Talk:Doctrine of lapse

India: History Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jhansi in 1853.

I think Jhansi was annexed in 1853... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.212.25.78 (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

her husband died in 1854 childless ....so I think then after the annexation could only possible Khaled hussain (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kittur in 1824.

Kittur Chennamma lost her kingdom under this doctrine in 1824. So how do we say that it was "articulated as early as 1834"? NarasMG (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

European feudal pattern?

I suspect that the model for this doctrine of lapse lies in the medieval feudal pattern, which saw subsidiary rulers as holding their land whilst their line persisted, but when the line failed, the land returned to the control of the higher level ruler, which might be the king, to be reallocated to whoever he now chose, or to be kept indefinitely. The exercise of this in India thus arises from the British East India's company's assertion of being 'suzerain'. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. The Mughal Empire had a theory of lapse already, which however hardly ever was applied. From Shah Jahan onwards, all Mughal officers were the emperor's ‘slaves’ (banda). This did not mean bonded labour or poverty. Many of them were very rich. But it did mean that all their possessions legally were the emperor's property, and when they died, the emperor graciously permitted their heirs to inherit. Before that, the dead officer's wealth was estimated, and a great part of it returned to the state treasury, sometimes 50 %. The officers debts against the state had to be paid too. If there were no heirs, the officer's property went back to the state. Otherwise, only gross abuse of office could prevent the inheritance permit. Cf. M. Athar Ali: The Mughal Nobility Under Aurangzeb, Delhi: Oxford India Paperbacks, 1997, p. 63-68. Incompetence, however, was not a Mughal category. An officer agains whom proven complains of massive suppression of subject or misappropriation of taxes were widely heard would be fined and transferred, and only in the gravest cases degraded, but not expelled. --Curryfranke (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Doctrine of lapsation"?

Why does the opening sentence of the lead section use this term, whereas the remainder of the article refers to the "doctrine of lapse"? Masato.harada (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]