Modern History Playlist
19 chapters • 0 completed
1
Advent of Europeans in India
9 topics
2
Decline of the Mughal Empire
7 topics
3
Emergence of Regional States
11 topics
4
Expansion and Consolidation of British Power
19 topics
5
British Government & Economic Policies (1757–1857)
4 topics
6
Social Reform Movements
20 topics
7
People’s Resistance before 1857
3 topics
8
The revolt of 1857
6 topics
9
Growth of Nationalism and Moderate Phase of Congress
6 topics
10
British Administration in India
7 topics
11
Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909)
5 topics
12
First Phase of Revolutionary Activities(1907-1917)
8 topics
13
India’s Response to First World War and Home Rule Movement
4 topics
14
Emergence of Gandhi
6 topics
15
Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat Movement
7 topics
16
Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities
5 topics
17
Struggle For Swaraj: 1928-1935
13 topics
18
Period from 1935-42
9 topics
19
Period from 1942-47
22 topics
Progress
0% complete
Chapter 4: Expansion and Consolidation of British Power
Chapter Test19 topics•Estimated reading: 57 minutes
Background
Key Point
The decline of Mughal authority, rise of regional states, and European rivalry created conditions for British expansion.
The decline of Mughal authority, rise of regional states, and European rivalry created conditions for British expansion.
Detailed Notes (7 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
The Mughal Empire disintegrated after Aurangzeb’s death (1707), creating political vacuum.
Regional states like Bengal, Awadh, Hyderabad became powerful but disunited.
Anglo-French rivalry in Carnatic Wars (1740–1763) decided European supremacy in India.
British naval power, better organisation, and financial backing gave them advantage.
Company’s transition: From traders → Political power after mid-18th century.
Economic motives: securing raw materials (cotton, indigo, silk) and markets for British goods.
Indian weakness: internal conflicts, factionalism, betrayal by nobles enabled British victories.
Factors Behind British Expansion
| Factor | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Decline of Mughals | Central authority collapsed after Aurangzeb |
| Regional States | Strong but divided; lacked unity |
| European Rivalry | French vs British; British won Carnatic Wars |
| Military & Naval Strength | Disciplined army, modern navy |
| Economic Motivation | Access to revenue and resources |
| Indian Disunity | Betrayals and rivalries among Indian rulers |
Fun Facts
The English East India Company was originally chartered by Queen Elizabeth I in 1600.
French East India Company was backed directly by the state, unlike the English.
Mains Key Points
British expansion was not just military; diplomacy and economic strength played equal roles.
Indian disunity and European rivalry were key enabling conditions.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Carnatic Wars → established British supremacy in South India.
French influence confined to trading posts after Treaty of Paris (1763).
Battle of Plassey (1757)
Key Point
First major victory of the British under Robert Clive against Nawab Siraj-ud-Daulah.
First major victory of the British under Robert Clive against Nawab Siraj-ud-Daulah.
Detailed Notes (5 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Siraj-ud-Daulah opposed misuse of Farman (1717) by Company and fortification of Calcutta.
Black Hole tragedy (1756) provided pretext for British intervention.
Robert Clive defeated Siraj at Plassey on 23 June 1757, aided by Mir Jafar’s betrayal.
British gained enormous wealth through plunder and control over Bengal revenues.
Plassey established the British as political contenders, not just traders.
Key Aspects of Plassey
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Cause | Nawab opposed misuse of privileges and fortification |
| British Leader | Robert Clive |
| Betrayal | Mir Jafar sided with British |
| Outcome | British control over Bengal; foundation of rule |
Fun Facts
The battle lasted only a few hours; real cause was treachery.
Clive returned to England enormously wealthy after Plassey.
Mains Key Points
Plassey marks the political transition of the Company.
Exposed fragility of Indian state system due to betrayal.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Plassey (1757) → foundation of British rule.
Mir Jafar = puppet Nawab installed by Company.
Battle of Buxar (1764)
Key Point
British defeated combined forces of Mir Qasim, Shuja-ud-Daula (Awadh), and Shah Alam II.
British defeated combined forces of Mir Qasim, Shuja-ud-Daula (Awadh), and Shah Alam II.
Detailed Notes (5 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Mir Qasim tried to reform revenue system and remove trade privileges of British.
British faced combined forces of Mir Qasim, Shuja-ud-Daula, and Shah Alam II.
Battle fought on 22 October 1764 at Buxar; British led by Hector Munro.
Outcome: British victory; Treaty of Allahabad (1765) → Diwani rights of Bengal, Bihar, Orissa.
Dual government in Bengal (1765–1772): Company collected revenue, Nawab nominal head.
Battle of Buxar (1764)
| Forces | Leader | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Mir Qasim (Bengal) | - | Defeated |
| Shuja-ud-Daula (Awadh) | - | Defeated |
| Shah Alam II (Mughal) | - | Accepted Company authority |
| British | Hector Munro | Victory |
Fun Facts
Buxar was more decisive than Plassey in establishing Company power.
Mains Key Points
Buxar ensured Company supremacy in north India.
Set stage for administrative control via Diwani.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Buxar (1764) → decisive military victory (unlike Plassey’s conspiracy).
Treaty of Allahabad (1765) → Diwani rights.
Policies of Expansion
Key Point
Subsidiary Alliance and Doctrine of Lapse enabled annexation of Indian states without wars.
Subsidiary Alliance and Doctrine of Lapse enabled annexation of Indian states without wars.
Detailed Notes (4 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Subsidiary Alliance (Lord Wellesley, 1798): Indian rulers forced to maintain British troops; lost freedom in foreign affairs.
Doctrine of Lapse (Lord Dalhousie, 1848–56): States without a natural male heir annexed (e.g., Jhansi, Nagpur, Satara).
Awadh annexed in 1856 on grounds of 'misgovernment'.
These policies expanded British territory but created deep resentment.
Expansionist Policies
| Policy | Introduced by | Example States Annexed |
|---|---|---|
| Subsidiary Alliance | Lord Wellesley | Hyderabad, Awadh, Mysore |
| Doctrine of Lapse | Lord Dalhousie | Jhansi, Nagpur, Satara |
| Misgovernment Doctrine | Lord Dalhousie | Awadh (1856) |
Fun Facts
Doctrine of Lapse deeply angered Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi.
These policies were direct causes of 1857 revolt.
Mains Key Points
Policies allowed expansion without costly wars.
Created resentment across classes, contributing to revolt of 1857.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Subsidiary Alliance = Wellesley.
Doctrine of Lapse = Dalhousie.
Awadh annexed in 1856 (misgovernment).
Anglo-Mysore Wars (1767–1799)
Key Point
Four wars fought between the British and Mysore under Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan; ended with Tipu’s death in 1799.
Four wars fought between the British and Mysore under Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan; ended with Tipu’s death in 1799.
Detailed Notes (4 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Mysore rose as a powerful southern state under Hyder Ali (1761).
Hyder Ali built a strong army with European techniques, and allied with the French.
Tipu Sultan (1782–1799), called the 'Tiger of Mysore', modernised administration and resisted British expansion.
Anglo-Mysore Wars were among the toughest challenges faced by the East India Company.
Anglo-Mysore Wars
| War | Years | Key Events | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| First | 1767–1769 | Hyder Ali allied with Marathas & Nizam against British | Treaty of Madras (restored territories) |
| Second | 1780–1784 | Hyder Ali died; Tipu continued war | Treaty of Mangalore (restored prisoners/territories) |
| Third | 1790–1792 | British allied with Marathas & Nizam; Cornwallis defeated Tipu | Treaty of Seringapatam (Tipu ceded half territory, hostages given) |
| Fourth | 1799 | Siege of Seringapatam; Tipu killed | Mysore placed under Wodeyar dynasty as British ally |
Fun Facts
Tipu used iron-cased rockets in war; considered precursor to modern rockets.
Tipu had alliances with French and Ottoman Empire; even corresponded with Napoleon.
His toy, 'Tipu’s Tiger', is preserved in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London.
Mains Key Points
Mysore Wars delayed British expansion in south India by decades.
Hyder Ali and Tipu were among the few Indian rulers to modernise army and administration.
British success came from superior diplomacy (alliances with Marathas, Nizam) rather than just military strength.
Tipu’s death (1799) marked end of effective resistance to British in the south.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Hyder Ali = de facto ruler of Mysore (1761).
Tipu Sultan = 'Tiger of Mysore'; introduced sericulture (silk).
Treaty of Mangalore (1784) → rare equal treaty signed by British.
Tipu died in Fourth War (1799).
Anglo-Maratha Wars (1775–1818)
Key Point
Three wars between the British and the Marathas ended with the fall of the Maratha Confederacy and British paramountcy in India.
Three wars between the British and the Marathas ended with the fall of the Maratha Confederacy and British paramountcy in India.
Detailed Notes (4 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Marathas emerged as the strongest Indian power after Mughal decline.
Internal rivalries and inability to unite against the British weakened them.
British used diplomacy, alliances, and superior resources to gradually defeat the Marathas.
Wars stretched from 1775 to 1818, ending with deposition of the Peshwa.
Anglo-Maratha Wars
| War | Years | Causes | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| First | 1775–1782 | Succession dispute after death of Madhav Rao I; British supported Raghunath Rao (Raghoba) | Treaty of Salbai (1782): Status quo restored; British retained Bombay Salsette, recognised Madhav Rao II as Peshwa |
| Second | 1803–1805 | Maratha chiefs (Scindias, Holkars, Bhonsles) divided; British exploited divisions | British victory under Wellesley; captured Delhi; Treaty of Rajghat with Scindias |
| Third | 1817–1818 | Peshwa Baji Rao II attacked British Resident at Pune; rising Maratha discontent | British crushed Marathas; Peshwa abolished; territories annexed; Marathas confined to princely states |
Fun Facts
Arthur Wellesley (later Duke of Wellington, victor of Waterloo) fought in Second War.
Maratha confederacy included Scindias, Holkars, Gaekwads, Bhonsles — often quarrelling with each other.
Baji Rao II, last Peshwa, lived in exile in Bithoor near Kanpur.
Mains Key Points
British victory due to unity, diplomacy, and exploitation of Maratha rivalries.
Marathas failed to act as a confederacy; each house pursued separate interests.
Wars established Company’s supremacy over entire India by 1818.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Treaty of Salbai (1782) ended First War → status quo maintained.
British gained control of Delhi after Second War (1803).
Third War (1817–1818) → end of Maratha power; Peshwa pensioned off to Bithoor.
Conquest of Sindh (1843)
Key Point
Sindh was annexed by the British in 1843 after Charles Napier defeated the Talpur Amirs at the Battle of Miani.
Sindh was annexed by the British in 1843 after Charles Napier defeated the Talpur Amirs at the Battle of Miani.
Detailed Notes (7 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Sindh was ruled by the Talpur Amirs during the early 19th century.
British interest in Sindh grew due to fears of Russian invasion through Central Asia and the need for control of the Indus River route.
Lord Ellenborough, Governor-General, ordered annexation despite earlier treaties.
General Charles Napier led the British forces.
Battle of Miani (17 February 1843): British defeated Talpur Amirs.
Battle of Dubbo (March 1843): Secured British control over entire Sindh.
Sindh was annexed into British India in 1843, though officially declared in 1847.
Conquest of Sindh
| Event | Year | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Treaties with Amirs | 1832–1839 | Allowed British trade & passage |
| First Afghan War | 1839–42 | British wanted Sindh as supply base |
| Battle of Miani | 1843 | Charles Napier defeated Talpur Amirs |
| Battle of Dubbo | 1843 | Confirmed British supremacy |
| Annexation | 1843 (formalised 1847) | Sindh integrated into Bombay Presidency |
Fun Facts
After the conquest, Charles Napier reportedly sent the message: 'Peccavi' (Latin for 'I have sinned/Sindh').
The Indus River became crucial for British trade and military movement.
Mains Key Points
Conquest of Sindh was motivated by strategic concerns (Russian threat, Afghan wars).
Annexation violated treaties → example of British expansionist policies.
Integration of Sindh expanded British control westward and secured Indus trade routes.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Sindh annexed in 1843 under Lord Ellenborough.
General Charles Napier won the Battle of Miani (1843).
Sindh later merged into Bombay Presidency.
Conquest of Punjab (1845–1849)
Key Point
Two Anglo-Sikh Wars ended Sikh sovereignty and led to annexation of Punjab into British India in 1849.
Two Anglo-Sikh Wars ended Sikh sovereignty and led to annexation of Punjab into British India in 1849.
Detailed Notes (5 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Maharaja Ranjit Singh (1799–1839) built a powerful Sikh Empire with Lahore as its capital.
He modernised the Sikh Khalsa army with European officers (e.g., Jean-François Allard, Paolo Avitabile).
After his death (1839), weak successors and court intrigues weakened Punjab.
British sought Punjab as a buffer against Afghan and Central Asian threats.
Two Anglo-Sikh Wars followed, leading to British annexation.
Anglo-Sikh Wars
| War | Years | Cause | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Anglo-Sikh War | 1845–46 | Instability after Ranjit Singh’s death; Sikh army crossed Sutlej | British victory; Treaty of Lahore (1846) → heavy indemnity, territory ceded (Jammu, Kashmir, Jullundur Doab) |
| Second Anglo-Sikh War | 1848–49 | Revolts in Multan; Sikh chiefs resisted British expansion | British victory at Battle of Gujrat (1849); Punjab annexed |
Fun Facts
The famous Koh-i-Noor diamond was taken from Punjab after annexation (later gifted to Queen Victoria).
Ranjit Singh never allowed British to station troops in Punjab during his lifetime.
Mains Key Points
Ranjit Singh created a strong centralised state, but succession disputes weakened it.
British diplomacy exploited Sikh court rivalries and mismanagement.
Annexation of Punjab completed British conquest of India up to northwest frontier.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Maharaja Ranjit Singh modernised Sikh army with European help.
Treaty of Lahore (1846) reduced Sikh territory and independence.
Punjab formally annexed in 1849 after Second War.
Overview of Dalhousie’s Annexations
Key Point
Lord Dalhousie (Governor-General, 1848–1856) expanded British India using Doctrine of Lapse and 'misgovernment'.
Lord Dalhousie (Governor-General, 1848–1856) expanded British India using Doctrine of Lapse and 'misgovernment'.
Detailed Notes (4 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Doctrine of Lapse: States without a natural male heir were annexed.
Awadh was annexed separately in 1856 on grounds of 'misgovernment'.
These annexations alienated rulers, nobles, soldiers, and peasants.
Directly contributed to growing resentment → Revolt of 1857.
Major Annexations under Dalhousie
| State | Year | Grounds | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Satara | 1848 | Doctrine of Lapse | First major annexation under Dalhousie |
| Jhansi | 1853 | Doctrine of Lapse | Rani Lakshmibai denied right to adopt heir |
| Nagpur | 1854 | Doctrine of Lapse | Rich cotton-producing region annexed |
| Awadh | 1856 | Misgovernment | Nawab Wajid Ali Shah deposed; cause of 1857 revolt |
Fun Facts
Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi famously resisted in 1857 saying, 'Main apni Jhansi nahi doongi'.
Dalhousie’s aggressive policy earned him both fame (for British) and infamy (for Indians).
Mains Key Points
Annexations reflected aggressive British imperialism in mid-19th century.
Doctrine of Lapse undermined Indian customs of adoption.
Awadh annexation alienated soldiers (sepoys), peasants, and nobles → key spark for 1857.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Doctrine of Lapse introduced by Lord Dalhousie.
First annexation = Satara (1848).
Awadh (1856) annexed on misgovernment, not lapse.
Annexation of Satara (1848)
Key Point
Satara was the first state annexed under Doctrine of Lapse in 1848.
Satara was the first state annexed under Doctrine of Lapse in 1848.
Detailed Notes (4 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Satara was a Maratha principality.
Last ruler died without a natural heir in 1848.
Dalhousie rejected adoption claim and annexed Satara.
Set precedent for later annexations.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Satara = first annexation under Doctrine of Lapse (1848).
Annexation of Jhansi (1853)
Key Point
Jhansi was annexed in 1853 when Dalhousie rejected Rani Lakshmibai’s adopted heir.
Jhansi was annexed in 1853 when Dalhousie rejected Rani Lakshmibai’s adopted heir.
Detailed Notes (4 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Ruler of Jhansi died in 1853 without a male heir.
Rani Lakshmibai adopted a son but Dalhousie rejected the claim.
Jhansi annexed under Doctrine of Lapse.
This grievance became a rallying point in the Revolt of 1857.
Fun Facts
Lakshmibai became a symbol of resistance in 1857 revolt.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Jhansi annexed in 1853 → cause of Rani Lakshmibai’s resistance in 1857.
Annexation of Nagpur (1854)
Key Point
Nagpur was annexed under Doctrine of Lapse in 1854 after death of ruler without a male heir.
Nagpur was annexed under Doctrine of Lapse in 1854 after death of ruler without a male heir.
Detailed Notes (4 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Nagpur was a rich cotton-producing region.
Its ruler died without a natural heir in 1854.
Dalhousie applied Doctrine of Lapse and annexed Nagpur.
British gained direct control over central India.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Nagpur annexed in 1854 under Doctrine of Lapse.
Annexation of Awadh (1856)
Key Point
Awadh was annexed in 1856 by Lord Dalhousie on grounds of 'misgovernment'.
Awadh was annexed in 1856 by Lord Dalhousie on grounds of 'misgovernment'.
Detailed Notes (5 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Ruler: Nawab Wajid Ali Shah, a patron of art and culture.
Annexation not by Doctrine of Lapse but on alleged misrule.
Awadh merged into North-Western Provinces.
Dispossession of taluqdars and discontent among sepoys of Awadh army.
Major cause of widespread resentment in 1857.
Fun Facts
Wajid Ali Shah was exiled to Calcutta where he promoted Kathak and poetry.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Awadh annexed in 1856 (misgovernment, not lapse).
Ruler: Nawab Wajid Ali Shah.
Anglo-Bhutanese Relations
Key Point
Relations between British India and Bhutan were marked by border disputes, raids, and culminated in the Anglo–Bhutanese War (1864–65).
Relations between British India and Bhutan were marked by border disputes, raids, and culminated in the Anglo–Bhutanese War (1864–65).
Detailed Notes (5 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Bhutan was a Himalayan kingdom ruled by the Deb Raja and Penlops (regional governors).
British interest in Bhutan grew after annexation of Assam (1826) and Dooars region.
Frequent Bhutanese raids into Assam and Bengal frontiers caused friction.
British envoys were often treated with disrespect, worsening relations.
Tensions escalated into the Anglo–Bhutanese War (1864–65).
Anglo-Bhutanese War (1864–65)
| Event | Details |
|---|---|
| Cause | Bhutanese raids into Assam and Bengal; failure of negotiations |
| British Campaign | Invaded Bhutanese territory (Dooars) in 1864 |
| Resistance | Bhutanese fought bravely but lacked modern weapons |
| Treaty of Sinchula (1865) | Bhutan ceded Dooars, parts of Assam and Bengal Duars; received annual subsidy |
Fun Facts
Despite defeat, Bhutan retained its independence unlike many other Indian neighbours.
The annual subsidy given by the British was a rare case of British paying a Himalayan kingdom.
Mains Key Points
British frontier policy aimed at securing Assam and Bengal borders from Himalayan kingdoms.
Bhutan’s loss of Dooars reduced its economic strength but preserved its sovereignty.
Set precedent for later Anglo–Tibetan and Anglo–Nepalese interactions.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Anglo–Bhutanese War fought in 1864–65.
Treaty of Sinchula (1865) → Bhutan ceded Dooars; got annual subsidy.
Main cause: Bhutanese raids into Assam & Bengal frontiers.
Anglo-Nepalese Relations
Key Point
The Anglo–Nepalese (Gurkha) War (1814–1816) ended with the Treaty of Sugauli, reducing Nepal’s territory but preserving its sovereignty.
The Anglo–Nepalese (Gurkha) War (1814–1816) ended with the Treaty of Sugauli, reducing Nepal’s territory but preserving its sovereignty.
Detailed Notes (5 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Nepal was unified under the Gorkhas in the mid-18th century under Prithvi Narayan Shah.
The Gorkhas expanded westwards into Kumaon, Garhwal and south into Terai.
Conflicts arose with the East India Company due to border disputes and Nepalese expansion.
Anglo–Nepalese (Gurkha) War (1814–16) fought between Company and Gorkhas.
Nepalese army fought bravely with guerrilla tactics but lacked modern arms.
Anglo–Nepalese (Gurkha) War & Treaty of Sugauli
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| War Period | 1814–1816 |
| Causes | Border disputes; Gorkha expansion into Kumaon, Garhwal, Terai |
| British Campaign | Led by General Ochterlony |
| Outcome | Nepal defeated; Treaty of Sugauli (1816) |
| Treaty of Sugauli | Nepal ceded Kumaon, Garhwal, Sikkim; accepted British Resident at Kathmandu; kept sovereignty |
Fun Facts
Despite defeat, Nepal retained sovereignty unlike many Indian states.
The Gorkhas’ bravery impressed the British; they were later recruited into the British Indian Army (Gurkha regiments).
Mains Key Points
Treaty of Sugauli set Nepal’s modern boundaries.
Marked beginning of Nepal’s close but unequal relations with British India.
British recruitment of Gorkhas became a lasting feature of military relations.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Anglo–Nepalese War fought (1814–16).
Treaty of Sugauli (1816) → Nepal ceded Kumaon, Garhwal, Sikkim.
Nepal accepted British Resident in Kathmandu.
Anglo-Burmese Relations & Wars
Key Point
Three Anglo–Burmese Wars (1824–1886) resulted in the complete annexation of Burma into British India.
Three Anglo–Burmese Wars (1824–1886) resulted in the complete annexation of Burma into British India.
Detailed Notes (4 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Burma (Myanmar) was a rising power under the Konbaung dynasty in the 18th–19th centuries.
Its expansion into Assam, Manipur, and Arakan alarmed the British.
British–Burmese relations were marked by territorial disputes and trade ambitions.
Three Anglo–Burmese Wars gradually reduced Burma’s sovereignty until full annexation.
Anglo–Burmese Wars
| War | Years | Causes | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Anglo–Burmese War | 1824–1826 | Burma expanded into Assam & Manipur; conflict with Company | Treaty of Yandabo (1826): Burma ceded Assam, Manipur, Arakan, Tenasserim; paid indemnity |
| Second Anglo–Burmese War | 1852 | Trade disputes; British merchants harassed at Rangoon | Lower Burma (Pegu) annexed; Rangoon under British control |
| Third Anglo–Burmese War | 1885–1886 | British accused King Thibaw of misrule and aligning with French | Annexation of Upper Burma; Burma became part of British India (1886) |
Fun Facts
The First Anglo–Burmese War was the costliest for the Company; expenses nearly bankrupted it.
King Thibaw, the last Burmese monarch, was exiled to Ratnagiri (Maharashtra, India).
Burma remained a province of British India until 1937, when it was separated.
Mains Key Points
Burma’s annexation shows British strategic concern over Northeast India and Southeast Asia.
The wars reveal British use of 'misrule' and 'trade disputes' as pretexts for expansion.
Integration of Burma expanded India’s eastern frontier and trade access to Southeast Asia.
Prelims Strategy Tips
First War (1824–26) ended with Treaty of Yandabo.
Second War (1852) → annexation of Lower Burma.
Third War (1885–86) → annexation of Upper Burma; Burma became part of British India.
Anglo-Tibetan Relations
Key Point
Anglo–Tibetan relations were shaped by trade disputes, Tibet’s ties with China, and the British desire to check Russian influence. The 1903–04 Younghusband Expedition forced Tibet to sign a treaty with the British.
Anglo–Tibetan relations were shaped by trade disputes, Tibet’s ties with China, and the British desire to check Russian influence. The 1903–04 Younghusband Expedition forced Tibet to sign a treaty with the British.
Detailed Notes (6 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Tibet historically maintained ties with China, which claimed suzerainty.
British interest in Tibet grew in the 19th century as part of the 'Great Game' against Russia.
Tibet obstructed British attempts to establish trade relations and refused to recognise earlier treaties signed with China.
Lord Curzon (Viceroy) sent a military mission under Colonel Francis Younghusband in 1903.
The expedition faced resistance but reached Lhasa in 1904.
Treaty of Lhasa (1904): Tibet agreed to open trade marts at Gyantse, Yatung, and Gartok; pay indemnity; not to deal with any foreign power except Britain.
Key Events in Anglo–Tibetan Relations
| Year | Event | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| 1792 | China–Tibet–Nepal context | China asserted suzerainty after Nepal–Tibet war |
| 19th century | British trade attempts | Repeatedly blocked by Tibet |
| 1903–04 | Younghusband Expedition | British forced entry into Lhasa |
| 1904 | Treaty of Lhasa | Opened Tibet to trade, indemnity imposed, restricted foreign relations |
Fun Facts
The Younghusband expedition caused heavy Tibetan casualties despite poor Tibetan weaponry.
The Dalai Lama fled to Mongolia during the expedition.
Though Tibet signed the 1904 treaty, it was later modified by the British–Chinese convention (1906).
Mains Key Points
Anglo–Tibetan relations reflected British anxieties about Russian influence in Tibet.
Younghusband expedition demonstrated British military power but also exposed aggressive frontier policy.
The Treaty of Lhasa marked the first direct treaty between Tibet and Britain, bypassing China.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Anglo–Tibetan relations linked to the 'Great Game' (Britain vs Russia in Central Asia).
Younghusband Expedition → 1903–04.
Treaty of Lhasa (1904) forced Tibet to open trade marts.
Anglo-Afghan Relations & Wars
Key Point
Three Anglo–Afghan Wars (1839–1919) defined British policy in the northwest frontier; Afghanistan acted as a buffer between British India and Russian influence.
Three Anglo–Afghan Wars (1839–1919) defined British policy in the northwest frontier; Afghanistan acted as a buffer between British India and Russian influence.
Detailed Notes (3 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
British concern: Russian advance into Central Asia threatened India ('Great Game').
Afghanistan’s strategic location made it the 'buffer state' between British India and Russia.
Relations were marked by repeated British interventions through three wars.
Anglo–Afghan Wars
| War | Years | Causes | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Anglo–Afghan War | 1839–1842 | British wanted to replace Dost Mohammad with Shah Shuja to counter Russian influence. | Initial British success, but disastrous retreat from Kabul (1842) → heavy British losses; Dost Mohammad restored. |
| Second Anglo–Afghan War | 1878–1880 | British feared growing Russian influence; demanded control of Afghan foreign policy. | Treaty of Gandamak (1879): Amir accepted British control over foreign affairs; British Resident placed in Kabul (later killed). |
| Third Anglo–Afghan War | 1919 | After WWI, Amanullah Khan sought full Afghan independence. | Treaty of Rawalpindi (1919): Afghanistan regained control over foreign policy; Britain recognized Afghan independence. |
Fun Facts
The 1842 retreat from Kabul left only one British survivor, Dr. William Brydon, reaching Jalalabad.
Afghanistan became a symbol of the 'graveyard of empires' due to repeated foreign failures.
After 1919, Afghanistan was the first country to establish diplomatic ties with Soviet Russia.
Mains Key Points
British interventions in Afghanistan were driven by fear of Russian expansion (Great Game).
Despite three wars, Britain never fully controlled Afghanistan; instead, it remained a buffer state.
The wars demonstrated the limits of imperial power in difficult terrain and hostile societies.
Prelims Strategy Tips
First Anglo–Afghan War → disaster for British (1842 Kabul retreat).
Second War → Treaty of Gandamak (1879).
Third War (1919) → Treaty of Rawalpindi; Afghan independence recognized.
Policy of Ring Fence & Buffer State
Key Point
The British first adopted the Policy of Ring Fence in the 18th century to protect Bengal, and later the Buffer State Policy in the 19th century to counter Russia in Central Asia.
The British first adopted the Policy of Ring Fence in the 18th century to protect Bengal, and later the Buffer State Policy in the 19th century to counter Russia in Central Asia.
Detailed Notes (10 points)
Tap a card to add note • Use the highlight Listen button to play the full section
Policy of Ring Fence (late 18th century, Warren Hastings):
— Aimed at protecting British possessions in Bengal by creating a 'ring' of friendly states around it.
— British provided military support to certain Indian states against stronger rivals.
— Example: Support to Awadh against the Marathas and Rohillas.
— It was defensive in nature, meant to shield Bengal revenues (Company’s lifeline).
Policy of Buffer State (19th century):
— Evolved during the 'Great Game' against Russia.
— Aimed at maintaining weak, independent states between British India and potential rivals.
— Example: Afghanistan treated as a buffer between India and Russia.
— Unlike Ring Fence, this was strategic and global, not just Bengal-focused.
Comparison: Ring Fence vs Buffer State
| Aspect | Ring Fence Policy | Buffer State Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Time Period | Late 18th century (Warren Hastings) | 19th century (Great Game era) |
| Region | Bengal and surrounding Indian states | Frontier regions (Afghanistan, Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan) |
| Objective | Defensive — protect Bengal revenues | Strategic — counter Russian expansion |
| Method | Alliances with Indian states (Awadh, Marathas) | Maintaining weak buffer states between India & rivals |
| Nature | Short-term, regional | Long-term, international (imperial strategy) |
Fun Facts
The term 'Ring Fence' was literally used by Warren Hastings in his correspondence.
Despite the buffer state idea, Britain had to fight three costly Anglo–Afghan Wars.
Mains Key Points
Ring Fence showed the early defensive mindset of the Company, focused on Bengal.
Buffer State reflected global geopolitics — Britain vs Russia in Central Asia.
Both policies reveal how British India was shaped by security concerns, not just economic motives.
Prelims Strategy Tips
Ring Fence → Warren Hastings, late 18th century.
Buffer State → 19th century, Great Game (Russia vs Britain).
Afghanistan = classic buffer state between British India & Russia.
Chapter Complete!
Ready to move to the next chapter?