From Trade To Territory, History, Class 8 -Test - Class 8 MCQ

Explanation:
To determine which one was not a trading company, let's analyze each option:
A: The Portuguese
- The Portuguese were known for their extensive trading activities during the Age of Exploration. They established trade routes and monopolized the spice trade in the Indian Ocean.
B: The Dutch
- The Dutch East India Company (VOC) was one of the most powerful and successful trading companies in history. It dominated trade in the East Indies, particularly in spices and textiles.
C: The French
- The French had their own trading companies, such as the French East India Company and the French West India Company. They were involved in trade and colonization in various regions.
D: The Japanese
- The Japanese did not have a notable trading company during the Age of Exploration. Instead, Japan had a policy of isolationism known as the Sakoku period, which restricted foreign trade.
Conclusion:
Based on the analysis above, the correct answer is d. The Japanese because they did not have a significant trading company during the Age of Exploration.

Definition of farman:
- A farman refers to a royal order or decree issued by a monarch or ruler in ancient times.
- It was a significant document that held legal authority and was used to communicate the ruler's commands or instructions.
- Farmans were typically written in a formal and elaborate manner, often using decorative calligraphy and seals.
Explanation:
- The given options suggest that farman could be a royal dress, food, or procession, but these are incorrect.
- A royal dress is commonly known as a robe or attire worn by a monarch, not a farman.
- Royal food refers to the cuisine served in royal households, but it is not related to a farman.
- A royal procession is a ceremonial march of a monarch or ruler, but it is not the definition of a farman.
Correct answer:
- The correct option is B: It was a royal order.
- A farman was a written order or decree issued by a ruler, which held legal authority and served as a means of commanding or instructing.
- It was an important administrative tool used by monarchs to govern their kingdoms and ensure compliance with their policies and regulations.

Option C is correct because when Alivardi Khan Died in 1756, Sirajuddaulah became the nawab of Bengal.

The British who led the Company's army against Sirajuddaulah at Plassey was Robert Clive.
Explanation:
Background:
- The Battle of Plassey took place on June 23, 1757, in present-day West Bengal, India.
- It was a pivotal battle during the period of British colonization in India.
- The conflict arose due to the rivalry between the British East India Company and the Nawab of Bengal, Sirajuddaulah.
Key Points:
- Robert Clive: He was a British officer and administrator who played a crucial role in establishing British control over India.
- Company's Army: The British East India Company had its private army, known as the Company's army.
- Leadership: Robert Clive, as a military commander, led the Company's army during the Battle of Plassey.
- Significance: The British forces, under Clive's leadership, defeated Sirajuddaulah's army, leading to the establishment of British dominance in Bengal.
Answer:
Therefore, the correct answer is A: Robert Clive.

Introduction:

The policy of 'paramountcy' was introduced by a Governor-General during the British rule in India. In this response, we will identify the Governor-General who introduced this policy.

• Lord Hastings: He served as the Governor-General of India from 1813 to 1823, but he did not introduce the policy of 'paramountcy'.


• Lord Dalhousie: He served as the Governor-General of India from 1848 to 1856 and implemented various reforms, but he did not introduce the policy of 'paramountcy'.


• Warren Hastings: He served as the first Governor-General of Bengal from 1773 to 1785, and while he played a significant role in the administration of British India, he did not introduce the policy of 'paramountcy'.


• Lord Bentinck: He served as the Governor-General of India from 1828 to 1835 and introduced the policy of 'paramountcy'.

Conclusion:

Based on the provided options, it can be concluded that Lord Bentinck introduced the policy of 'paramountcy' during his tenure as the Governor-General of India.

Answer:
The annexation based on the Doctrine of Lapse refers to the policy implemented by Lord Dalhousie, the Governor-General of India from 1848 to 1856. According to this policy, if a ruler of a princely state died without a legitimate male heir, the state would be annexed by the British East India Company. Among the options given, the correct answer is Satara.
Explanation:
Lord Dalhousie applied the Doctrine of Lapse to several princely states during his tenure. Here is a detailed explanation of the annexation based on the Doctrine of Lapse for each option:
A) Punjab: Punjab was not annexed on the basis of the Doctrine of Lapse. It was annexed after the Second Anglo-Sikh War in 1849.
B) Awadh (Oudh): Awadh was annexed in 1856, but not on the basis of the Doctrine of Lapse. The annexation was justified by Lord Dalhousie on the grounds of misrule and maladministration.
C) Satara: Satara was annexed in 1848 on the basis of the Doctrine of Lapse. The state was ruled by a childless Raja, Pratapsingh, and according to the Doctrine of Lapse, the British annexed it.
D) Hyderabad: Hyderabad was not annexed on the basis of the Doctrine of Lapse. It remained an independent princely state until India gained independence in 1947.
In conclusion, among the options given, Satara was annexed on the basis of Lord Dalhousie's Doctrine of Lapse.

The Governor-General who was impeached:
The Governor-General who was impeached was Warren Hastings.
Explanation:
- Warren Hastings served as the Governor-General of Bengal from 1772 to 1785.
- He was accused of various acts of corruption and abuse of power during his tenure.
- The impeachment proceedings against Warren Hastings began in 1787 and lasted for several years.
- The impeachment trial took place in the British Parliament and was one of the most significant political trials of the 18th century.
- Hastings was charged with high crimes and misdemeanors, including mismanagement of the East India Company's affairs in India and unjust treatment of Indian rulers and citizens.
- The trial concluded in 1795, and Warren Hastings was eventually acquitted of all charges.
- Despite the acquittal, the impeachment trial had far-reaching consequences for the governance of British India and the relationship between the British and Indian people.
- It highlighted the need for accountability and transparency in the administration of the East India Company's territories in India.

Background:

The Marathas were a powerful empire in India during the 18th century. They were known for their military strength and controlled a large part of the Indian subcontinent. However, by the early 19th century, the Maratha Empire had weakened due to internal conflicts, succession disputes, and the growing influence of the British East India Company.

The Third Anglo-Maratha War:

The Third Anglo-Maratha War took place from 1817 to 1818. It was fought between the Marathas and the British East India Company. The primary cause of the war was the refusal of the Marathas to accept the subsidiary alliance imposed by the British, which would have given the British control over their territories.

Outcome:

The Marathas were defeated in the Third Anglo-Maratha War, leading to the end of their power and the annexation of their territories by the British. Here are the key outcomes:

• The British East India Company emerged victorious and gained control over large parts of the Maratha Empire.


• The Peshwa, who was the titular head of the Maratha Empire, was deposed and exiled.


• Several Maratha chiefs and states were either annexed or became subordinate to the British.


• The British consolidated their control over the Indian subcontinent and further expanded their dominion.

Significance:

The defeat of the Marathas in the Third Anglo-Maratha War marked a significant turning point in Indian history:

• It weakened the last major indigenous power in India and paved the way for British dominance.


• The British were able to extend their control over vast territories and establish their rule more firmly.


• It highlighted the military superiority of the British and their ability to defeat Indian powers.


• The Marathas' defeat also contributed to the overall decline of indigenous Indian states and the consolidation of British colonial rule.

In conclusion, the statement that the Maratha power was crushed in the third Anglo-Maratha war is true. The Marathas were defeated, leading to the end of their power and the British gaining control over their territories.

Background:
Tipu Sultan was the ruler of the Kingdom of Mysore in South India during the late 18th century. He was known for his resistance against the British East India Company's expansion in the region.
Statement:
Tipu Sultan disallowed local merchants from trading with the Company.

The given statement is True. Tipu Sultan indeed disallowed local merchants from trading with the British East India Company. Here's a detailed explanation:
1. Tipu Sultan's opposition to the British:
- Tipu Sultan viewed the British East India Company as a threat to his sovereignty and independence.
- He fought several battles against the Company's forces and was known for his resistance to British rule.
2. Trade restrictions:
- In order to weaken the British East India Company's economic power, Tipu Sultan implemented trade restrictions.
- He disallowed local merchants from trading with the Company, aiming to reduce their influence and control over the region's economy.
3. Promotion of local industries:
- Tipu Sultan encouraged the development of local industries and trade within his kingdom.
- He established new manufacturing centers and promoted the production of goods locally, reducing dependence on British imports.
4. Encouragement of trade with other countries:
- While Tipu Sultan restricted trade with the British East India Company, he actively sought trade relationships with other European powers like France.
- He aimed to diversify his kingdom's trade partners and reduce reliance on the British.
5. Impact on the British East India Company:
- Tipu Sultan's trade restrictions had a negative impact on the British East India Company's trade and revenue in the region.
- It further strained the relationship between Tipu Sultan and the Company, contributing to the ongoing conflicts between them.
In conclusion, Tipu Sultan disallowed local merchants from trading with the British East India Company as part of his resistance against British rule and his efforts to promote local industries and trade.

Explanation:

The statement mentioned in the question is false. The Company did not take away parts of territories from Punjab and Satara on the basis of 'subsidiary alliance'.

Here are the key points to explain the false statement:

1. Subsidiary Alliance:




• Subsidiary alliance was a treaty system introduced by Lord Wellesley, the Governor-General of India, in the early 19th century.


• Under this system, Indian rulers were forced to accept a British subsidiary force in their territories in exchange for protection against external threats.


• The Indian rulers had to pay for the maintenance of the subsidiary forces and also give up control over their foreign relations.




2. Loss of Territories:




• The loss of territories in Punjab and Satara was not a result of the subsidiary alliance.


• In Punjab, the British fought two Anglo-Sikh Wars (1845-1846 and 1848-1849) to annex the region and establish direct control.


• In Satara, the British took advantage of internal conflicts within the ruling Maratha dynasty and annexed the territory in 1848.




3. Other Examples:




• The subsidiary alliance system was used in other parts of India, such as in Hyderabad, Awadh, and Tanjore, where the British gradually annexed territories.


• These annexations were not based solely on the subsidiary alliance, but rather on a combination of factors including political instability, military conflicts, and British expansionist policies.

Therefore, the statement that the Company took away parts of territories from Punjab and Satara on the basis of 'subsidiary alliance' is false.

Claim: The Mughal emperor appointed the Company as the Diwan of the provinces of Bengal in the year 1700.
Evidence: None provided.
Analysis:
To determine the accuracy of the claim, we need to examine historical records and events surrounding the Mughal empire and the East India Company.
1. The East India Company: The East India Company was a British trading company that had established a presence in India during the 17th century. It gradually expanded its influence and control over various regions of India.
2. The Mughal Empire: The Mughal Empire was a powerful empire in the Indian subcontinent during the 16th and 17th centuries. The Mughal emperors held significant political and administrative control over the regions under their rule.
3. Diwan of Bengal: The Diwan was a high-ranking administrative post responsible for revenue collection and financial management in the Mughal Empire. The appointment of the Diwan was a significant decision made by the Mughal emperor.
4. Bengal: Bengal was one of the provinces under the Mughal Empire and was known for its economic prosperity.
Evaluation:
Based on the analysis, we can conclude the following:
- The Mughal emperor appointing the East India Company as the Diwan of the provinces of Bengal in the year 1700 is not accurate. There is no historical evidence to support this claim.
- The East India Company did have a significant impact on Bengal and other regions of India, but its appointment as the Diwan of Bengal did not occur in 1700.
Conclusion:
The claim that the Mughal emperor appointed the Company as the Diwan of the provinces of Bengal in the year 1700 is false. There is no historical evidence to support this claim.

Explanation:
- The statement is False.
- Sirajuddaulah did not get help from his commander Mir Jafar in the Battle of Plassey.
- In fact, Mir Jafar betrayed Sirajuddaulah and sided with the British East India Company during the battle.
- The Battle of Plassey took place on June 23, 1757, in Bengal, India.
- Sirajuddaulah was the Nawab of Bengal, while Mir Jafar was his trusted commander.
- The British forces, led by Robert Clive, formed an alliance with Mir Jafar and other disloyal members of Sirajuddaulah's army.
- Mir Jafar secretly agreed to support the British and betrayed Sirajuddaulah during the battle.
- This betrayal significantly weakened Sirajuddaulah's forces, leading to his defeat and the establishment of British control over Bengal.
- Mir Jafar was later installed as the puppet Nawab by the British, which marked the beginning of their dominance in the region.

Introduction:
The Doctrine of Lapse was a policy implemented by Lord Dalhousie, the Governor-General of India from 1848 to 1856. It stated that if a ruler of a princely state died without a natural heir, the state would be annexed by the British East India Company. This policy was seen as a means to expand British control in India and consolidate power.
Reasons why the Doctrine of Lapse was considered a failure:
1. Resistance and Unrest: The Doctrine of Lapse was met with widespread resistance and unrest among the princely states. Many rulers, their families, and the general population opposed the annexation of their territories by the British. This led to numerous rebellions and uprisings against British rule.
2. Loss of Trust and Credibility: The implementation of the Doctrine of Lapse eroded the trust and credibility of the British East India Company among the princely states. The annexation of territories without a natural heir was seen as a violation of the traditional succession practices and undermined the legitimacy of British rule.
3. Disruption of Local Administration: The annexation of princely states under the Doctrine of Lapse resulted in the disruption of local administration. The British administration was often ill-prepared to effectively govern these territories, leading to administrative and governance issues.
4. Economic Consequences: The annexation of princely states under the Doctrine of Lapse had negative economic consequences. The British often exploited the resources of these states for their own benefit, resulting in economic exploitation and impoverishment of the local population.
5. Loss of Cultural Identity: The annexation of princely states under the Doctrine of Lapse also resulted in the loss of cultural identity. The British administration often imposed their own cultural practices and norms, leading to the erosion of indigenous traditions and customs.
6. Failure to Achieve Objectives: The Doctrine of Lapse failed to achieve its intended objectives of expanding British control and consolidating power. The resistance and unrest among the princely states, coupled with the economic and administrative issues, hindered the effective implementation of the policy.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Lord Dalhousie's Doctrine of Lapse proved to be a total failure. It faced widespread resistance, resulted in the loss of trust and credibility, disrupted local administration, had negative economic consequences, led to the loss of cultural identity, and ultimately failed to achieve its objectives. The policy was met with opposition and unrest, highlighting its failure as a means of expanding British control in India.