British Expansion Policies and Wars
Ring fence, Subsidiary Alliance, paramountcy and the Doctrine of Lapse, with the Anglo-Mysore, Anglo-Maratha and Anglo-Sikh wars and the Chhattisgarh link.
Prerequisites
- Battles of Plassey and Buxar — Bengal’s revenue financed every war on this page.
- Maratha Rule in Chhattisgarh — the Bhonsles of Nagpur, rulers of Chhattisgarh until the British took over.
The Hook: How Raipur Became a British District
In November 1817 the Bhonsle ruler of Nagpur, Appa Sahib, attacked the British on the hills of Sitabuldi and lost. From 1818 British superintendents ran Chhattisgarh from Raipur on behalf of a boy Raja. When that Raja, Raghuji III, died without a son in December 1853, Lord Dalhousie applied the Doctrine of Lapse and Chhattisgarh became British territory (1854).
The same tools, war, subsidiary alliance and lapse, were used across India. What were these policies, who used which one, and how did they turn a coastal company into the paramount power?
Why it matters: Prelims asks which state accepted the subsidiary alliance first, which states were annexed under lapse, and treaty–war matches. Mains asks for an evaluation of Wellesley’s and Dalhousie’s policies and their link to the Revolt of 1857.
Phases of British Policy towards Indian States
| Phase | Governor-General | Policy | Idea |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1765–1798 | Warren Hastings (1772–1785) | Ring fence (घेरे की नीति) | Defend the Company’s frontiers by keeping neighbouring states (Awadh) as buffer states at their own cost |
| 1798–1805 | Lord Wellesley | Subsidiary Alliance (सहायक संधि) | Make Indian states militarily dependent on the Company |
| 1813–1823 | Lord Hastings (Marquess of Hastings) | Paramountcy (subordinate isolation) | The Company is supreme; states are subordinate and cannot deal with one another |
| 1848–1856 | Lord Dalhousie | Doctrine of Lapse (व्यपगत का सिद्धांत / हड़प नीति) plus annexation for “misgovernment” | Absorb states lacking a natural heir or “badly governed” |
The Subsidiary Alliance (Wellesley, from 1798)
Terms an Indian ruler accepted:
- A British force stationed in his territory, paid for by him (in cash or by ceding territory).
- A British Resident at his court.
- No other European in his service without British approval.
- No war or negotiation with any other state without British consent (foreign policy surrendered).
- In return, the Company protected him from external attack and promised not to interfere in internal affairs (a promise often broken).
| State | Year | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Hyderabad (Nizam) | 1798 | First to accept Wellesley’s subsidiary alliance |
| Mysore | 1799 | After Tipu’s death; Wodeyars restored under the alliance |
| Tanjore | 1799 | |
| Awadh | 1801 | Forced to cede about half its territory (Rohilkhand, lower Doab) |
| Peshwa (Baji Rao II) | 1802 | Treaty of Bassein (31 Dec 1802); triggered the Second Anglo-Maratha War |
| Bhonsle (Nagpur) | 1803 / 1816 | Defeated in 1803 (Treaty of Deogaon); a formal subsidiary treaty was signed by Appa Sahib in 1816 |
| Scindia (Gwalior) | 1803–04 | After the Treaty of Surji-Arjangaon (1803) |
For the Company: a large army at Indian expense; control of foreign policy; elimination of French influence; a low-cost route to paramountcy and often to annexation when subsidies fell into arrears (Awadh 1801, Hyderabad’s later cession of Berar in 1853).
For Indian states: loss of independence and of the right to self-defence; heavy financial burden; disbanded soldiers swelled bands such as the Pindaris; rulers protected from their subjects stopped caring for them, so misgovernment grew, which the Company later used as a reason for annexation.
The Wars of Expansion
Anglo-Mysore Wars (आंग्ल-मैसूर युद्ध)
| War | Years | Mysore ruler | Ended by / result |
|---|---|---|---|
| First | 1767–69 | Hyder Ali | Treaty of Madras (1769): mutual restitution and a defensive alliance; Hyder did well |
| Second | 1780–84 | Hyder Ali, then Tipu Sultan (Hyder died 1782) | Treaty of Mangalore (1784): status quo |
| Third | 1790–92 | Tipu | Treaty of Seringapatam (1792) under Cornwallis: Tipu lost about half his territory and paid a large indemnity |
| Fourth | 1799 | Tipu | Under Wellesley; Tipu killed defending Seringapatam (May 1799); Wodeyars restored under subsidiary alliance |
Anglo-Maratha Wars (आंग्ल-मराठा युद्ध)
| War | Years | Key events | Ended by |
|---|---|---|---|
| First | 1775–82 | Treaty of Surat (1775) with Raghunath Rao; Treaty of Purandar (1776); British humiliated at Wadgaon (1779) | Treaty of Salbai (1782), mediated by Mahadji Scindia; status quo, twenty years of peace |
| Second | 1803–05 | Followed the Treaty of Bassein (1802); Assaye and Laswari (1803); Arthur Wellesley, Lake | Treaties of Deogaon (Bhonsle, 1803), Surji-Arjangaon (Scindia, 1803), Rajghat (Holkar, 1805) |
| Third | 1817–18 | Under Lord Hastings, with the Pindari campaign: Kirkee, Sitabuldi (Nov 1817), Mahidpur (Dec 1817), Koregaon (1 Jan 1818) | Peshwa’s office abolished (1818); Baji Rao II pensioned off to Bithur; Maratha power ended |
Anglo-Sikh Wars (आंग्ल-सिख युद्ध)
- Ranjit Singh signed the Treaty of Amritsar (1809) with the British (Charles Metcalfe), fixing the Sutlej as the boundary. After his death (1839) Punjab fell into instability.
- First Anglo-Sikh War (1845–46): Mudki, Ferozeshah, Aliwal, Sobraon. Treaty of Lahore (March 1846): Jalandhar Doab ceded; Kashmir sold to Gulab Singh (Treaty of Amritsar, 1846). Treaty of Bhyrowal (Dec 1846): a British Resident to run Punjab during Duleep Singh’s minority.
- Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848–49): Chillianwala, Gujrat. Punjab annexed in 1849 by Dalhousie (by conquest, not lapse).
Dalhousie’s Doctrine of Lapse (1848–1856)
The rule: if the ruler of a dependent state (one created or protected by the Company) died without a natural heir, the state “lapsed” to the Company. An adopted son could inherit the ruler’s private property but not the kingdom, unless the Company agreed.
| State | Year |
|---|---|
| Satara | 1848 (first) |
| Jaitpur and Sambalpur | 1849 |
| Baghat | 1850 |
| Udaipur (in present-day Chhattisgarh) | 1852 (restored to its ruling family in 1860) |
| Jhansi | 1853 |
| Nagpur (including Chhattisgarh) | 1854 |
Other Dalhousie annexations (not by lapse): Punjab (1849, conquest), Lower Burma / Pegu (1852, war), Berar (1853, from the Nizam for subsidy arrears), Awadh (1856, on the plea of misgovernment; Nawab Wajid Ali Shah deposed). He also refused to continue titles and pensions, notably the Peshwa’s pension to Nana Sahib.
Memory Tricks
Don’t Confuse
| This | vs | That |
|---|---|---|
| Treaty of Bassein (1802): Peshwa accepts subsidiary alliance, starts the Second Maratha War | Treaty of Salbai (1782): ends the First Maratha War | |
| Treaty of Amritsar (1809): Ranjit Singh and Metcalfe; Sutlej boundary | Treaty of Amritsar (1846): Kashmir sold to Gulab Singh | |
| Punjab (1849): annexed by conquest | Satara (1848): annexed by lapse | |
| Awadh (1856): misgovernment | Jhansi (1853): lapse | |
| Treaty of Madras (1769): First Mysore War | Treaty of Mangalore (1784): Second Mysore War | |
| Warren Hastings: ring fence | Lord Hastings: paramountcy, Third Maratha War |
Common Mistakes
- “Awadh was annexed under the Doctrine of Lapse.” No: misgovernment (1856). Wajid Ali Shah had heirs.
- “Punjab was annexed by lapse.” No: by conquest after the Second Anglo-Sikh War.
- “Dalhousie introduced the subsidiary alliance.” It was Wellesley (from 1798). Dalhousie is lapse.
- “Mysore was the first state to accept the subsidiary alliance.” Hyderabad (1798) was first.
- “Chhattisgarh became British in 1818.” 1818 began British supervision on behalf of the Bhonsles; annexation was 1854.
Practice
All questions below are original practice questions written in CGPSC style. They are not previous-year questions.
Level 1: Foundation
- Which Indian ruler was the first to accept Wellesley’s subsidiary alliance, and in which year?
- The Treaty of Salbai (1782) ended which war?
- Name the first state annexed under the Doctrine of Lapse.
Answers
- The Nizam of Hyderabad, 1798.
- The First Anglo-Maratha War.
- Satara (1848).
Level 2: Prelims MCQs
Q1. Consider the following statements:
- Under the subsidiary alliance, the Indian ruler had to accept a British Resident at his court.
- The Peshwa accepted the subsidiary alliance through the Treaty of Bassein.
- Awadh was annexed in 1856 under the Doctrine of Lapse.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- (a) 1 only
- (b) 1 and 2 only
- (c) 2 and 3 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer and explanation
Q2. Match List I (Treaty) with List II (War):
| List I | List II |
|---|---|
| A. Treaty of Seringapatam | 1. First Anglo-Maratha War |
| B. Treaty of Salbai | 2. First Anglo-Sikh War |
| C. Treaty of Lahore | 3. Third Anglo-Mysore War |
| D. Treaty of Madras | 4. First Anglo-Mysore War |
- (a) A-3, B-1, C-2, D-4
- (b) A-4, B-1, C-2, D-3
- (c) A-3, B-2, C-1, D-4
- (d) A-1, B-3, C-2, D-4
Answer and explanation
Q3. Which of the following states were annexed by Lord Dalhousie under the Doctrine of Lapse?
- Jhansi
- Nagpur
- Punjab
- Udaipur (Chhattisgarh)
Select the correct answer:
- (a) 1 and 2 only
- (b) 1, 2 and 4 only
- (c) 2, 3 and 4 only
- (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4
Answer and explanation
Q4. Chhattisgarh came under British supervision in 1818 as a result of:
- (a) the Treaty of Deogaon
- (b) the defeat of Appa Sahib Bhonsle in the Third Anglo-Maratha War
- (c) the Doctrine of Lapse
- (d) the Treaty of Salbai
Answer and explanation
Q5. The policy of “ring fence” is associated with:
- (a) Lord Wellesley
- (b) Lord Dalhousie
- (c) Warren Hastings
- (d) Lord Cornwallis
Answer and explanation
Level 3: Mains Answer Writing
Q1. (150–200 words) Compare the Subsidiary Alliance of Wellesley with the Doctrine of Lapse of Dalhousie as instruments of British expansion.
Model answer outline
- Intro: Both aimed at paramountcy, by different routes: indirect control (Wellesley) and direct annexation (Dalhousie).
- Subsidiary Alliance (1798–1805): subsidiary force paid by the ruler, Resident, no foreign policy, no other Europeans; Hyderabad (1798), Mysore, Awadh, Peshwa (Bassein 1802). Gained an army at Indian cost; states hollowed out.
- Doctrine of Lapse (1848–56): no natural heir, state lapses; adoption not recognised for succession; Satara, Jhansi, Nagpur (including Chhattisgarh, 1854), Udaipur (Chhattisgarh, 1852).
- Comparison: indirect vs direct; military dependence vs legal pretext; the alliance often prepared the ground for later annexation.
- Consequences: discontent of princes and their dependants; Jhansi, Nana Sahib, Awadh leaders in 1857; after 1858 the Crown gave up annexation and recognised adoption.
- Conclusion: Both turned the Company into the paramount power, but lapse’s bluntness helped bring on the Revolt.
Q2. (60 words) How did British expansion policy affect Chhattisgarh between 1818 and 1854?
Model answer outline
- Third Anglo-Maratha War: Appa Sahib defeated at Sitabuldi (1817); Chhattisgarh under British superintendents (1818–1830), HQ shifted to Raipur.
- Bhonsle rule restored 1830 under British oversight.
- Raghuji III died heirless (1853); Nagpur, including Chhattisgarh, annexed under lapse (1854); Udaipur had lapsed in 1852.
Quick Revision Table
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Ring fence | Warren Hastings; buffer states |
| Subsidiary alliance | Wellesley, 1798; Hyderabad first |
| Paramountcy | Lord Hastings (1813–23) |
| Doctrine of Lapse | Dalhousie (1848–56); Satara first (1848) |
| Mysore wars | Madras 1769; Mangalore 1784; Seringapatam 1792; Tipu killed 1799 |
| Maratha wars | Salbai 1782; Bassein 1802; Assaye 1803; Peshwa abolished 1818 |
| Sitabuldi | November 1817; Appa Sahib (Nagpur) defeated |
| Sikh wars | Lahore 1846; Bhyrowal 1846; Punjab annexed 1849 |
| Chhattisgarh | Supervision 1818–30; Udaipur lapse 1852; Nagpur lapse 1854 |
| Awadh | 1856, misgovernment; Wajid Ali Shah |
Key Takeaways
- Policy moved from ring fence (Warren Hastings) to subsidiary alliance (Wellesley) to paramountcy (Lord Hastings) to lapse (Dalhousie).
- The subsidiary alliance gave the Company an army at Indian expense; Hyderabad (1798) was the first to accept it.
- Wars against Mysore, the Marathas and the Sikhs removed the last strong rivals by 1849.
- Chhattisgarh came under British supervision in 1818 and was annexed with Nagpur in 1854.
- Lapse and the annexation of Awadh (1856) fed directly into the Revolt of 1857.
What’s Next
- Economic Impact of British Rule — what the expanding empire did to India’s economy
- The Revolt of 1857 — the reaction to annexation
- British Rule, Princely States and Zamindaris — the state-level story after 1818
- British Expansion — Quick Revision