"dependent principality" like that of Sátára and others that I have named[1].'
Practically Lord Dalhousie classified the Native States of India into two divisions as Sir Charles Metcalfe had done in 1837. First, the Sovereign or quasi-sovereign States dating from the time of the Mughal Empire, or from a still earlier period, or from the period immediately following its disruption. Second, the dependent Native States which we had ourselves created in subordinate relations to the British Government. The first class included not only the great Muhammadan, Rájput, and Maráthá States; but also, in Lord Dalhousie's opinion, States of small area if they had the claim of antiquity in favour of their semi-independence. This is clearly shown in his Minute upon the proposed lapse of Karauli on failure of heirs. That State had been incorporated into the Mughal Empire; it became a tributary State of the Maráthás on the decline of the Mughal Power; it was transferred to us by the Maráthás in 1817. On the failure of direct heirs in 1852, the question was debated whether the State should lapse to the British Government.
Lord Dalhousie himself pointed out as an argu-
- ↑ Lord Dalhousie's Minute on Nágpur, dated 28th January, 1854. In the printed copies of his Sátára Minutes, the word 'independent' unfortunately appeared in one of the most important passages instead of 'dependent.' But if his meaning had ever been doubtful (and the preceding sentence had distinctly referred to 'petty intervening principalities'), Lord Dalhousie now made it clear.
