit unless the Company agreed.
• States annexed: Satara (1848), Jaitpur and Sambalpur (1849), Baghat (1850), Udaipur (1852), Jhansi (1853), Nagpur (1854). Dalhousie also ended the titles of the Nawab of the Carnatic and the Raja of Tanjore, and stopped the pension of Nana Sahib, the adopted son of Baji Rao II. Berar was taken from the Nizam in 1853.
• Awadh was annexed in 1856 for "misgovernment", not by the Doctrine of Lapse.

Paramountcy

• Cornwallis and Shore followed a policy of non-intervention. Wellesley's subordinate alliance was replaced by Lord Hastings's policy of subordinate isolation and paramountcy: the Company was the supreme power and princes could not deal with each other directly.
• After 1858, the Crown promised to respect the rights of the princes, but remained paramount.