The Doctrine of Lapse was a controversial colonial policy introduced by Lord Dalhousie in 1848, which allowed the British East India Company to annex any princely state in India if the ruler died without a male heir or was deemed incompetent. By the use of the doctrine of lapse, the Company took over the princely states of Satara (1848), Jaitpur, Sambalpur (1849), Baghat (1850)This policy not only disrupted existing power hierarchies within native states but also acted as a catalyst for mass participation in the Revolt of 1857.

Doctrine of Lapse Disrupted the Existing Power Hierarchies Within Native States in the following ways

• Jhansi: When Rani Lakshmibai’s husband, Raja Gangadhar Rao, died without a male heir, the British annexed Jhansi under the Doctrine of Lapse. It highlights the extent to which the Doctrine disrupted traditional power structures.
• Satara: Satara was the first state to fall under this policy, and its annexation set an alarming precedent. The act instilled a sense of deep mistrust and fear among other princely states, making them realize they were vulnerable to the same fate.
• Nagpur: The annexation of Nagpur led to the dissolution of the Maratha Confederacy, effectively dislodging a significant power center in Central India. It sent a signal to other states that even powerful entities were not safe from British expansionism.
• Sambalpur: The Doctrine dismissed local traditions, particularly the tradition of adoption. In places like Sambalpur, where adoption was prevalent, this caused immense social and political upheaval, leading to the destabilization of long-standing political structures.
• Udaipur: The annexation of Udaipur fostered a perception that British policies aimed for the complete subjugation of native states. This further fragmented the existing power hierarchies, as many Rajput states began considering alliances against British aggression.
• Loss of Aristocracy: The nobility and civil servants who lost their positions due to annexation became disenchanted with the British regime. Their disenfranchisement led to a vacuum of leadership within these states, further disturbing traditional hierarchies.
• Property Confiscation: The Doctrine led to the widespread confiscation of property, including lands held by local nobility. This dismantled the economic backbone of many states, causing unrest among landowners and peasants alike.

Ways in which the Doctrine of Lapse Acted as a Catalyst in Mobilizing Mass Participation in the Revolt of 1857

• Rani Lakshmibai: The annexation of Jhansi left Rani Lakshmibai, with no choice but to defy British orders. Her struggle against British annexation became emblematic of resistance, inspiring both men and women to join the revolt, making her one of the key figures in the 1857 Uprising.
• Military Involvement: Soldiers (sepoys) were often from the very states annexed under the Doctrine. For example Awadh was the nursery of Company’s army till the 1860s. Their personal grievances against the British made them active participants in the Revolt, spreading mutinies across various garrisons.
• Peasants and Landlords: The annexation led to changes in land revenue systems and the dispossession of local landlords. This economic disenfranchisement ensured that the revolt was not limited to military ranks but included civilian participation.
• Public Sentiment: The Doctrine came to symbolize the exploitative nature of British rule, stirring public sentiment. Even those who had not been directly affected joined the revolt, expanding its base.
• General Discontentment: The very existence of this Doctrine created a sense of impending doom among other princely states, contributing to a wider sense of unrest and immediate support for the revolt when it broke out.
• Hindu-Muslim Unity: The policy did not discriminate between Hindu or Muslim states, leading to a unique moment of religious unity against a common oppressor, which was instrumental in broadening the revolt’s scope.
• Pan-Indian Identity: This Doctrine led to the establishment of a nascent sense of collective identity. People from diverse linguistic, religious, and regional backgrounds found a common cause to rally against, laying the groundwork for future struggles.

The Doctrine of Lapse disrupted the existing power structures within the native states, leading to widespread discontent and disenfranchisement. The policy also fueled the fires of the Revolt of 1857, acting as a focal point that unified various classes and communities against British rule that eventually contributed to the end of the East India Company’s rule in India.