THE COMPANY AND THE MINOR INDIAN STATES (1774-1858)

Early Relations, 1774-1823

THE rapid strides with which British imperialism had advanced in India since at least the time of Wellesley, if not earlier, inevitably affected the destiny of the Indian States that had arisen on the ruins of the Mughul Empire.

 Their relations with the Company’s Government varied according to changing political conditions and the personal views and ambitions of the Governors-General; but the ” conviction which developed with Wellesley and continued up to our own time, that the government of the whole of India directly or indirectly by the British is part of a preordained system” had a considerable influence in shaping British policy towards the Indian States. Warren Hastings, confronted with the task of safeguarding British territories against the encroachments of the Marathas, and the militant rulers of Mysore, adopted the policy of a “Ring-Fence”, that is, sought to guard the frontiers of the neighboring States by way of precaution. But some of his transactions, such as his demands on Chait Singh of Benares and the Begams of Oudh, and conduct towards Faizulla Khan of Rampur, involved breach of treaties or betrayed a lack of moral scruples. The subsidiary treaties of Lord Wellesley established in fact British predominance over some of the Indian States. But in theory these States did not thereby become subject to British paramountcy as they retained their independence in matters of internal administration. All the treaties of Wellesley, except that with Mysore, were negotiated on terms of equality. Being, however, dependent on the Company for self-protection, States like Oudh, the Carnatic and Tanjore began to suffer from all the evils of “double government ” like those which had distracted Bengal since 1765. It was Lord Hastings who transformed the treaties of “reciprocity and mutual amity” into those of “subordinate co-operation”, and established British paramountcy over most of the Indian States by compelling them to surrender their sovereign rights of making war or peace and negotiating agreements with other powers. Formally, these States retained internal sovereignty, but in actual practice they were subject to frequent interference in the affairs of internal government by British Residents, the quality and amount of this interference varying with the difference in “personality and temperament ” of the officers concerned. Lord Hastings was not, however, “an annexationist”.

Relations between 1823 and 1858

The period intervening between the departure of Lord Hastings and the outbreak of the Revolt saw the weight of British influence falling more heavily on the Indian States, owing on the one hand to the growing executive and controlling authority of the British Residents in the sphere of internal administration of these States, and on the other to the frank enunciation of the policy of annexation by the British Government. This policy of annexation, formulated by the Court of Directors as early as 1834, and more clearly emphasised by them in 1841, was applied vigorously in the time of Lord Dalhousie. It was the outcome of two motives on the part of the Company’s Government, namely those of extending British political influence by incorporating new territories into the Empire and of securing greater facilities for the transport of merchandise and the collection of revenues. Both were intended to tighten the hold of British Paramountcy over India. 

Lord William Bentinck was tied to the policy of “let alone” by the authorities in England, when he came to India. But he departed from it drastically in some cases and his master also enunciated the policy of annexation in the course of a few years. Thus in 1831 he took over the administration of Mysore, which had been misgoverned by Raja Krishna Udaiyar and consequently fell into disorder; the Raja was pensioned off and the Mysore administration remained in the hands of the British Government till 1881. Bentinck also absorbed some other States into the British Empire. The principality of Cachar, where the royal line had come to an end on the death of its last ruler, was annexed in August, 1832, as the British Government did not accept as valid the claims of any candidate for the vacant throne. The lands of the Raja of Jaintia, in Assam were incorporated in the British Empire in March, 1835, as the new ruler refused to accept the stringent terms imposed on him. Viraraja the younger, king of Coorg, was accused of monstrous cruelties towards his subjects and secret conspiracy against the British. Although these charges were not supported by any positive evidence, and later proved to be mostly unwarranted or false, British forces were sent to Coorg and it was annexed by a formal proclamation dated the 7th May, 1834. Thus minor Indian States were annexed on pretexts which will not stand any serious examination. Lord Auckland, whose energies were preoccupied with the Afghan War, could not pay much attention to the States, but he annexed the territory of the Nawab of Karnul, in Madras, on suspicion of his hostile designs against the British Government.

His successor, Lord Ellenborough, had to deal with a formidable outbreak in Gwalior. At the close of the Maratha War of 1817-1819, Gwalior had remained under Daulat Rao Sindhia as the most powerful Indian military State south of the Sutlej. Daulat Rao died in 1827, when one of his youthful relatives, Jankoji Rao Sindhia, was installed as the Raja with an ambitious woman, Maharani Baiza Bai, widow of Daulat Rao Sindhia, as the regent. The weakness of the new ruler, and the activities of the regent, gave rise to various intrigues and disorders in the State, which did not end even when the latter was expelled in 1833. In the midst of these troubles Jankoji died in 1843 without issue. A minor named Jayaji Rao was then raised to the Gadi but intrigues and counter-intrigues quickly multiplied, especially through the machinations of two rival parties over the selection of a regent for the boy king. The Governor-General’s candidate, Krishna Rao Kadam, the Mama Sahib or the maternal-uncle of the deceased ruler, was removed from office by the youthful widow of the late ruler, who preferred the appointment of Khasgi-waIa. As is natural during civil strife in a State, the Gwalior army, 40,000 strong, became restless, which caused anxiety in the mind of the Governor-General. The latter feared that the combination of this army with the Khalsa army, about 70,000 strong, in the Punjab, where also a civil war was about to break out after the assassination of Sher Singh, would prove to be a serious menace to the British Government. Haunted by this fear, Lord Ellenborough assumed a dictatorial attitude, and even though the Gwalior authorities accepted all his demands, which were unjust and unreasonable in the extreme, he personally led an army into the territory of Sindhia. Not unnaturally, the Gwalior troops keenly resented this insult to their master, and advanced to oppose the British forces. But they were defeated on the 29th December, 1843, in two engagements, one at Maharajpur, north of Gwalior, by Sir Hugh Gough, and the other at Paniar, by General Grey. Gwalior, now reduced definitely to the status of a protected State, was placed under a Council of Regency, which was to manage its affairs during the minority of the Maharaja subject to the control of a British Resident. The army was cut down to 9,000 men and a British contingent of 10,000 men was placed there. Curiously enough, during the Revolt, the Gwalior army under the command of Dinkar Rao, minister of the State, supported the English, while the Company’s contingent there rose against them.