Answer
British East India Company. It turns out, that India was never originally colonized by the British crown, but by a multinational company (MNC). Robert Clive, who won the Battle Of Palashi (‘Plassey’ for ‘Hey bear, ek gin and tonic idaar!’ folks), was an employee (‘Team Leader’ in 21st-century terms) of the world’s first public limited company. (Britons had equity stakes and to make favorable trading deals, the company ended up having an army.)That hired army ended up ousting the weak-by-then Mughals and accidentally ended up with a nation. Ours. Yes, a large company, so influential and powerful, that it made laws of another nation. The modern equivalent would be if, say, Coca-Cola removed the Chinese premier and started running it. It’s unheard of, mad. But that’s what happened, and that is how I am writing this column in English and you’re reading it in English, both parties pretending as we folks have always been English speakers and writers. All because a bunch of company middle management wanted to protect their investments and threaten some nabobs for their tea and silk and spice and opium trade. And the company’s armies also meted out their version of justice. This begs the question: can a company do that? Today, if you visit the dockland area of London from where the East India Company ships once sailed, hundreds a day to rule Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras, there’s a wildlife reserve, a jogging track, an indoor concert hall called the O2 Arena, a bunch of suburban high-rises that look a bit like Whitefield in Bengaluru, and an HSBC call center. Zero signs that it was once the epicenter of the imperial world, ruling 3/4th of the planet with trade.
Answer:
C. To agree and aprove
Explanation:
Ratify means to sign or give formal consent to (a treaty, contract, or agreement), making it officially valid.
The U.S. stimulated their economy be giving them a lot of money that then helped them kickstart their political return
Answer:
The answer is below
Explanation:
According to Dr. John C Green, debates actually matters in an election. However, the impact of debates comes in two different folds.
Firstly, those that actually watch the debate. These people get the information directly from the aspirants and it shifts their opinions about who they will vote for eventually.
On the other hand, are those that actually didn't watch the debate. These people often more than those that watch the debate, are influenced by the media narratives that come after the debates. And in a way, it also changes their opinions about whom exactly they would give their votes.
He however concluded that it is difficult to measure the impact of the debate on election outcomes. In his word "just because people get information does not mean they will be persuaded one way or another."
