British Paramountcy over the Princely States

British Paramountcy over the Princely States

History Optional Notes {PDF}

Complete Notes Package (Paper I & II) | 4500+ Pages | Instant Download

Discounted Price | Buy Now @ ₹1,180 →

From Traders to Rulers

• The European traders who came to India organised themselves into trading companies, each issued a charter by its respective government.
  • This charter generally empowered these companies to wage war, conclude treaties, conquer and occupy territories, and build fortresses — granting them the right to negotiate directly with the kings, Nawabs, and chieftains ruling across different parts of India.
• The English eventually gained the upper hand and began conquering India. By 1856–57, the whole of India — barring Goa, Diu, and Daman (which remained Portuguese possessions) and Pondicherry (which remained a French possession) — had come under the rule of the British East India Company.
  • The British Government encouraged and supported the Company in these ambitions. Initially, the Company established, with the permission of local authorities, a few trading centres called “factories” — which were, in effect, forts. Thus, the Company’s merchant members simultaneously became warriors.

Evolution of British Paramountcy

• Lord Warren Hastings served as the first de facto Governor-General of India, from 1773 to 1785.
• The British East India Company pursued an aggressive policy of territorial expansion from the early eighteenth century onward.
  • Under the policy of paramountcy, the Company claimed that its authority was paramount, or supreme — greater than that of any Indian state — and steadily spread its political domination across the country through a series of wars.
• The chronology of events relating to the establishment of British power in India unfolded as follows:
  1. Winning the three Deccan Wars (1746–48, 1748–54, and 1756–63), the English drove the French out of their hold in South India and became the dominant power there.
  2. The Battles of Plassey (1757) and Buxar (1764) made the English masters of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa.
  3. By Pitt’s India Act of 1784, the British Government assumed powers over the political and administrative activities of the East India Company.
  4. Acting under instructions from the British Government, Lord Cornwallis annexed a considerable portion of Tipu Sultan’s territory.
  5. During 1798–1805, implementing the policy of “Subsidiary Alliance,” Lord Wellesley brought Hyderabad under direct British control, and Gwalior, Baroda, Indore, Nagpur, and Poona under British influence.
  6. During 1813–1823, Lord Hastings subdued the Marathas, the central states of Rajputana, and the Gurkhas of Nepal.
  7. Lord Amherst, who succeeded Hastings, defeated the Burmese.
  8. By the two Sikh Wars (1845–46 and 1849), the British annexed Punjab.
  9. In 1856, the principality of Oudh was annexed.
  10. Under Lord Dalhousie, who arrived in India as Governor-General in 1848, several smaller principalities were absorbed through the “Doctrine of Lapse.”
  11. Following these conquests, Goa, Daman and Diu, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli remained Portuguese possessions, while Pondicherry, Mahe, and Karaikal remained French possessions in India.
  12. The transfer of the Government of India from the East India Company to the British Crown took place on 1 November 1858.
• This timeline traces how the Indians lost their independence, coming to be ruled first by the East India Company under successive Governors-General, and later directly by the British Government.

Economy and Policy under British Paramountcy

• In 1800 CE, India accounted for a striking 20 per cent of total world manufacturing output. By 1900, however, India had become synonymous with poverty — its exports made up a mere 1.7 per cent of total world trade, and over 30 million people (more than 10 per cent of India’s population) died of starvation across the 82 years of British rule.
  • Paul Kennedy, in The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, presents statistics showing how Indian and British fortunes reversed between 1750 and 1900 — a reversal that coincides closely with the ascendancy of British power in India.
  • After 1818, once the British had become the dominant power in India, Indian manufacturing output declined rapidly even as British output rose — a correlation directly traceable to the ascent of British rule in India.
    • The British captured Bengal (and Bihar) in 1757; Mysore in 1799; in 1818, the Marathas, then India’s largest power, surrendered; and in 1849, the British captured the Sikh kingdom of Punjab.
• With the establishment of political authority, British rulers deliberately fostered the growth of British trade and commerce at the cost of Indian trade, ruining Indian trade through restrictive trade practices.
  • During the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, Indian goods — which were exceedingly competitive — were levied duties of 70 to 80 per cent.
  • Even later, machine-made British goods enjoyed a 10 to 27 per cent duty advantage over Indian goods produced through traditional means.
  • The British historian Wilson observed: it was stated in evidence in 1813 that Indian cotton and silk goods could be sold profitably in British markets at prices 50 to 60 per cent lower than those manufactured in England — and that, without the 70 to 80 per cent duty levied on Indian textiles, “the mills of Paisley and Manchester would have been stopped in their outset.”
  • A Parliamentary inquiry report of 1840 recorded that while British cotton and silk goods entered India at duties of just 3.5 per cent (cotton) and 2 per cent (woollens), Indian goods entering Britain faced duties of 10 per cent for cotton, 20 per cent for silk, and 30 per cent for woollen goods.

The Policy of Subordinate Isolation

• A new phase of relations with the princely states began with the arrival of Lord Hastings, who sought to establish British paramountcy over Indian princely states.
  • In his treaties with these states, rather than treating them as equals, he forced them into subordinate cooperation — the princes lost their external sovereignty entirely, and even in internal matters, British Residents interfered and imposed their own decisions on the rulers.
  • As Lord Hastings himself noted in his private journal: “Instead of acting in the character of ambassador, he (the Resident) assumes the functions of a dictator; interferes in all their private concerns, countenances refractory subjects against them, and makes the most ostentatious exhibition of his exercise of authority.”
• Lord Hastings brought under the subsidiary system some 145 states in central India, 145 states in Kathiawar, and 20 states in Rajputana.
  • He did not seek to annex these states outright, but rather to place them in a state of “subordinate isolation.” Wherever the subsidiary system took hold, however, rulers grew irresponsible, and maladministration became widespread.
• Although the treaties theoretically recognised and guaranteed the existence of princely states as separate entities, in practice, many were annexed.
  • In 1841, the Court of Directors directed the Government of India not to abandon any “just and honourable accession of territory and revenue” — with annexation justified on grounds of misgovernment by native rulers.
• In the years following Lord Hastings’s retirement, the Company’s influence over the internal administration of the states increased rapidly.
  • British Residents served as the principal instruments of communication between the Government of India and the rulers of the Indian states, with their powers and status growing steadily over time.
  • Dalhousie annexed states on two grounds: the Doctrine of Lapse, and misgovernment by native rulers.
• With the continuous assertion of the Company’s supremacy and the adoption of subordinate cooperation, the commercial body that was the East India Company effectively became the executive power in India.
  • British Residents posted in each state thus carried out the entire administrative and military function of the Indian states.
  • By the Charter Act of 1833, the Company was directed to accentuate its commercial business — accompanying this shift was a marked change in the Company’s attitude towards the Indian states.
    • A policy of annexation, wherever and whenever possible, was laid down by the Court of Directors in 1834, and the Governors-General of this period proved themselves true annexationists.
• Annexation of territories thus became the chief instrument for the extension of British territory. However, annexations were carried out either to acquire new revenue territory, or on grounds of misgovernment arising from the failure of a natural heir among Indian rulers.
  • Even after the East India Company established its undisputed supremacy in 1818, relations between the Indian states and the Company remained chaotic, indefinite, and contradictory.

Conclusion

• The paramountcy policy of the Governor-General represented a claim to supremacy that has been disputed by Indian citizens.
  • The policy was enacted to provide a clear and concise framework for the governance of India, but it has been criticised by those who argue that the Constitution of India provides for a far more democratic system of government.
  • Despite this opposition, the paramountcy policy remains in effect in historical memory, and its impact continues to be felt throughout Indian society.