James Broun-Ramsay, 1st Marquess of Dalhousie

Did a king on the border of British territory interfere with British ships, he must forfeit his kingdom.

Consider, by way of specific illustration, the administration of Lord Dalhousie as Governor-General of India from 1848 to 1856.

Hardly had he arrived at his post when two Englishmen were murdered in the Sikh kingdom of Punjab in western India, and the Sikhs arose in arms against the British.

What could Dalhousie do but organize a strong army of sepoys, hired native soldiers, under British officers, with a few British troops, and subjugate the kingdom and annex it, and thereby earn for himself a step higher in the peerage from Earl to Marquess? Or when the King of Burma, to the east of British India, insulted the British flag by stopping British merchant vessels, could Dalhousie do otherwise than punish such insolence and annex part of Burma? Footnote.

The actual outbreak of the war occurred more by accident than by design, in the words of Vincent A. Smith, Oxford History of India, page 702.

Commodore Lambert, sent to ask for a dress for the British merchants, seized one of the Burmese King's ships, whereupon the Burmese opened fire, naturally, and the war began.

End footnote.

And when a handful of scattered strangers, to use Dalhousie's description of the British in India at that time, have to undertake such military expeditions, first to the west, then to the east, to countries 1,500 miles or more apart, it was the most natural thing in the world for an energetic, high-spirited governor like Dalhousie to conclude that the possessions of the Company ought to be consolidated by telegraph, road, and railway communications, and that the native states which separated the Company's territories ought to be brought under the Company's power.

Did a king on the border of British territory interfere with British ships, he must forfeit his kingdom.

Consider, by way of specific illustration, the administration of Lord Dalhousie as governor-general of India from eighteen forty-eight to eighteen fifty-six.

Hardly had he arrived at his post when two Englishmen were murdered in the Sikh kingdom of Punjab in western India, and the Sikhs arose in arms against the British.

What could Dalhousie do but organize a strong army of sepoys, hired native soldiers, under British officers with a few British troops, and subjugate the kingdom and annex it, and thereby earn for himself a step higher in the peerage from Earl to Marquess? Or when the king of Burma, to the east of British India, insulted the British flag by stopping British merchant vessels, could Dalhousie do otherwise than punish such insolence and annex part of Burma? Footnote.

The actual outbreak of the war occurred more by accident than by design, in the words of Vincent A. Smith, Oxford History of India, page seven oh two.

Commodore Lambert, sent to ask for a dress for the British merchants, seized one of the Burmese king's ships, whereupon the Burmese opened fire, naturally, and the war began.

End footnote.

And when a handful of scattered strangers, to use Dalhousie's description of the British in India at that time, have to undertake such military expeditions, first to the west, then to the east, to countries fifteen hundred miles or more apart, it was the most natural thing in the world for an energetic, high-spirited governor like Dalhousie to conclude that the possessions of the company ought to be consolidated by telegraph, road, and railway communications, and that the native states which separated the company's territories ought to be brought under the company's power.

Did a king on the border of British territory interfere with British ships, he must forfeit his kingdom.

Consider, by way of specific illustration, the administration of Lord Dalhousie as governor-general of India from eighteen forty-eight to eighteen fifty-six.

Hardly had he arrived at his post when two Englishmen were murdered in the Sikh kingdom of Punjab in western India, and the Sikhs arose in arms against the British.

What could Dalhousie do but organize a strong army of sepoys, hired native soldiers, under British officers with a few British troops, and subjugate the kingdom and annex it, and thereby earn for himself a step higher in the peerage from Earl to Marquess? Or when the king of Burma to the east of British India insulted the British flag by stopping British merchant vessels, could Dalhousie do otherwise than punish such insolence and annex part of Burma? Footnote.

The actual outbreak of the war occurred more by accident than by design.

In the words of Vincent A. Smith, Oxford History of India, page seven oh two, Commodore Lambert, sent to ask for a dress for the British merchants, seized one of the Burmese king's ships, whereupon the Burmese opened fire, naturally, and the war began.

End footnote.

And when a handful of scattered strangers, to use Dalhousie's description of the British in India at that time, have to undertake such military expeditions, first to the west, then to the east, to countries fifteen hundred miles or more apart, it was the most natural thing in the world for an energetic high-spirited governor like Dalhousie to conclude that the possessions of the company ought to be consolidated by telegraph road and railway communications and that the native states which separated the company's territories ought to be brought under the company's power to this end Dalhousie practiced what he called the policy of lapse namely whenever a Hindu ruler died without direct male heir his kingdom should be annexed during his short term of office eight such cases occurred such annexations could not fail to provoke fear and hatred among the Indian princes and the steam locomotives monsters in the eyes of the natives and the telegraph both introduced during Dalhousie's reign as well as his attempts to establish an educational system under British auspices angered the masses fear that the government intended to Christianize India was a part of the general reaction against Europeanization moreover the sepoys or native soldiers employed by the company had many reasons for discontent including the fact that they had to bite off the ends of cartridges which they believed were greased with the fat of cows sacred to Hindus and pigs forbidden to Muslims the sepoys mutinied in 1857 and from Bengal in the east rebellion spread like wildfire up the Ganges valley the sepoy mutiny as the rebellion is called was crushed at a terrible cost of life the leaders were punished some of them being blown to bits from the mouths of cannon the native emperor was deposed and his sons and grandson shot this tragic event made it clear to British statesmen that the administration of India by the company must end Great Britain must assume direct control India had outgrown the company as a matter of fact the growth of the company's territorial possessions in India had been paralleled by a gradual extension of the London government's control over the company but now on the morrow of the mutiny the company's administration of India was taken over entirely by the British government by the act for the better government of India 1858 the company's powers were transferred to the crown India was to be governed by a viceroy appointed by the British cabinet under the supervision of a member of the cabinet the secretary of state for India and an advisory council the company's army was merged with the British army the British nation became sovereign of India not all of India as yet British India was then less than half of what we call India today there were still hundreds of native states some large some small some subservient to British authority some independent enough though after the mutiny the doctrine of lapse was dropped British India continued to expand at the expense of native India and border states as the following figures show area annexed from 1861 to 1871 4,000 square miles area annexed from 1871 to 1881 15,000 square miles area annexed from 1881 to 1891 90,000 square miles area annexed from 1891 to 1901 133,000 square miles since 1901 the extension of British power has taken another direction the gradual tightening of the reins by which the British governor-general controls the 700 states which still have native rulers the maharajas rajas nizams and other native sovereigns now rule not by the grace of god but by the grace of england indeed the british have found them such convenient instruments of government that their autocratic powers today may be said to rest on british support the transition from a chartered company's commercial enterprise to a nation's avowed imperialism was more and more definitely recognized as british authority was extended and let us not forget as british economic interests were magnified by the impetus which steamboats steam locomotives and steam engines gave to commerce and industry in 1858 britain had assumed direct control in 1876 disraeli morning star of the dawning imperialist age persuaded parliament to confer on queen victoria the title empress of india as an advertisement of the fact that the queen of england has become the sovereign of the most powerful of oriental states the sequel came in 1911 when king george and queen mary visited india to be crowned with oriental pomp as emperor and empress at delhi the ancient imperial capital whither the headquarters of the british administration were moved from calcutta the dazzling magnificence of the coronation durbar reception of the ruling princes of india was intended to impress india with the fact that england assumed the sovereignty of the former mughal emperors whose throne had been at delhi that great britain traditional home of parliamentary government and political liberty should revive in india the outward show of a defunct oriental despotism probably seemed incongruous to the few who witnessed that historic scene at delhi in 1911 if in india one finds modern imperialism displayed more openly and dominant over a larger mass of humanity and actuated by greater economic interests than in any other part of the world one finds in india also the reaction to imperialism in greater intensity than elsewhere nowhere can one find a more interesting experiment demonstrating the effects of the mastery of the west over the east subsection indian nationalism and british reforms One of the effects is nationalism.

Did a king on the border of British territory interfere with British ships, he must forfeit his kingdom.

Consider, by way of specific illustration, the administration of Lord Dalhousie as Governor-General of India from 1848 to 1856.

Hardly had he arrived at his post when two Englishmen were murdered in the Sikh kingdom of Punjab in western India, and the Sikhs arose in arms against the British.

What could Dalhousie do but organize a strong army of sepoys, hired native soldiers, under British officers, with a few British troops, and subjugate the kingdom and annex it, and thereby earn for himself a step higher in the peerage from Earl to Marquess? Or when the King of Burma, to the east of British India, insulted the British flag by stopping British merchant vessels, could Dalhousie do otherwise than punish such insolence and annex part of Burma? Footnote.

The actual outbreak of the war occurred more by accident than by design, in the words of Vincent A. Smith, Oxford History of India, page 702.

Commodore Lambert, sent to ask for a dress for the British merchants, seized one of the Burmese King's ships, whereupon the Burmese opened fire, naturally, and the war began.

End footnote.

And when a handful of scattered strangers, to use Dalhousie's description of the British in India at that time, have to undertake such military expeditions, first to the west, then to the east, to countries 1,500 miles or more apart, it was the most natural thing in the world for an energetic, high-spirited governor like Dalhousie to conclude that the possessions of the Company ought to be consolidated by telegraph, road, and railway communications, and that the native states which separated the Company's territories ought to be brought under the Company's power.

Did a king on the border of British territory interfere with British ships, he must forfeit his kingdom.

Consider, by way of specific illustration, the administration of Lord Dalhousie as governor-general of India from eighteen forty-eight to eighteen fifty-six.

Hardly had he arrived at his post when two Englishmen were murdered in the Sikh kingdom of Punjab in western India, and the Sikhs arose in arms against the British.

What could Dalhousie do but organize a strong army of sepoys, hired native soldiers, under British officers with a few British troops, and subjugate the kingdom and annex it, and thereby earn for himself a step higher in the peerage from Earl to Marquess? Or when the king of Burma, to the east of British India, insulted the British flag by stopping British merchant vessels, could Dalhousie do otherwise than punish such insolence and annex part of Burma? Footnote.

The actual outbreak of the war occurred more by accident than by design, in the words of Vincent A. Smith, Oxford History of India, page seven oh two.

Commodore Lambert, sent to ask for a dress for the British merchants, seized one of the Burmese king's ships, whereupon the Burmese opened fire, naturally, and the war began.

End footnote.

And when a handful of scattered strangers, to use Dalhousie's description of the British in India at that time, have to undertake such military expeditions, first to the west, then to the east, to countries fifteen hundred miles or more apart, it was the most natural thing in the world for an energetic, high-spirited governor like Dalhousie to conclude that the possessions of the company ought to be consolidated by telegraph, road, and railway communications, and that the native states which separated the company's territories ought to be brought under the company's power.