who was Lord Dalhousie what was the doctrine of lapse
Answers
Answered by
3
lord dalhousie is a British ruler who introduced doctrine of lapse according to this policy when the ruler of a subsidiary state died without natural heir to the throne then his tertiary would pass into the British hands.
Farazandfarazgroup:
excellent
thanks
mark full stop after a complete sentence
ok
fine
got it
by the way answer my questions
one sec
Answered by
1
James Andrew Broun-Ramsay, 1st Marquess of Dalhousie KT PC (22 April 1812 – 19 December 1860), styled Lord Ramsay until 1838 and known as The Earl of Dalhousiebetween 1838 and 1849, was a Scottish statesman, and a colonial administrator in British India. He served as Governor-General of India from 1848 to 1856.
He is credited with introducing passenger trains in Railways , Electric telegraph and uniform postage in India which he describes as the "three great engines of social improvement."[1]To his supporters he stands out as the far-sighted Governor-General who consolidated East India Company rule in India, laid the foundations of its later administration, and by his sound policy enabled his successors to stem the tide of rebellion. To his critics, he stands out as the destroyer of both the East India Company's financial and military position through reckless policies. His critics also hold that he laid the foundations of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 and led the final transformation of profitable commercial operations in India into a money-losing colonial administration. His period of rule in India directly preceded the transformation into the Victorian Raj period of Indian administration. He was denounced by many in Britain and India on the eve of his death as having failed to notice the signs of the brewing Indian Rebellion of 1857, having aggravated the crisis by his overbearing self-confidence, centralizing activity, and expansive annexations.
The doctrine of lapse was an annexationpolicy applied by the Lord Dalhousie in Indiabefore 1858. According to the doctrine, any Indian princely state under the suzerainty of the British East India Company (the dominant imperial power in the subcontinent), as a vassal state under the British subsidiary system, would have its princely status abolished (and therefore annexed into British India) if the ruler was either "manifestly incompetent or died without a male heir".[1]The latter supplanted the long-established right of an Indian sovereign without an heir to choose a successor.[citation needed] In addition, the British decided whether potential rulers were competent enough. The doctrine and its application were widely regarded by many Indians as illegitimate.
He is credited with introducing passenger trains in Railways , Electric telegraph and uniform postage in India which he describes as the "three great engines of social improvement."[1]To his supporters he stands out as the far-sighted Governor-General who consolidated East India Company rule in India, laid the foundations of its later administration, and by his sound policy enabled his successors to stem the tide of rebellion. To his critics, he stands out as the destroyer of both the East India Company's financial and military position through reckless policies. His critics also hold that he laid the foundations of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 and led the final transformation of profitable commercial operations in India into a money-losing colonial administration. His period of rule in India directly preceded the transformation into the Victorian Raj period of Indian administration. He was denounced by many in Britain and India on the eve of his death as having failed to notice the signs of the brewing Indian Rebellion of 1857, having aggravated the crisis by his overbearing self-confidence, centralizing activity, and expansive annexations.
The doctrine of lapse was an annexationpolicy applied by the Lord Dalhousie in Indiabefore 1858. According to the doctrine, any Indian princely state under the suzerainty of the British East India Company (the dominant imperial power in the subcontinent), as a vassal state under the British subsidiary system, would have its princely status abolished (and therefore annexed into British India) if the ruler was either "manifestly incompetent or died without a male heir".[1]The latter supplanted the long-established right of an Indian sovereign without an heir to choose a successor.[citation needed] In addition, the British decided whether potential rulers were competent enough. The doctrine and its application were widely regarded by many Indians as illegitimate.
Similar questions