which was more insulting for indian rs - subsidiary aliance or doctrine of lapse explain
Answers
Answered by
15
The Doctrine Lapse is more insulting
The doctrine of lapse policy was started by Lord Dalhousie according to which in order to continue dynastic rule in an Indian princely state, an Indian king had to produce an heir of his true blood, failing which his kingdom may be annexed by the British Empire. He could not adopt an heir for his kingdom.
The policy of subsidiary alliance was started by then Governor-general Lord Wellesley. Under this policy a ruler could not maintain an independent army, he and his empire would be under the protection of the East India Company. The ruler was required to pay the subsidiary amount or fees for his protection. If the ruler failed to pay the amount under any circumstances the kingdom shall be annexed under the British Empire.
The doctrine of lapse policy was started by Lord Dalhousie according to which in order to continue dynastic rule in an Indian princely state, an Indian king had to produce an heir of his true blood, failing which his kingdom may be annexed by the British Empire. He could not adopt an heir for his kingdom.
The policy of subsidiary alliance was started by then Governor-general Lord Wellesley. Under this policy a ruler could not maintain an independent army, he and his empire would be under the protection of the East India Company. The ruler was required to pay the subsidiary amount or fees for his protection. If the ruler failed to pay the amount under any circumstances the kingdom shall be annexed under the British Empire.
akansha2323:
thnq i know this answer bt i am nt sure about that on that time
Similar questions