GS Notes

Modern Indian History Notes 15

15 min read

Annexation of Awadh

The relationship between the East India Company (EIC) and Awadh was a long and complex one, culminating in its final annexation in 1856. This process exemplifies the evolution of British imperial policy from indirect control to outright annexation.

  • Early Stages and Subsidiary Alliance: The foundation of British influence was laid with the Treaty of Allahabad (1765) after the Battle of Buxar, which made Awadh a buffer state and imposed a subsidy for the maintenance of EIC troops. The concept of the Subsidiary Alliance (SA), though used earlier, was given a formal and coercive shape by Lord Wellesley (Governor-General, 1798-1805). In 1801, a formal Subsidiary Alliance treaty was imposed on the Nawab of Awadh, Saadat Ali Khan II.
  • Economic Importance of Awadh: Awadh was of immense economic value to the British. Historian Rudrangshu Mukherjee, in his work Awadh in Revolt, 1857-1858: A Study of Popular Resistance (1984), highlights its importance as a major producer of indigo and raw cotton. These raw materials were crucial for British industries and for the export trade to China, which helped finance the British procurement of Chinese tea.
  • Escalating Demands and Political Interference: The initial subsidy demanded in 1765 was systematically increased to fund the EIC’s expensive wars. Wellesley actively interfered in Awadh’s succession politics. Following the death of Nawab Asaf-ud-Daula in 1797, his chosen successor, Wazir Ali, was deposed by the EIC in 1798. The British installed Saadat Ali Khan II, Asaf-ud-Daula’s uncle, who was forced to cede territory and agree to an inflated annual subsidy of 76 lakh rupees.
  • The Treaty of 1801 and Partial Annexation: By 1801, Nawab Saadat Ali Khan II defaulted on the subsidy payments, a situation exacerbated by the constant interference of the British Resident and the misuse of dastaks (trade permits) by Company officials. Wellesley used this as a pretext to impose a new treaty. He dispatched his brother, Henry Wellesley, to Lucknow. The treaty of 1801 forced the Nawab to cede half of his territory—including Gorakhpur and the Rohilkhand doab—to the Company in perpetuity. The revenue from this territory was approximately 1.3 crore rupees, far exceeding the 76 lakh subsidy it was meant to cover, exposing the exploitative nature of the arrangement.
  • The Paradox of ‘Misrule’: Despite the cession of territory for permanent payment, the EIC continued to exert financial pressure. This forced the Nawab to increase land revenue, making him unpopular among his subjects. The British Resident became the de facto ruler, holding his own court and undermining the Nawab’s authority. This created a situation where the Nawab had all the responsibilities of governance but none of the power, as real control lay with the Resident. The ensuing administrative breakdown was then labelled ‘maladministration’.
  • Final Annexation by Dalhousie (1856): Lord Dalhousie (Governor-General, 1848-1856), an ardent expansionist, used the pretext of chronic ‘misrule’ under Nawab Wajid Ali Shah to justify the final annexation of the remaining parts of Awadh in 1856. The official justification, as stated in the annexation proclamation, was to relieve the people of Awadh from the Nawab’s oppressive government. However, the primary motivation was to secure British paramount commercial and strategic interests in a fertile and populous region. This act was deeply resented and became a major political cause of the 1857 Revolt.

Anglo-Sikh Wars

The annexation of Punjab was the culmination of British expansionist policy reaching the natural frontiers of India, a process marked by two wars against the formidable Sikh Empire.

  • Background and Political Instability: The death of Maharaja Ranjit Singh in 1839 created a power vacuum in the Sikh Empire. The subsequent decade was marked by intense factionalism and political instability. Key rival groups included the Sindhanwalia chiefs, the Dogra faction from Jammu led by figures like Gulab Singh, and the powerful, increasingly assertive Khalsa army. The army evolved into a political entity in its own right, forming panchayats (councils) and espousing a form of military democracy that threatened both the Sikh nobility and the British. The British, adhering to a ‘Ring Fence’ policy, viewed this instability on their frontier with alarm.
  • First Anglo-Sikh War (1845-46):
    • Causes: The primary causes were the growing political power of the Khalsa army, which the Lahore Durbar (court) could not control, and British military provocations on the Sutlej frontier. The Sikh leadership, including Rani Jindan and Lal Singh, encouraged the army to cross the Sutlej and attack the British, partly to divert its political energy and re-establish their own authority. Lord Hardinge (Governor-General, 1844-48) was prepared for war.
    • Results: The Sikhs were defeated, largely due to the treachery of their commanders like Lal Singh and Tej Singh. The humiliating Treaty of Lahore (1846) was imposed. Its key terms included:
      1. Cession of the Jalandhar Doab to the British.
      2. A large war indemnity of 1.5 crore rupees. Unable to pay, the Sikhs ceded Kashmir, which the British then sold to Gulab Singh Dogra for 75 lakh rupees.
      3. The Sikh army was drastically reduced in size.
      4. A British Resident, Sir Henry Lawrence, was stationed at Lahore to advise the minor Maharaja Duleep Singh.
    • This was followed by the Treaty of Bhairowal (December 1846), which removed Rani Jindan as regent and established a Regency Council of eight Sikh chiefs, presided over by the British Resident. This marked the beginning of indirect British rule over Punjab.
  • Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848-49):
    • Causes: The underlying cause was the resentment of the Sikh people and chiefs against the humiliating treaties and intrusive British control. The immediate spark was the revolt of Diwan Mulraj, the governor of Multan, against a British-backed demand for increased revenue. The rebellion quickly spread. Lord Dalhousie, a committed imperialist, saw this as the perfect opportunity to annex Punjab entirely, stating it was not his “wish to see the Punjab a British province” but that he could not “abandon our duty”.
    • Results: After key battles like Chillianwala (a near-defeat for the British) and the decisive Battle of Gujarat (the ‘battle of the guns’), the Sikh army surrendered. In March 1849, Dalhousie formally annexed the entire kingdom of Punjab, ending Sikh sovereignty.

Expansionism of British

The 19th century witnessed the relentless expansion of British dominion in India, driven by a dynamic interplay of strategic fears, commercial interests, and an expanding imperial frontier. The core area of British control continually expanded, creating new frontiers and, consequently, new perceived threats that justified further expansion.

  • First Anglo-Burmese War (1824-26): Fought under Governor-General Lord Amherst. The expansionist Konbaung dynasty of Burma threatened British interests on the northeastern frontier of Bengal, having established influence over Assam, Manipur, and Cachar. The war concluded with the Treaty of Yandabo (1826), by which Burma ceded Assam, Manipur, and the coastal provinces of Arakan and Tenasserim to the British. Cachar was annexed in 1832 and Coorg, a strategic territory in the south valuable for coffee cultivation, was annexed in 1834.
  • First Anglo-Afghan War (1838-42): This war was a product of the “Great Game,” the strategic rivalry between the British and Russian Empires for influence in Central Asia. Fearing a Russian advance towards India through Afghanistan, Governor-General Lord Auckland launched a disastrous pre-emptive invasion to depose the ruler Dost Mohammad Khan and install a pro-British monarch, Shah Shuja. The campaign was a military catastrophe, ending in a humiliating retreat and the restoration of Dost Mohammad Khan, though British indirect influence was eventually established.
  • Annexation of Sindh (1843): Following the Afghan War, the British, under Governor-General Lord Ellenborough, sought to secure the Indus region. Despite existing treaties with the Amirs of Sindh, a pretext was found to provoke a conflict. Sir Charles Napier conquered the territory, famously remarking, “We have no right to seize Sind, yet we shall do so, and a very advantageous, useful, humane piece of rascality it will be.”
  • Annexations by Dalhousie (1848-56): Lord Dalhousie presided over the peak of British expansionism, employing various pretexts:
    • Doctrine of Lapse: This policy stipulated that in the absence of a natural heir, a dependent princely state would be annexed by the British, disregarding the traditional Indian right to adopt an heir. States annexed under this doctrine include Satara (1848), Jaitpur and Sambalpur (1849), Baghat (1850), Udaipur (1852), Jhansi (1854), and Nagpur (1854).
    • War: The Second Anglo-Burmese War (1852) was fought over commercial disputes and resulted in the annexation of Pegu (Lower Burma). The Second Anglo-Sikh War led to the annexation of Punjab (1849).
    • Misgovernment: As seen with Awadh (1856).
    • Default on Subsidy: In 1853, the fertile province of Berar was taken from the Nizam of Hyderabad for his failure to meet the financial obligations of the Subsidiary Alliance.
  • State of India by 1857: The policy of annexation largely ceased after the Revolt of 1857. By then, India was divided into British India, under direct EIC rule (constituting about 67% of the territory and 78% of the population), and the Princely States (around 565), which were under the indirect rule of the British through the policy of paramountcy.

Revolt of 1857: Reasons

The Revolt of 1857 was the culmination of a century of accumulated grievances against Company rule, affecting all sections of Indian society. It was a complex event, beginning as a sepoy mutiny but quickly transforming into a widespread civil rebellion.

Grievance of Sepoys

The sepoys of the Bengal Army, whom historian Eric Stokes famously called the “peasant in uniform,” had a multitude of grievances.

  • Service-related Grievances:
    • Discrimination: There was a significant pay and pension gap between Indian sepoys and their European counterparts. Promotion prospects for Indians were negligible.
    • Erosion of Emoluments: To cut costs, the Company reduced allowances. The General Service Enlistment Act of 1856 mandated that new recruits must serve overseas if required, a major taboo (kalapani) for upper-caste Hindus. The Post Office Act of 1854 withdrew their privilege of free postage.
  • Socio-religious Grievances:
    • Racism: Sepoys were often treated with contempt by British officers, with racial slurs like ‘pig’ (suar) being common.
    • Fear of Conversion: The presence of Christian missionaries in barracks and the overt proselytizing zeal of some officers created deep suspicion. The Charter Act of 1813 had permitted missionaries to operate in India, and their activities were seen as a state-sanctioned assault on local religions.
    • Attack on Identity: British attempts to build a uniform military culture by forbidding caste marks (like the tilak), turbans, and beards were seen as an attack on religious and cultural identity.
    • The Greased Cartridges: The immediate spark was the introduction of the new Enfield Rifle. A rumour spread that its cartridges were greased with cow and pig fat, which had to be bitten off before loading. This was deeply offensive to both Hindu and Muslim sepoys and was seen as a deliberate plot to defile their religion.
  • Political Grievances: The annexation of Awadh in 1856 was a profound shock, as a large proportion of the Bengal Army’s sepoys hailed from this region. They lost the prestige and privileges they enjoyed in their home villages, and the act dishonoured their ruler and homeland.
  • Agrarian/Economic Grievances: As most sepoys were from peasant families, the agrarian policies of the British directly affected them. High land revenue demands, the loss of family land to the government or moneylenders, and the general economic ruin of the countryside caused immense distress, linking the fate of the sepoy with that of the peasant.

Reasons for Civil Rebellion

The sepoy mutiny provided the spark that ignited a smouldering fire of discontent across North India.

  • Feudal Elements (Rulers and Nobility):
    • Dispossessed rulers like Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi, whose adopted son was denied succession under the Doctrine of Lapse, became natural leaders of the revolt. Nana Saheb, the adopted son of the last Peshwa, was denied his father’s pension.
    • The annexation of states like Awadh not only deposed the Nawab but also dispossessed the entire associated aristocracy and their retainers, creating a large, influential, and aggrieved class.
  • Big Landowners (Taluqdars/Zamindars):
    • In Awadh, the Summary Settlement of 1856 dispossessed a majority of the powerful Taluqdars. As per British utilitarian ideals, land ownership was often given to the actual cultivators. This destroyed the Taluqdars’ economic base.
    • The British established a centralized state with a uniform rule of law, which dismantled the Taluqdars’ traditional military and judicial authority by disbanding their private armies and forts. This loss of economic, social, and military status drove them to join the rebellion, often leading their former peasants.
  • Artisans and Peasants:
    • Artisans: The influx of cheap, machine-made British goods led to the de-industrialization of India, destroying the livelihoods of millions of weavers and other artisans.
    • Peasants: They suffered under the crushing burden of high land revenue assessments, a rigid collection system, and were often forced into the clutches of moneylenders. The new legal system, with its complex procedures, overwhelmingly favoured the moneylender, leading to widespread land alienation.
  • Religious and Social Grievances:
    • ‘Religion in Danger’: There was a pervasive fear that the British were determined to destroy Indian religions and customs. This fear was fueled by:
      1. The activities of Christian missionaries.
      2. Socio-religious reforms like the abolition of Sati (1829) and the Widow Remarriage Act (1856), which were seen as interference in traditional practices.
      3. The Religious Disabilities Act of 1850, which protected the inheritance rights of religious converts, was seen as an incentive for conversion to Christianity.
      4. The British policy of taxing previously revenue-free lands belonging to temples and mosques alienated the religious elite (Pundits and Maulvis), who then became powerful agents in spreading anti-British sentiment.

This convergence of grievances created a common feeling that British rule was alien and immoral, leading to a widespread call to overthrow it and restore the pre-British social and political order.

Prelims Pointers

  • Treaty of Allahabad (1765) established Awadh as a buffer state for the EIC.
  • Lord Wellesley (Governor-General, 1798-1805) imposed the Subsidiary Alliance on Awadh in 1801.
  • Nawab of Awadh during the 1801 treaty: Saadat Ali Khan II.
  • Territories ceded by Awadh in 1801: Gorakhpur and Rohilkhand doab.
  • Lord Dalhousie (Governor-General, 1848-1856) annexed Awadh in 1856.
  • The official reason for the annexation of Awadh was ‘maladministration’.
  • The last Nawab of Awadh was Wajid Ali Shah.
  • First Anglo-Sikh War: 1845-46; Governor-General: Lord Hardinge.
  • Treaty of Lahore (1846): Ceded Jalandhar Doab and led to the sale of Kashmir to Gulab Singh Dogra.
  • Second Anglo-Sikh War: 1848-49; Governor-General: Lord Dalhousie. Resulted in the full annexation of Punjab.
  • First Anglo-Burmese War (1824-26) ended with the Treaty of Yandabo.
  • Annexation of Sindh: 1843, under Governor-General Lord Ellenborough. Commander was Sir Charles Napier.
  • Doctrine of Lapse was a policy of annexation used extensively by Lord Dalhousie.
  • States annexed via Doctrine of Lapse: Satara (1848), Sambalpur (1849), Jhansi (1854), Nagpur (1854).
  • Berar was taken from the Nizam of Hyderabad in 1853 for defaulting on Subsidiary Alliance payments.
  • The immediate cause of the 1857 Revolt was the introduction of the Enfield Rifle with cartridges greased with cow and pig fat.
  • General Service Enlistment Act (1856): Required sepoys to serve overseas.
  • “Peasant in uniform” is a term used to describe the sepoys, highlighting their agrarian roots.
  • The Summary Settlement of 1856 in Awadh dispossessed many Taluqdars.

Mains Insights

  • Nature of British Imperialism: The annexation of Awadh is a classic case study of the British imperial playbook. It demonstrates a gradual progression from establishing a buffer state (1765), to imposing indirect control via a Subsidiary Alliance (1801), and finally to direct annexation (1856) when it suited British economic and strategic interests. The justification of ‘maladministration’ was a convenient pretext, as the misrule was itself a product of British policies that stripped the Nawab of power while burdening him with responsibility.

  • Cause-Effect Relationship: Policy and Rebellion:

    1. Subsidiary Alliance → Financial Ruin → ‘Misrule’ → Annexation: The exorbitant subsidy demands on Awadh led to oppressive taxation, which created administrative chaos and popular discontent. The British then used this chaos, which they had engineered, as the moral justification for annexation.
    2. Annexation of Awadh → Sepoy Grievance → 1857 Revolt: The annexation directly impacted the ‘sepoys in uniform’ from Awadh, turning a professional grievance into a deeply personal and political one. This act served as a major catalyst, uniting sepoys against the Company.
    3. Land Revenue Settlements → Taluqdar Dispossession → Feudal Leadership in 1857: Utilitarian-inspired policies, like the Summary Settlement in Awadh, aimed to remove intermediaries but ended up dismantling the traditional social fabric. This alienated powerful local leaders (Taluqdars) who then provided crucial leadership to the peasant masses during the revolt, transforming it from a mere mutiny into a civil rebellion.

  • Historiographical Debate: The Revolt of 1857:

    • Imperialist School (e.g., J.W. Kaye): Portrayed the revolt as a ‘Sepoy Mutiny’ caused by religious fanaticism and the greed of a few disgruntled princes. It was seen as a clash between ‘civilization’ and ‘barbarism’.
    • Nationalist School (e.g., V.D. Savarkar): Termed it “The First War of Indian Independence” in his 1909 book, arguing it was a unified, planned national uprising to oust the foreign ruler.
    • Marxist School (e.g., R.P. Dutt): Viewed it as a feudal reaction against the bourgeois colonial state, but also as a struggle of the peasantry against both foreign and domestic exploitation.
    • Recent Scholarship (e.g., C.A. Bayly, Rudrangshu Mukherjee): Emphasizes the multiple, layered nature of the revolt. It was not one single movement but a combination of several local and regional uprisings, each with its own specific causes. It highlights the popular, civil character of the rebellion beyond the sepoy and feudal elements, stressing the goal of restoring a “moral order” that the British had disrupted.

  • British Expansion: Planned or Accidental?: The series of annexations in the first half of the 19th century fuels the debate on whether British expansion was a result of a deliberate, planned policy of conquest or an ‘absent-minded’ series of ad-hoc reactions to events on the ground (a view forwarded by J.R. Seeley). The evidence—from Wellesley’s aggressive Subsidiary Alliances to Dalhousie’s systematic annexations—suggests a consistent underlying drive for territorial and economic dominance, even if the specific pretexts for action varied.

Graph View