Explain why Britain was so successful in extending its control of the sub-continent between 1750 and 1850. [7] (Past Paper, June 2011: Q1/b)

[Military Superiority] The British were successful in gaining control over India because of their military superiority. They fought a series of bloody wars and defeated a number of strong local rulers like Siraj-ud-Daulah in the battle of Plassy, Tipu Sultan in the battle of Maysure, the Marathas and the Sikhs. They had latest warfare tools, efficient communication for quick deployment of troops and sound financial resources for fighting costly wars in the far-flung areas. They had well-trained army and good planners of war strategies. They were also expert in bribing and conspiring with the key persons like Mir Jafar and Mir Sadiq with the help of whom they defeated their strong rivals in the battlefields.

[Dealing Skills] The British were very skilled diplomatic experts. They gained the support of a number of local rulers. They were shrewd in purchasing the loyalties of influential Indians. They signed “subsidiary alliances” with local rulers under which the rulers were granted protection by the British troops. In return, they paid the salaries of the soldiers and provided residence to a British advisor. These were lucrative deals and control on the affairs!

[Indian Disunity] Indians were not united as a single nation. They were divided along religious, linguistic and ethnic lines. Local rulers were interested only to their own territories. Some princely states even supplied troops to the British when they were fighting against their countrymen. It was very easy for the strong British army to conquer them one after the other. Majority of the well-off Indians stayed away from the wars. They were making profits by trading with the English merchants. They were also happy with the infrastructure the British were developing including schools, hospitals, roads, railway networks and irrigation systems. 

[Doctrine of Lapse] The doctrine of lapse, introduced in 1852, was a land-grabbing law. If the ruler of a princely state would pass away without having a direct heir, his kingdom would become property of the British. A number of states were seized  under this law.