British Expansionist Policies

BRITISH EXPANSIONIST POLICIES

The policy of Ring Fence

Warren Hastings followed a policy of ring-fence which aimed at creating buffer zones to defend the Company’s frontiers. Broadly speaking, it was the policy of defense of their neighbours’ frontiers for safeguarding their own territories.
The states brought under the ring-fence system were required to maintain subsidiary forces that were to be organized, equipped and commanded by the officers of the Company who, in turn, were to be paid by the rulers of these states.

Subsidiary Alliance

Wellesley’s policy of subsidiary alliance was, in fact, an extension of the ring-fence system which sought to reduce the Indian states into a position of dependence on the British government.
Under the system, the allying Indian state’s ruler was compelled to:
Accept the permanent stationing of a British force within his territory
Pay a subsidy for its maintenance
Accept posting of a British resident in his court
Not employ any European in his service without the prior approval of the British.
Not negotiate with any other Indian ruler without consulting the governor general
In return for all this, the British would defend the ruler from his enemies and adopt a policy of non-interference in the internal matters of the allied state.

Doctrine of Lapse

It stated that the adopted son could be the heir to his foster father’s private property, but not the state; it was for the paramount power (the British) to decide whether to bestow the state on the adopted son or to annex it.
Though this policy is attributed to Lord Dalhousie (1848-56), he was not its originator. It was a coincidence that during his governor generalship several important cases arose in which the ‘Doctrine’ could be applied. Dalhousie showed too much zeal in enforcing this policy which had been theoretically enunciated on some previous occasions.
Some states lapsed were: Satara (1848), Sambalpur (1849), Bhagat (1850), Udaipur (1850), Nagpur (1854), Jhansi (1855).