 Review Lord Dalhousie's Empire Expansion Policy, Lord Dalhousie's Empire Expansion Policy,
Introduction: The East India Company was a commercial organization. Initially the company came to India to trade but later intervened in the political field. As a result, the company's control over governance in India was established. Many representatives or Governor Generals emerged to administer the Company's governance or to establish Company dominance in Indian governance. Many of them had different purposes. However, protecting the interests of the company and the British was their main responsibility. Lord Dalhousie appeared in India in 1848 as a representative of the company. Dalhousie was an ardent imperialist. Expansion of the British Empire was one of his policies. He did not hesitate to adopt any method to make this policy successful. So he applied the principle of disfranchisement in the expansion of the state and was somewhat successful.
Dalhousie's early identity: When Lord Dalhousie became the Governor General of India in 1848, he was only 36 years old. Before coming to India, he rose to prominence in administrative work as Vice-President of the Board of Trade in England. He was the son of an aristocratic family in Scotland. He characterized his personality by combining his aristocratic easygoing arrogance with the easygoing sense of reality characteristic of the Scotch race. He could use immense zeal and hard work to implement the policies he adopted. His temper was arrogant. It was his natural trait to walk without caring about anything. So he took initiative to implement the plan of expansion of the empire in India.
Dalhousie's policy of colonization: Lord Dalhousie came to this country with an unmistakable sympathy for Indians and Indian civilization. Dalhousie believed that the expansion of the British Empire was necessary for the well-being of the people of India. He had great disdain for the rule of Indian kings. He felt that the rule of Indian kings was grossly corrupt and tyrannical. Abolition of this system and expansion of British rule or Pax Britannica will be good for the people of India. But he had no idea whether the people of India would support his plan. His policies were exceptional compared to previous governors. His policy was to acquire the kingdom as far as possible by saving the law. Dalhousie explained his policy in a letter saying: In my opinion, it should be a wise and well-considered policy for the Company not to refuse or neglect such opportunities as acquisitions of native states or revenues. Dalhousie cites two motives in support of his accession policy.
Namely: 1. To bring the native states under the direct rule of the British and to bring about the welfare of the people of India by introducing western style governance and reforms, 2. He stated that the second objective of his annexation policy was to preserve the integrity of the British Empire in India and capture the market for British goods in India. Sir William Lee Warner divided the Company's policy towards the native states into three stages. Namely:
1. Encirclement Policy: According to this policy, the native states were treated as foreign states, the territories occupied by the company or surrounded by British India as far as possible. It also refrains from interfering in the internal governance of native states. This policy was followed up to Lord Hastings.
2. Subsidiary Alliances and Distancing Policy: At this stage forcing the native states to submit to the company and keeping them away from forming alliances with any other foreign power. To protect the native states from any attack. To protect the right of autonomy of these states. According to this principle, the Company claimed the sovereignty or Paramountcy of India like the Mughal emperors. This policy was followed from Lord Hastings till Lord Dalhousie's arrival in India.
3. Policy of direct acquisition by companies of subordinate states: Dalhousie introduced this policy. Dalhousie did not recognize the right of native states to internal autonomy. According to him, this results in bad governance. He considered the acquisition of the native states by the Company to be just. So Dalhousie adopted four approaches to expand the British Empire in India. These four methods are:
A. Acquisition of kingdoms by direct war. c. Acquisition of Native States by application of the principle of dispossession. Cessation of Allowances and Abolition of Titles by Application of Deprivation Policy.
d. Acquiring allied kingdoms on the pretext of misrule.
Nature of Abolition Policy: One of the weapons of Dalhousie's imperial expansion is the policy of abolition. The essence of this policy was that if there were no heirs of the native dynasties under British favor and indulgence, the states would directly belong to the British Empire.
The inheritance of an adopted son will not be recognized by the British Government. He even abolished the system of granting special permission for adoption of adopted sons. However, Dalhousie declared that this policy would not be applied to the British protectorate. It is necessary to mention here that this infamous principle was not invented by Dalhousie, but he associated his name with this infamous principle by applying it effectively.
Applying this policy, he acquired many states. According to Lord Dalhousie, there were three classes of states in India then.
Namely: those native states that were not entitled and did not pay taxes and submit to the company.Native states that subjugated or taxed the company. Native states or dynasties that were established by the Company and were dependent on the Company. Dalhousie declared in his principle of abrogation that this principle would not apply to the first class of states. This principle was applied to the second class i.e. the states which were British protectorates. Third class states, namely:
In the case of states which were created by the British and were dependent on the British, if a king had no son or heir, that king would not be allowed to adopt. All those kingdoms shall vest in the Company after the King's death. Dalhousie declared that this policy would apply only to dependent or dependent states. This Act shall apply only to the States which are dependent and dependent on the Company and the States created by the Company.
Flaws of Abolition Policy: Dalhousie's policy was crooked and cruel. This is discussed below: First, it was difficult to determine which states were dependent on the company and which were dependent on the company. The distinction between these two classes of states was fine.
Secondly, Lord Dalhousie himself did not accept this distinction. He arbitrarily applied the law of dispossession to both dependent and dependent states. Later Lord Dalhousie's decision proved wrong in some states. According to the directives of the board of directors, all those kingdoms were returned to the heirs.
Thirdly, Dalhousie himself said that a company should not neglect a fair opportunity to acquire a native state. Thus, Lord Dalhousie would try to acquire the native kingdom by any means, the idea of which arose in the minds of the native kings. Abolitionism is seen by many as a pretext for annexation of native states.
Fourthly, the adoption of a son by a childless person was an ancient custom of Hindu society. Therefore, the native king, the people were displeased with Dalhousie's violation of these rights and customs. These imperialist policies were a major reason for the participation of the native king and the masses in the Great Revolt of 1857.
Fifteenth, many native state employees and soldiers lost their jobs as native states were annexed. The families of all these persons became helpless and joined the great revolt against the company. Sixth, Dalhousie applies the principle of dispossession arbitrarily widely. Even native kings who enjoyed company allowances in exchange for kingdoms were denied the right to adopt.
Seventhly, Dalhousie argued that the Abolition Act was not a new law. It was applied in limited cases before Dalhousie. In 1834 the board of directors thought of this law. Eighth, Dalhousie argued that he protected the subjects of these states from misrule. This argument was also flawed.
Applying the policy of abrogation: Lord Dalhousie acquired the following states by applying the policy of abolition?
1. Suita State: After the fall of the Marathas in 1818, Lord Hastings formed this state with a part of the Maratha kingdom. He placed a descendant of Shivaji on the throne. As this king had no son, he adopted an adopted son without the company's permission. Dalhousie rejected this arrangement and when the King of Swimmer died, he acquired the kingdom of Swimmer by applying the principle of abrogation. The Marathas resented Dalhousie's audacity.
2. Nagpur State: When the Bhosle Raja of Nagpur died childless, Dalhousie acquired Nagpur State under the principle of abolition. In 1818 Lord Hastings signed a treaty of submission with the Bhosle Raja. On this pretext, Dalhousie claimed that Nagpur was a Company's protectorate. Dalhousie was skeptical about this claim. Because Bhosle's kingdom was there even before the treaty with the British. Moreover, the British soldiers misbehaved with Bhosle's family members and looted their property, money and ornaments. The furniture of the royal family is sold at public auction. In fact Dalhousie occupied the intermediate state of Nagpur with the intention of connecting Calcutta with Bombay by land through a Company-ruled state.
3. Sambalpur possession: In 1850, Dalhousie acquired the Sambalpur kingdom.
4. Jhansi Possession: In the same year Dalhousie acquired the state of Jhansi in Uttar Pradesh. Dalhousie did not accept the adoption of the son by Rani Lakshmibai, the widow of the dead king. Lakshmi Bai led the Great Revolt in 1857.
5. Udaipur, Kaurli, Bhagat and Jaitpur rights: Dalhousie acquired the states of Udaipur, Kaurli, Bhagat, Jaitpur etc. Later Governor General Lord Canning returned Bhagat and Udaipur states to the heirs. Kaurli state was also returned by the directives of the board of directors.
6. Abolition of Allowances and Titles: Dalhousie applied the principle of abrogation of allowances and titles also. On the death of Peshwa Bajirao II in 1851 AD, his adopted son Nana Dhandupantha claimed the annual allowance of Rs 8 lakhs that his father had been given. Dalhousie rejected this claim and canceled Nana's allowance. He argued that this allowance was a personal allowance of the second Bazirao. Although this allowance was made in exchange for the Peshab's acquisition of the kingdom and the abolition of his office, and was rightly due to his acknowledged adopted son. Dalhousie rejected it. In 1857, in protest against various deprivations, he took the lead in the Great Revolt and caused a lot of damage to the company. Besides, when the Nawab of Karnat died in 1855, his post and allowance were abolished. to his heirDeprivation of rights is done according to law. He had two daughters but disinherited them when the Raja of Tanjore died in 1855. Later he abolished the rajpad and allowance of Tanjore. Dalhousie tried to abolish the title of Bahadur Shah II and the allowance of 12 lakh rupees. He did not succeed in obstructing the meeting of directors.
Expansion by war: Dalhousie introduced direct war policy to make his policy of expansion successful. As a result, he got involved in war. Namely:
1. Second Sikh War: First the war started with the ruler of Multan. Dalhousie's authority was established in a conflict with the Multan Raj. Then he fought a fierce battle with the Sikhs at Chillianwala on the banks of the Jhelum river. Although Dalhousie was not successful in the first phase of the war, the Sikhs could not sustain their success later. Then there was a battle between Lord Graff and the Sikhs on the outskirts of Gujarat on the banks of the river Chineb. The Sikhs were completely defeated in this war and fled to Afghanistan. Lord Graff removed the humiliation of defeat at the Battle of Chilian Walla by winning the Battle of Gujarat. The capture of Peshwa and the surrender of Sher Singh ended the Second Sikh War. Later Lord Dalhousie occupied Punjab.
2. Second Anglo-Brahma War: After the First Brahma War, a British resident was arranged in Brahmadesh. The second Brahmo war started with the installation of this resident. On April 14, 1852, Rangoon was occupied by British forces. In October of that year, General Godwin captured Prom.
3. A part of Sikkim State. In 1849, when the king of the small kingdom of Sikkim between Nepal and Bhutan imprisoned an Englishman named Dr. Campbell and another Englishman named Dr. Hooker, Lord Dalhousie took revenge by occupying a small part of the kingdom of Sikkim.
On the pretext of misrule, the kingdom was acquired and various treaties imposed on the Nawab of Ayodhya from 1765 onwards. As a condition of Ayodhya's subjugation agreement, he kept the British army and forced them to take a lot of money for the expenses of the army. Although the Nawab was responsible for governing Ayodhya, the Company's employees and English merchants used to exploit Ayodhya and exploit it. The Nawab had to coerce the subjects to collect the money due to the company. Dalhousie appointed Colonel Shriman to report on the misrule of Ayodhya. After receiving this report, he deposed Nawab Wajid Ali Shah of Ayodhya and acquired the kingdom of Ayodhya. He was forced to leave Ayodhya and live in Khidirpur, Kolkata with an allowance of 12 lakh rupees. However, many criticized Dalhousie's Ayodhya acceptance policy.
Dalhousie then turned his attention to the Nizam of Hyderabad. As the Nizam was unable to pay the expenses of the British troops stationed in his state, Dalhousie forced him to give up the province of Berar. Later Berar was attached to Bombay Presidency.
Conclusion : Therefore, it can be said that Lord Dalhousie was a fierce imperialist among the representatives of the company. He implemented the policies that he applied to protect the interests of the British and the company, although he was reprimanded. Besides, he was an exceptional person. So even though the policy of abolition was not his own invention, he applied or misused it during his rule. That is, wherever he gets the slightest excuse, he applies it. Because of this he was hated by the Indian public but he did not face any difficulties. He tried to strengthen the company and British base in India by ignoring the prevailing laws or customs of India by imperialist Lila.
