Rani's defence against Dalhousie's plot

Realizing the gravity of the situation, the Rani immediately set forth a self composed legal document arguing forth her case. She referred to the treaties of 1817 and 1842, granted in recognition to the ‘uniform and faithful’ attachment of Britain of the ruling house of Jhansi. The second article of the treaty of 1817 confirmed the title of Ramachandra Rao and his heirs and successors which included adoption. Next, the Rani showcased the Hindu scriptures granting absolute legitimacy to adopted sons, for offering liberation to the departed manes. But the most compelling argument she reserved for the last. Adoption made by three Rajas in the neighborhood of Jhansi [Including the Rajput kingdoms of Datia and Orcha] were sanctioned by the British government, although the term ‘perpetuity’ did not occur in their treaties as it did in the treaties with Jhansi.
Ellis took the points well and wrote to Malcolm on 24th Dec, 1853 “we have a treaty of alliance and friendship with the Jhansi as well as Orcha states, and I cannot discover any difference in the terms of the two states which would justify our withholding the privilege of adoption from one state and allowing it to the other.”
On the 16th of Feb, 1854, she further rammed the point home in a second petition to avoid any misconstruction of the language used in the treaties. The words warison [heirs] and janishinan [successors] where the former referred to natural and the latter to adopted heirs, in the event of there being no natural heir. She continued “treaties are studied with the utmost care before ratification; and it is not supposed that the term janishinan used to contradistinction to warison was introduced in an important document of this kind, of the authority almost of a revelation from heaven without a precise understanding of meaning” [9]

Indeed, in both these petitions, one comes across another vital ingredient of the Rani’s character and that is her intellectual acumen. One cannot but help admire the skills of these petitions; accurate in their facts, clear in their logic and moderate in tone something even more remarkable for the timeline in which she ruled; where intellectual traditions among Indian women were almost nonexistent. As Tahmankar sums up “It might be true to say that this remarkable young woman entered single handedly on her contest with Lord Dalhousie and if he had ever any intention of letting the decision depend on the merits of the case; she would have won it; hands down.”

Lord Dalhousie, intention was solely to usurp the kingdom of Jhansi, and for this he was prepared to wage any number of pseudo legal arguments. The specious argument proposed by him was unlike Datia and Orcha which were Rajput kingdoms; Jhansi was never an independent principality.
This argument which abounds in fallacies and distortions has been effectively demolished by Indian writers such as Basu and Parasnis. But even a British writer of Dalhousie’s day, Major Evans Bell proved conclusively that the Raja of Jhansi was a hereditary sovereign. [9]