Doctrine of Lapse

E12251

The Doctrine of Lapse was a controversial annexation policy used by the British East India Company in 19th-century India, allowing it to seize princely states without a direct male heir and significantly fueling resentment that led to the 1857 rebellion.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (6)

Statements (48)

Predicate Object
instanceOf British imperial policy
colonial annexation policy
aimedTo consolidate British power in India
annexedState Baghat
Jaitpur
Jhansi
Nagpur
Sambalpur
Satara
Udaipur
surface form: Udaipur (in present-day Chhattisgarh)
appliedBy British East India Company
appliedDuring 19th century
appliedIn India
associatedWithPerson Lord Dalhousie
surface form: James Andrew Broun-Ramsay, 1st Marquess of Dalhousie
considered controversial
unpopular among Indian rulers
contributedTo causes of the Indian Rebellion of 1857
political resentment in India
criticizedBy Indian independence movement
surface form: Indian nationalists

Indian princes
criticizedFor disregarding adoption customs in Hindu law
undermining sovereignty of princely states
domain British India
surface form: British Indian administration

colonial law
effect alienation of traditional elites
expansion of British-controlled territory
weakening of princely autonomy
endedBy Government of India Act 1858
endedWhen Government of India Act 1858
surface form: British Crown took direct control of India in 1858
formulatedUnder Lord Dalhousie
geographicScope princely states under British East India Company influence
hasLanguage English (official formulation)
historicalContext Company rule in India
inForceFrom 1848
inForceUntil 1858
justifiedAs doctrine of escheat
legacy symbol of colonial injustice in Indian historiography
legalBasis denial of recognition to adopted heirs of Indian princes
notAppliedTo Gwalior
Hyderabad
Jammu and Kashmir
surface form: Kashmir
opposedBy Rani Lakshmibai
surface form: Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi
perceivedAs instrument of aggressive imperialism
violation of traditional succession rights
principle princely state without a natural male heir would lapse to the Company
relatedToEvent Indian Rebellion of 1857
usedFor annexation of princely states
territorial expansion

Referenced by (26)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Indian Rebellion of 1857 cause Doctrine of Lapse
Indian Rebellion of 1857 relatedTo Doctrine of Lapse
British East India Company introducedPolicy Doctrine of Lapse
Oudh annexationPolicy Doctrine of Lapse
this entity surface form: Doctrine of Lapse (contested pretext)
Rani Lakshmibai doctrineOpposed Doctrine of Lapse
Battle of Jhansi associatedWith Doctrine of Lapse
Lord Dalhousie knownFor Doctrine of Lapse
Lord Dalhousie implementedPolicy Doctrine of Lapse
Nawab of the Carnatic abolishedBy Doctrine of Lapse
this entity surface form: Doctrine of Lapse (applied by the British)
Sambalpur annexationPolicy Doctrine of Lapse
Newalkar dynasty endCause Doctrine of Lapse
Nawab of Bengal endCause Doctrine of Lapse
Jhansi Ki Rani policyOpposed Doctrine of Lapse
subject surface form: Rani Lakshmibai
Jaitpur incorporationPolicy Doctrine of Lapse
Jaitpur dissolutionReason Doctrine of Lapse
Damodar Rao mentionedInContextOf Doctrine of Lapse
Raja Gangadhar Rao Newalkar linkedToPolicy Doctrine of Lapse
Jhansi State annexedUnderPolicy Doctrine of Lapse
James Andrew Broun-Ramsay notableFor Doctrine of Lapse
this entity surface form: Doctrine of Lapse policy in India
British Raj (Company rule in India) policy Doctrine of Lapse
Nagpur kingdom annexationReason Doctrine of Lapse
Raja Gangadhar Rao causeOfPoliticalEvent Doctrine of Lapse
this entity surface form: Annexation of Jhansi under Doctrine of Lapse
Maharaja of Jhansi associatedWithPolicy Doctrine of Lapse
British policies in India associatedWith Doctrine of Lapse
Treaties of the British East India Company hasPart Doctrine of Lapse
this entity surface form: Doctrine of Lapse–related agreements