What is meant by socialization

‘Subsidiary Alliance introduced by Lord Wellesley was the most effective

Nitella [24]

Answer:

Subsidiary Alliance introduced by Lord Wellesley was the most effective

instrument for the expansion of British territory in India.’ Justify the

statement.Subsidiary Alliance was basically a treaty between the British East India Company and the Indian princely states, by virtue of which the Indian kingdoms lost their sovereignty to the English. It also was a major process that led to the building of the British Empire in India. It was framed by Lord Wellesley, the Governor-General of India from 1798 to 1805. It was actually used for the first time by the French Governor-General Marquis Dupleix.

The Nawab of Awadh was the first ruler to enter into the subsidiary alliance with the British after the Battle of Buxar. However, the Nizam of Hyderabad was the first to accept a well-framed subsidiary alliance.Features of the Subsidiary Alliance Treaty

The subsidiary alliance in India was planned by Lord Wellesley, but this term was introduced by French Governor Dupleix.

An Indian ruler entering into Subsidiary Alliance with the British had to dissolve his own armed forces and accept British forces in his territory.

He also had to pay for the British army’s maintenance. If he failed to make the payment, a portion of his territory would be taken away and ceded to the British.

In return, the British would protect the Indian state against any foreign attack or internal revolt.

The British promised non-interference in internal affairs of the Indian state but this was rarely kept.

The Indian state could not enter into any alliance with any other foreign power.

He could also not employ any other foreign nationals other than Englishmen in his service. And, if he were employing any, on the signing of the alliance, he had to terminate them from his service. The idea was to curb the influence of the French.

The Indian state could also not enter into any political connection with another Indian state without British approval.

The Indian ruler, thus, lost all powers in respect of foreign affairs and the military.

He virtually lost all his independence and became a British ‘protectorate’.

A British Resident was also stationed in the Indian Court.

Effects of the Subsidiary Alliance

As a result of Indian rulers disbanding their armies, many people were rendered unemployed.

Many Indian states lost their independence and slowly, most parts of India were coming under British control.

The Nizam of Hyderabad was the first to accept the Subsidiary Alliance in 1798.

Lord Clive also introduced the subsidiary system in Oudh and the Treaty of Allahabad was signed where the British promised the Oudh territory from enemies like Marathas.

Order in which the Indian States entered into Subsidiary Alliances

Hyderabad (1798)

Mysore (1799 – After Tipu Sultan was defeated in the Fourth Anglo-Mysore War)

Tanjore (1799)

Awadh (1801)

Peshwa (Marathas) (1802)

Scindia (Marathas) (1803)

Gaekwad (Marathas) (1803)

6 0

1 year ago

6. "Federalism has negative accepts too." Justify this statement.

Dafna11 [192]

Answer: It had a History of Protecting Slavery and Segregation – This is often cited as one of the main detriments of the system of federalism that we have in this country, that since slavery was a state issue, it was something that could not be removed on the national level.

It Allows for Inequalities Between Different States – For example, instead of education funding throughout the country being the same, since it is a state issue, some states will spend more, per capita, on education than other states, causing what could be considered a disparity. The same goes for other things, as well, such as taxes, health care programs, and welfare programs.

The Blockage of Nationalist Policies by States – States can fight against the existence of certain national laws by challenging them in court, or going out of their way to not enforce those national laws, or even deliberately obstructing enforcement of national laws.

Racing to the Bottom – One argument given is that states will compete with each other in an oppositional way, by reducing the amount of benefits they give to welfare recipients compared to, say, a neighboring state, motivating the undesirables to go to the neighboring state, thereby reducing their welfare costs even more. This reduction of state benefits to needy has been deemed the ‘race to the bottom.’

4 0

2 years ago

Tortilla curtain who is the first victim of vandalization in the novel?

Sholpan [36]

In the novel, 'The Tortilla Curtain' by T.C Boyle.

3 0

2 years ago

Which problem solving strategy looks at every possible alternative and could take a very long time?

user100 [1]

D,working backwards cause u work faster backwards

8 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

What does it means to have two person sitting on this two dangerous bombs in the image below?

iris [78.8K]

Answer:

Welsh-born cartoonist Leslie Gilbert Illingworth drew the famous cartoon of John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev arm wrestling while sitting on hydrogen bombs. It appeared in the October 29, 1962 edition of the British newspaper The Daily Mail.Born in 1902, Illingworth started drawing cartoons for the famous British news magazine Punch in 1927. The Daily Mail hired him as well in 1937 and he continued to provide cartoons for both publications for the rest of his career. He gained a measure of national fame for the effective cartoons he drew during England's dogged stand against Nazi Germany.Illingworth was not an overtly political cartoonist and this is evident in this arm wrestling cartoon. One notices the characteristic Illingworth preference for detail rather than commentary on who is right or wrong. The intensity of the struggle is captured both by the energy that radiates out of Kennedy and Khrushchev's gripped hands, but also by the fact that each is sweating profusely. Each man still has his finger on the button that will detonate the bombs.Illingworth's cartoon reminded readers that the superpower struggle would continue and that the possibility of nuclear annihilation remained.Illingworth's drawings contrast sharply with those of Edmund Valtman, the Pulitzer Prize-winning and fiercely anti-communist cartoonist for The Hartford Times. On October 30, after the crisis had seemingly passed, his paper published a Valtman cartoon of Khrushchev yanking missile-shaped teeth out of a hideous-looking Castro's mouth. The caption above the illustration reads, “This Hurts Me More Than It Hurts You” and the cartoon clearly represents a moment of American gloating over the communists.That the Illingworth cartoon was published in a British newspaper bears witness to the fact that the outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis affected the fate of populations beyond those of the United States and the Soviet Union. Indeed the whole world was watching. The publication date of October 29 is also significant since on October 28, Khrushchev announced that he was withdrawing the missiles out of Cuba and the crisis seemingly had passed. Illingworth's cartoon reminded readers that the superpower struggle would continue and that the possibility of nuclear annihilation remained.

Explanation:

3 0

1 year ago