British Conquest of India: From Plassey to Punjab
How the East India Company conquered India for UPSC — Plassey, Buxar, the Mysore, Maratha and Sikh wars, subsidiary alliance and the doctrine of lapse.
SyllabusGS I · Modern Indian history from about the middle of the eighteenth century until the present — significant events, personalities, issues
Prerequisites: Advent of the Europeans · The Mughal Empire
The Hook: A Battle Won Before It Was Fought
On 23 June 1757, near the village of Plassey in Bengal, Robert Clive’s small force faced the much larger army of Nawab Siraj-ud-Daulah. The battle was decided less by fighting than by a conspiracy: the Nawab’s commander Mir Jafar held his troops back, in league with the banker Jagat Seth and others who had agreed to make Mir Jafar the new Nawab.
Within a hundred years, the Company that won Plassey ruled from Punjab to Burma. How did a trading company conquer a subcontinent — and how much of that conquest was won on the battlefield, and how much at the negotiating table?
The Core Concept
British expansion moved in three overlapping modes:
- War against the strongest Indian powers — Bengal, Mysore, the Marathas and the Sikhs.
- Diplomatic subordination — treaties that left rulers on their thrones but placed their armies and foreign policy under the Company (the subsidiary alliance).
- Annexation by policy — the doctrine of lapse and the charge of misgovernance.
Bengal: Plassey to Buxar
| Year | Event |
|---|---|
| 1756 | Siraj-ud-Daulah succeeds Alivardi Khan; seizes Fort William, Calcutta |
| 1757 | Battle of Plassey (23 June) — Clive defeats Siraj; Mir Jafar made Nawab |
| 1760 | Mir Qasim made Nawab; cedes Burdwan, Midnapore and Chittagong; moves capital to Monghyr |
| 1763 | Mir Qasim abolishes internal duties for all traders, removing the English advantage; war follows |
| 1764 | Battle of Buxar (22 October) — Hector Munro defeats the combined forces of Mir Qasim, Shuja-ud-Daula (Awadh) and the Mughal emperor Shah Alam II |
| 1765 | Treaty of Allahabad — Shah Alam II grants the Company the Diwani (right to collect revenue) of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa; Awadh is returned to Shuja-ud-Daula on payment of an indemnity |
| 1765–72 | Dual government — the Company holds revenue power (Diwani); the Nawab holds responsibility for administration (Nizamat) — power without responsibility |
| 1772 | Warren Hastings ends dual government; the Company takes direct charge |
Plassey made the Company a kingmaker in Bengal. Buxar was the more decisive battle: it defeated the Mughal emperor and the Nawab of Awadh as well, and its treaty gave the Company legal control of Bengal’s revenue.
Mysore: four wars
| War | Years | Governor-General / context | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| First | 1767–69 | Hyder Ali against the English and their allies; Hyder reaches the outskirts of Madras | Treaty of Madras (1769) — mutual restitution of conquests |
| Second | 1780–84 | Warren Hastings; Hyder dies in 1782, Tipu continues | Treaty of Mangalore (1784) — status quo |
| Third | 1790–92 | Cornwallis | Treaty of Seringapatam (1792) — Tipu loses about half his territory |
| Fourth | 1799 | Wellesley | Tipu killed defending Seringapatam (May 1799); Wodeyars restored under a subsidiary alliance |
The Marathas: three wars
| War | Years | Key events | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| First | 1775–82 | Company backs Raghunathrao; English defeated at Wadgaon (1779); Mahadji Scindia mediates | Treaty of Salbai (1782) — status quo; twenty years of peace |
| Second | 1803–05 | Treaty of Bassein (1802): Peshwa Baji Rao II accepts subsidiary alliance; Assaye and Laswari (1803) | Bhonsle, Scindia and Holkar sign separate treaties |
| Third | 1817–18 | Lord Hastings; Peshwa defeated at Khadki (Kirkee), Koregaon and Ashti; Bhonsle at Sitabuldi, Holkar at Mahidpur | Peshwaship abolished; Baji Rao II pensioned off to Bithur near Kanpur |
The Sikhs
- Treaty of Amritsar (1809) — Ranjit Singh and the Company (under Minto I) accepted the Sutlej as the boundary of Ranjit Singh’s expansion to the east.
- After Ranjit Singh’s death (1839) Punjab fell into instability.
- First Anglo-Sikh War (1845–46) — battles of Mudki, Ferozeshah, Aliwal and Sobraon; Treaty of Lahore (1846) ceded the Jalandhar Doab and imposed an indemnity; Kashmir was transferred to Gulab Singh of Jammu by a separate Treaty of Amritsar (1846).
- Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848–49) — Chillianwala and Gujrat; Dalhousie annexed Punjab (1849); the young Maharaja Duleep Singh was pensioned.
Elsewhere
| Region | Event | Governor-General |
|---|---|---|
| Nepal | Anglo-Nepal War (1814–16); Treaty of Sugauli (1816) | Lord Hastings |
| Burma | First War (1824–26), Treaty of Yandabo — Assam, Manipur, Arakan, Tenasserim ceded | Amherst |
| Afghanistan | First Afghan War (1839–42) — disastrous retreat from Kabul | Auckland |
| Sindh | Annexed 1843 (Charles Napier) | Ellenborough |
| Burma | Second War (1852) — Lower Burma (Pegu) annexed | Dalhousie |
| Awadh | Annexed 1856 on grounds of misgovernance (Nawab Wajid Ali Shah) | Dalhousie |
The instruments of expansion
| Policy | Associated with | Mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| Ring fence | Warren Hastings | Defend the frontiers of neighbours (such as Awadh) to protect the Company’s own territory — buffer states |
| Subsidiary alliance | Wellesley (1798) | Indian ruler keeps a British force in his territory and pays for it (in cash or ceded land); accepts a British Resident; employs no other Europeans; makes no war or alliance without British consent. In return, the Company protects him. |
| Subordinate isolation | Lord Hastings | States treated as subordinate to the Company’s paramountcy |
| Doctrine of lapse | Dalhousie | A dependent state whose ruler died without a natural heir “lapsed” to the Company; adoption was not recognised for succession to the state |
Subsidiary alliance — order of acceptance (main states): Nizam of Hyderabad (1798, the first), Mysore (1799), Tanjore (1799), Awadh (1801), the Peshwa (1802), Bhonsle and Scindia (1803).
Doctrine of lapse — states annexed: Satara (1848), Jaitpur and Sambalpur (1849), Baghat (1850), Udaipur (1852), Jhansi (1853), Nagpur (1854).
graph TD
A[Trading company] --> B[1757 Plassey: kingmaker in Bengal]
B --> C[1764 Buxar and 1765 Diwani]
C --> D[Wars: Mysore, Marathas, Sikhs]
C --> E[Subsidiary alliance 1798]
C --> F[Doctrine of lapse 1848-54]
D --> G[Paramount power by 1818]
E --> G
F --> H[Annexations feed the grievances of 1857]
G --> HMemory Anchors
Mysore treaties — “Madras, Mangalore, Seringapatam” (M-M-S): First, Second, Third war. The Fourth had no treaty — Tipu died.
Maratha treaties — “Salbai, Bassein, abolition”: First war ends at Salbai (1782); the Second begins with Bassein (1802); the Third ends the Peshwaship (1818).
Doctrine of lapse in order — “Some Just Sit By Useless Jealous Neighbours”: Satara, Jaitpur, Sambalpur, Baghat, Udaipur, Jhansi, Nagpur.
Who did what: Wellesley Won by War and treaties (subsidiary alliance); Dalhousie Devoured by policy (lapse).
For Prelims
- Buxar (1764): Munro vs Mir Qasim + Shuja-ud-Daula + Shah Alam II. Treaty of Allahabad (1765): Diwani of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.
- Dual government (1765–72) was set up under Clive and ended by Warren Hastings in 1772.
- First state to accept the subsidiary alliance: Hyderabad (1798).
- Awadh (1856) was annexed for alleged misgovernance, not under the doctrine of lapse.
- Treaty of Bassein (1802) — signed by Peshwa Baji Rao II, it triggered the Second Anglo-Maratha War.
- Treaty of Salbai (1782) ended the First Anglo-Maratha War; Treaty of Lahore (1846) ended the First Anglo-Sikh War.
For Mains
- Dimensions: military (disciplined infantry, artillery, finance); political (Mughal decline, rivalries among successor states); economic (Bengal revenue funding further conquest); diplomatic (subsidiary alliance as “conquest without war”); legal (lapse and paramountcy).
- Keywords: Diwani, dual government, buffer state, paramountcy, subsidiary alliance, doctrine of lapse, annexation, successor states.
- Value-addition: the shift from trade to tribute after 1765; the subsidiary alliance as a way to make Indian rulers pay for the army that controlled them; the link between Dalhousie’s annexations and the Revolt of 1857.
Common Traps
Practice
Prelims
Arrange the following events in chronological order:
- Treaty of Salbai
- Battle of Buxar
- Treaty of Seringapatam
- Battle of Plassey
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Solution
Plassey (1757) → Buxar (1764) → Treaty of Salbai (1782) → Treaty of Seringapatam (1792). The order is 4-2-1-3.
Answer: C
Which one of the following was not annexed under the doctrine of lapse?
Solution
Awadh was annexed in 1856 on the ground of misgovernance; its ruler Wajid Ali Shah was alive. Satara (1848), Jhansi (1853) and Nagpur (1854) were annexed under the doctrine of lapse.
Answer: A
With reference to the subsidiary alliance, consider the following statements:
- It was systematised by Lord Wellesley.
- The Nizam of Hyderabad was the first ruler to accept it.
- A ruler who accepted it had to keep a British Resident at his court and could not employ other Europeans without British consent.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
Solution
All three are correct. Wellesley (1798–1805) made the subsidiary alliance the main instrument of expansion; Hyderabad accepted it first, in 1798; the Resident and the ban on employing other Europeans were standard terms.
Answer: D
Mains
“The subsidiary alliance and the doctrine of lapse achieved what wars alone could not.” Examine this statement in the context of British expansion in India between 1798 and 1856.
Solution
Introduction: After Plassey and Buxar, the Company faced powerful Indian states. Wellesley’s subsidiary alliance (from 1798) and Dalhousie’s doctrine of lapse (1848–56) extended British control at low cost.
Body:
- Subsidiary alliance: Indian rulers paid for British troops stationed in their territory, accepted a Resident and surrendered their foreign policy — Hyderabad (1798), Mysore (1799), Awadh (1801), the Peshwa (1802).
- Effects: disbanded Indian armies, financial burden and cession of territory (Awadh ceded half its territory in 1801), rulers dependent on the Company; paramountcy without the cost of annexation.
- Doctrine of lapse: Satara, Jhansi, Nagpur and others annexed without war by refusing to recognise adopted heirs.
- Limits of the argument: wars were still decisive — Mysore (1799), the Marathas (1803–05, 1817–18) and the Sikhs (1845–49) were defeated militarily; Bassein (1802) itself led to war.
- Consequence: dispossessed princes and their followers (Nana Saheb, Rani Lakshmibai) became leaders in 1857.
Conclusion: Diplomacy and legal doctrine converted military superiority into lasting control; but their very success created the grievances that erupted in 1857.
Quick Revision
| Point | One-liner |
|---|---|
| Plassey | 23 June 1757 — Clive vs Siraj-ud-Daulah; Mir Jafar’s betrayal |
| Buxar | 22 October 1764 — Munro vs Mir Qasim, Shuja-ud-Daula, Shah Alam II |
| Allahabad | 1765 — Diwani of Bengal, Bihar, Orissa |
| Mysore treaties | Madras 1769, Mangalore 1784, Seringapatam 1792; Tipu dies 1799 |
| Maratha | Salbai 1782; Bassein 1802; Peshwaship abolished 1818 |
| Sikh | Amritsar 1809; Lahore 1846; Punjab annexed 1849 |
| Subsidiary alliance | Wellesley, 1798; Hyderabad first |
| Lapse | Dalhousie; Satara first (1848); Jhansi 1853; Nagpur 1854 |
Key Takeaways
- Plassey made the Company a kingmaker; Buxar and the 1765 Diwani made it a ruler.
- Mysore, the Marathas and the Sikhs were defeated in sequences of wars — learn the treaty that closes each one.
- The subsidiary alliance and the doctrine of lapse extended British power without full-scale war — and fed the grievances of 1857.
Related Topics
- British Administration: Acts, Land Revenue and Governors-General
- British Expansion and Administration — quick revision
- British Expansion and Administration — practice questions
- Advent of the Europeans
- The Revolt of 1857