Modern Indian History Notes 14

The Anglo-Mysore Wars

The rise of Mysore under Haider Ali and later Tipu Sultan in the latter half of the 18th century presented a formidable challenge to the burgeoning power of the English East India Company (EIC) in South India. This rivalry culminated in four major wars.

• Reasons for Animosity and Rivalry:

  • Political Ambition: The Mysore state, under Haider Ali (c. 1720-1782) and Tipu Sultan (1750-1799), aimed for political hegemony over South India. This ambition directly clashed with the interests of its neighbours: the Marathas, the Nizam of Hyderabad, the Nawab of Carnatic, and the Raja of Travancore, all of whom sought to maintain or expand their own spheres of influence.
  • Mercantilist Competition: Mysore controlled the lucrative trade of pepper and cardamom from the Malabar coast. Tipu Sultan, in particular, sought to establish a state monopoly over this trade and forge direct commercial links with powers in the Middle East and France, bypassing the EIC. This challenged the Company’s commercial supremacy, a core component of its power. As historian Prasannan Parthasarathi argues in The Transition to a Colonial Economy (2001), Mysore’s economic policies were a direct threat to the EIC’s profit motives.
  • Military Fiscalism: Both Mysore and the EIC employed a system of ‘military fiscalism’. This concept, explored by historian Burton Stein, describes a state structure where resources extracted from land revenue and trade are primarily used to fund a modern, disciplined, and technologically advanced military. Mysore, with French assistance, developed a formidable army with European-style infantry and advanced artillery (including rockets), creating a military peer-competitor to the EIC. This similarity in state-building strategy made conflict almost inevitable.
  • Shifting Alliances: The political landscape was fluid. The Marathas and the Nizam of Hyderabad frequently switched allegiances. Initially, they viewed Mysore as a greater threat and allied with the British. However, a brief but significant grand alliance of Mysore, the Marathas, and Hyderabad was forged against the EIC in 1780. This was largely orchestrated by the astute Maratha statesman Nana Fadnavis, who was among the first Indian leaders to grasp the full extent of British imperial ambitions. This alliance, however, was short-lived. The British skillfully used diplomacy, signing the Treaty of Salbai (1782) with the Marathas and returning the Guntur district to the Nizam, thereby isolating Mysore once again.

• The Four Anglo-Mysore Wars:

  1. First Anglo-Mysore War (1767-69): Haider Ali, demonstrating superior military tactics, inflicted a series of defeats on the British and reached the gates of Madras. The war concluded with the Treaty of Madras (1769), a defensive pact which stipulated mutual aid in case of an attack by a third party. This was a humiliating treaty for the EIC.
  2. Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780-84): The EIC reneged on the Treaty of Madras when the Marathas attacked Mysore in 1771. The war began with Haider Ali’s invasion of the Carnatic. After Haider’s death from cancer in 1782, Tipu Sultan continued the war. With the American War of Independence concluding, French support for Mysore waned. The war ended inconclusively with the Treaty of Mangalore (1784), which restored the status quo ante bellum (restitution of each other’s territories).
  3. Third Anglo-Mysore War (1790-92): Triggered by Tipu’s attack on Travancore, a British ally, this war saw Governor-General Lord Cornwallis leading a ‘Triple Alliance’ of the British, the Nizam, and the Marathas. Tipu was defeated. The Treaty of Seringapatam (1792) was imposed, under which Mysore ceded half its territory (including Malabar, Dindigul, and Baramahal) to the allies, paid a massive war indemnity of over 3 crore rupees, and surrendered two of his sons as hostages.
  4. Fourth Anglo-Mysore War (1799): Lord Wellesley, an arch-imperialist, used Tipu’s correspondence with Napoleon as a pretext for war. A swift, decisive campaign culminated in the siege and capture of Seringapatam. Tipu Sultan died fighting heroically, an event immortalized in British art and literature. The kingdom was dismantled; the EIC annexed key coastal and strategic territories (Canara, Coimbatore), the core was given back to the old Wodeyar dynasty, who were forced to sign the Subsidiary Alliance, effectively making Mysore a client state.

Consolidation of British Power in the South

• Travancore: After the reigns of powerful rulers like Martanda Varma and Rama Varma, British influence grew. Following a revolt by Nair troops in 1805 over pay, the state was compelled to sign a Subsidiary Alliance treaty with Wellesley. The intrusive conduct of the British Resident, Colonel Macaulay, and the heavy financial burden of the alliance led to a major revolt in 1809 led by the Diwan (Prime Minister), Velu Thampi. His Kundara Proclamation called for a mass uprising to oust the British. The rebellion was brutally crushed.
• Carnatic: The Nawab of Carnatic had been a British protectorate since the mid-18th century, accumulating vast debts to the Company. In 1801, Lord Wellesley used the pretext of discovering treasonous correspondence between the late Nawab Muhammad Ali and Tipu Sultan to annex the territory outright, ending the nominal rule of the Nawab.

The Anglo-Maratha Wars

The decline of the Maratha Confederacy, plagued by internal dissensions, paved the way for British ascendancy in the Deccan and Central India.

• Context: The Maratha Confederacy was a complex political formation of five major powers: the Peshwa (at Pune), the Gaekwads (at Baroda), the Holkars (at Indore), the Scindias (at Gwalior), and the Bhonsles (at Nagpur). The death of the capable Peshwa Madhavrao I in 1772 triggered a power struggle.
• First Anglo-Maratha War (1775-82):
  • Cause: The internal struggle for the Peshwaship between the infant Madhavrao II (supported by Nana Fadnavis and the ‘Barbhai’ council) and the ambitious Raghunath Rao (Raghoba). Raghoba signed the Treaty of Surat (1775) with the Bombay government of the EIC, promising Salsette and Bassein in exchange for military support.
  • Events: The Calcutta Council under Governor-General Warren Hastings annulled the treaty, sending his own envoy to sign the Treaty of Purandar (1776). However, the Bombay government’s actions had already precipitated war. The Marathas, under Mahadji Scindia, inflicted a humiliating defeat on the British at Wadgaon (1779). The war dragged on until the Treaty of Salbai (1782) was signed. It largely restored the status quo, with the British retaining Salsette. It secured peace for 20 years, during which the British consolidated their power elsewhere, particularly against Mysore.
• Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803-05):
  • Cause: The death of Nana Fadnavis in 1800 removed a unifying figure, intensifying infighting. After being defeated by Yashwantrao Holkar, the Peshwa Baji Rao II fled and signed the Treaty of Bassein (1802) with the British. This treaty was a subsidiary alliance that effectively surrendered Maratha independence, a fact that historian Grant Duff noted meant “placing the British as the controlling power in India.”
  • Events & Result: The Scindia and Bhonsle chiefs challenged this treaty but were decisively defeated by British forces under Arthur Wellesley (at Assaye) and Lord Lake (at Delhi and Laswari). They were forced to sign subsidiary alliances (Treaty of Surji-Anjangaon with Scindia, Treaty of Deogaon with Bhonsle), ceding vast territories including Orissa, Delhi, and Agra. The Maratha dream of a pan-Indian empire was shattered.
• Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817-19):
  • Cause: This was the final, decisive conflict. It was precipitated by the aggressive imperialist policy of Paramountcy under Governor-General Lord Hastings. The British campaign against the Pindaris (irregular military plunderers associated with the Marathas) was seen as an infringement of Maratha sovereignty. Peshwa Baji Rao II made a last attempt to rally the Maratha chiefs against the British.
  • Result: The Marathas were completely defeated. The Peshwaship was abolished, and Baji Rao II was pensioned off to Bithur near Kanpur. The bulk of the Peshwa’s territories (Swarajya) were annexed and incorporated into the Bombay Presidency. The remaining Maratha states were reduced to fully subordinate princely states. By 1819, the EIC had established undisputed dominance over India south of the Sutlej river.

The Doctrine of Paramountcy and Dalhousie’s Annexations

• Policy of Paramountcy (from 1813): Articulated by Lord Hastings, this policy marked a fundamental shift in the EIC’s relationship with Indian states. It moved beyond the subsidiary alliance system, which notionally respected the internal sovereignty of states. Paramountcy asserted that the British were the supreme or ‘paramount’ power in India. This gave them a self-proclaimed right to interfere in the internal affairs of any Indian state, and even annex them, to protect what they defined as their paramount interests. It rendered the theoretical sovereignty of Indian states meaningless.
• Lord Dalhousie (1848-56) and Imperial Expansion: Dalhousie was an ardent expansionist who used the policy of paramountcy to its fullest extent to consolidate the British empire. His methods included:
  • War: The Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848-49) led to the annexation of Punjab. The Second Anglo-Burmese War (1852) resulted in the annexation of Lower Burma (Pegu).
  • Doctrine of Lapse: This was Dalhousie’s most controversial tool. It stipulated that if the ruler of a dependent state died without a natural (biological) male heir, the state would ‘lapse’ or be annexed by the paramount power. The traditional Indian right of rulers to adopt an heir was not recognized for the purpose of succession. The states annexed under this doctrine include:
    • Satara (1848)
    • Jaitpur and Sambalpur (1849)
    • Baghat (1850)
    • Udaipur (1852)
    • Jhansi (1853)
    • Nagpur (1854)
  • Pretext of Misgovernance: The most infamous case was the annexation of Awadh (Oudh) in 1856. Despite a century of alliance, Awadh was annexed on the grounds of chronic misrule by its ruler, Nawab Wajid Ali Shah. This was justified by the official reports of British officials like W.H. Sleeman. This action caused widespread resentment and is considered a major cause of the 1857 Revolt.
  • Other Annexations: In 1853, Berar was taken from the Nizam of Hyderabad to pay for the upkeep of the subsidiary force, showcasing the financial trap of the alliance system.

Prelims Pointers

• First Anglo-Mysore War (1767-69): Ended with the Treaty of Madras.
• Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780-84): Ended with the Treaty of Mangalore. Haider Ali died during this war (1782).
• Third Anglo-Mysore War (1790-92): Ended with the Treaty of Seringapatam. Led by Governor-General Cornwallis.
• Fourth Anglo-Mysore War (1799): Led by Governor-General Wellesley. Tipu Sultan was killed. Wodeyar dynasty was restored under a Subsidiary Alliance.
• Velu Thampi: Diwan of Travancore who led a revolt against the British in 1809.
• Kundara Proclamation (1809): Call to arms against the British by Velu Thampi.
• Annexation of Carnatic: 1801, by Lord Wellesley.
• First Anglo-Maratha War (1775-82): Key treaties are Treaty of Surat (1775), Treaty of Purandar (1776), and ended with the Treaty of Salbai (1782).
• Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803-05): Key cause was the Treaty of Bassein (1802), a subsidiary alliance with Peshwa Baji Rao II. Key battles: Assaye, Laswari.
• Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817-19): Led by Governor-General Lord Hastings. Resulted in the abolition of the Peshwaship.
• Policy of Paramountcy: Initiated by Lord Hastings around 1813.
• Lord Dalhousie’s tenure: 1848-1856.
• States annexed via Doctrine of Lapse (with year):
  1. Satara (1848)
  2. Sambalpur (1849)
  3. Baghat (1850)
  4. Udaipur (1852)
  5. Jhansi (1853)
  6. Nagpur (1854)
• Annexation of Awadh: 1856, on grounds of misgovernance.
• Annexation of Punjab: 1849, after the Second Anglo-Sikh War.
• Annexation of Berar: 1853, from the Nizam of Hyderabad.

Mains Insights

• Indian Disunity as a Facilitator of British Conquest: A recurring theme in the Anglo-Mysore and Anglo-Maratha wars is the inability of Indian powers to form a sustained, united front against the EIC. The ‘Triple Alliance’ of the British, Marathas, and the Nizam against Mysore is a classic example. Similarly, the internal factionalism within the Maratha Confederacy (e.g., Holkar vs. Scindia and Peshwa) was skillfully exploited by the British, particularly by Wellesley. This highlights a critical cause-effect relationship: internal rivalry among Indian states directly contributed to their piecemeal subjugation.

• Evolution of British Imperial Policy: The British approach to expansion evolved significantly from 1760 to 1857.

  1. Ring-Fence Policy (early phase): Primarily defensive, aimed at protecting Company territories by defending the frontiers of their neighbours.
  2. Subsidiary Alliance (Wellesley): An offensive policy disguised as a defensive one. It allowed the EIC to maintain a large army at the expense of Indian states, control their foreign policy, and place a Resident at their court, effectively crippling them without outright annexation. It was a “masterstroke of bloodless conquest.”
  3. Policy of Paramountcy (Hastings & Dalhousie): This was an open assertion of British supremacy. It discarded the fiction of sovereign equality and claimed a unilateral right to interfere and annex, as seen in the Doctrine of Lapse and the annexation of Awadh. This transition reflects the growing confidence and unchecked power of the EIC in India.

• Historiographical Debate on Tipu Sultan: There are contrasting views on Tipu.

  • Colonial Historiography: Portrayed him as a ‘religious fanatic’ and an ‘oriental despot’ to justify the wars against him.
  • Nationalist/Revisionist Historiography: Scholars like B. Sheik Ali and Mohibbul Hasan view him as a proto-nationalist, a patriot who fiercely defended his independence. They highlight his administrative and economic innovations (new calendar, coinage, state-run industries) and his modernizing military as evidence of a visionary ruler who understood the nature of the British threat.

• Dalhousie’s Annexations and the Revolt of 1857: Dalhousie is often called the ‘maker of modern India’ for his administrative reforms (railways, telegraph, postal system). However, his annexation policies were a direct cause of the Great Revolt of 1857.

  • Doctrine of Lapse: Created a sense of insecurity among all ruling families (e.g., Nana Saheb, the adopted son of the last Peshwa; Rani of Jhansi).
  • Annexation of Awadh: This was particularly damaging. Awadh was the ‘nursery of the Bengal Army’, and a majority of its sepoys came from there. The annexation dismantled the traditional social order, dispossessed the talukdars (landholders), and was seen as a grave act of betrayal, deeply offending the religious and professional sentiments of the sepoys. This direct link between annexationist policy and popular discontent is a crucial analytical point for GS Paper I.