Rulers of Indian states did not have autonomy under the British Rule.
Explanation:
The amount of power the ruler had over his dominion were nominal at best and their royalty was subject to the British as they could cite any reason and annex their land from them.
The amount of power the ruler had was also dependent on how closely the British were involved in their territory.
This was to be seen in places like Delhi and Calcutta where the British influence was more than in fringes like Kerala and Orrissa where the King still had more power.
The power of the ruler was subject to the needs and interference of the British.
Read more on Brainly.com - brainly.com/question/15650754#readmore
The soil was generally more fertile, the weather was about the same. The west had very hot weather and dry spells that were accompanied by wind storms that created wind erosion which would reduce the quality and nutrients of the land and make it much more coarse and harder to farm, and if you didn't have the money for equipment or animals to assist in the upkeep of the land, it was very hard to do yourself. The heat during the summer and cold during the winter would kill the crops and made successful seasons short. I wouldn't necessarily say that the west was any better for farming than the south, the land acquisition available in the west, however, was ideal and a no brainer for anyone, regardless of farming knowledge or not.
Answer:
1)Six nations have ruled over Texas.
2)Texas is larger than any European country.
3)It is the second most populous state in America.
Commissioner Lin's Goal was to end the opium trade in China.
