Question Description
Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.All empires involve one set of people dominating another set of people; all empires are violent; all empires tend to be extractive. The story of the East India Company shows that when the British first came to India, it didnt come as a conquering state. They came in this very unexpected form of a trading company, which then militarizes. But the Company, from the point it begins to conquer Indian territory, has no motive other than profit. The idea that the British came here to bestow railways, the English language, cricket and tea is a later Victorian spin, that bears no historical reality at all.The Company made good profit trading Mughal textiles, and it found that it could make even more by conquering Indian territory, taxing Indians and not having to spend any money to buy the goods it was then selling. Which is not to say that there were not, obviously, benefits [for the colonised]. Roman rule was just as extractive of Britain in the early centuries BCE, but we gained ideas of law, the Latin language and so on. At the same time, the Roman Empire in Britain was incredibly brutal, involved massacres of the native people and existed for the benefit of the empire. So you can gain things, in a sense, accidentally, from being conquered by an empire, but thats never the motive of the conqueror.The East India Company was in many ways a disaster for Bengal, which moved from being the premier economy in the world to being asset-stripped, plundered and looted. That said, by 1947, India did have the best communications, education and health care in Asia. When the British first came to India, they controlled three per cent of the world GDP, while India controlled 37 per cent—that figure was more or less reversed by the time the British left. So, theres no question about who gained more. Whatever India gained, we gained much more.The East India Company, while being extractive and plundering, was also collaborative. From the very beginning it was in business with Indian businessmen; it almost never operated on its own. It gained an enormous amount from its business with Indian partners. And almost every stage, from the moment it arrives as a trading party to the moment that it begins to militarize and is used by the Jagat Seths to topple Siraj-ud-Daula, through to the 1803 war—the final war when they defeat the Marathas, when the banking dynasties of Benares are competing to fund the East India Companys armies—at every stage, the East India Company is working in collaboration with various Indian bankers and financiers, who support the Company as the least worst option in this time of anarchy.Q.What does the word anarchy as used in the passage mean?a)A state of lawlessness and disorderb)An obsession with a colonial governmentc)An option that would bring about the direst of resultsd)A level of development reached after a periodCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.All empires involve one set of people dominating another set of people; all empires are violent; all empires tend to be extractive. The story of the East India Company shows that when the British first came to India, it didnt come as a conquering state. They came in this very unexpected form of a trading company, which then militarizes. But the Company, from the point it begins to conquer Indian territory, has no motive other than profit. The idea that the British came here to bestow railways, the English language, cricket and tea is a later Victorian spin, that bears no historical reality at all.The Company made good profit trading Mughal textiles, and it found that it could make even more by conquering Indian territory, taxing Indians and not having to spend any money to buy the goods it was then selling. Which is not to say that there were not, obviously, benefits [for the colonised]. Roman rule was just as extractive of Britain in the early centuries BCE, but we gained ideas of law, the Latin language and so on. At the same time, the Roman Empire in Britain was incredibly brutal, involved massacres of the native people and existed for the benefit of the empire. So you can gain things, in a sense, accidentally, from being conquered by an empire, but thats never the motive of the conqueror.The East India Company was in many ways a disaster for Bengal, which moved from being the premier economy in the world to being asset-stripped, plundered and looted. That said, by 1947, India did have the best communications, education and health care in Asia. When the British first came to India, they controlled three per cent of the world GDP, while India controlled 37 per cent—that figure was more or less reversed by the time the British left. So, theres no question about who gained more. Whatever India gained, we gained much more.The East India Company, while being extractive and plundering, was also collaborative. From the very beginning it was in business with Indian businessmen; it almost never operated on its own. It gained an enormous amount from its business with Indian partners. And almost every stage, from the moment it arrives as a trading party to the moment that it begins to militarize and is used by the Jagat Seths to topple Siraj-ud-Daula, through to the 1803 war—the final war when they defeat the Marathas, when the banking dynasties of Benares are competing to fund the East India Companys armies—at every stage, the East India Company is working in collaboration with various Indian bankers and financiers, who support the Company as the least worst option in this time of anarchy.Q.What does the word anarchy as used in the passage mean?a)A state of lawlessness and disorderb)An obsession with a colonial governmentc)An option that would bring about the direst of resultsd)A level of development reached after a periodCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.All empires involve one set of people dominating another set of people; all empires are violent; all empires tend to be extractive. The story of the East India Company shows that when the British first came to India, it didnt come as a conquering state. They came in this very unexpected form of a trading company, which then militarizes. But the Company, from the point it begins to conquer Indian territory, has no motive other than profit. The idea that the British came here to bestow railways, the English language, cricket and tea is a later Victorian spin, that bears no historical reality at all.The Company made good profit trading Mughal textiles, and it found that it could make even more by conquering Indian territory, taxing Indians and not having to spend any money to buy the goods it was then selling. Which is not to say that there were not, obviously, benefits [for the colonised]. Roman rule was just as extractive of Britain in the early centuries BCE, but we gained ideas of law, the Latin language and so on. At the same time, the Roman Empire in Britain was incredibly brutal, involved massacres of the native people and existed for the benefit of the empire. So you can gain things, in a sense, accidentally, from being conquered by an empire, but thats never the motive of the conqueror.The East India Company was in many ways a disaster for Bengal, which moved from being the premier economy in the world to being asset-stripped, plundered and looted. That said, by 1947, India did have the best communications, education and health care in Asia. When the British first came to India, they controlled three per cent of the world GDP, while India controlled 37 per cent—that figure was more or less reversed by the time the British left. So, theres no question about who gained more. Whatever India gained, we gained much more.The East India Company, while being extractive and plundering, was also collaborative. From the very beginning it was in business with Indian businessmen; it almost never operated on its own. It gained an enormous amount from its business with Indian partners. And almost every stage, from the moment it arrives as a trading party to the moment that it begins to militarize and is used by the Jagat Seths to topple Siraj-ud-Daula, through to the 1803 war—the final war when they defeat the Marathas, when the banking dynasties of Benares are competing to fund the East India Companys armies—at every stage, the East India Company is working in collaboration with various Indian bankers and financiers, who support the Company as the least worst option in this time of anarchy.Q.What does the word anarchy as used in the passage mean?a)A state of lawlessness and disorderb)An obsession with a colonial governmentc)An option that would bring about the direst of resultsd)A level of development reached after a periodCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.All empires involve one set of people dominating another set of people; all empires are violent; all empires tend to be extractive. The story of the East India Company shows that when the British first came to India, it didnt come as a conquering state. They came in this very unexpected form of a trading company, which then militarizes. But the Company, from the point it begins to conquer Indian territory, has no motive other than profit. The idea that the British came here to bestow railways, the English language, cricket and tea is a later Victorian spin, that bears no historical reality at all.The Company made good profit trading Mughal textiles, and it found that it could make even more by conquering Indian territory, taxing Indians and not having to spend any money to buy the goods it was then selling. Which is not to say that there were not, obviously, benefits [for the colonised]. Roman rule was just as extractive of Britain in the early centuries BCE, but we gained ideas of law, the Latin language and so on. At the same time, the Roman Empire in Britain was incredibly brutal, involved massacres of the native people and existed for the benefit of the empire. So you can gain things, in a sense, accidentally, from being conquered by an empire, but thats never the motive of the conqueror.The East India Company was in many ways a disaster for Bengal, which moved from being the premier economy in the world to being asset-stripped, plundered and looted. That said, by 1947, India did have the best communications, education and health care in Asia. When the British first came to India, they controlled three per cent of the world GDP, while India controlled 37 per cent—that figure was more or less reversed by the time the British left. So, theres no question about who gained more. Whatever India gained, we gained much more.The East India Company, while being extractive and plundering, was also collaborative. From the very beginning it was in business with Indian businessmen; it almost never operated on its own. It gained an enormous amount from its business with Indian partners. And almost every stage, from the moment it arrives as a trading party to the moment that it begins to militarize and is used by the Jagat Seths to topple Siraj-ud-Daula, through to the 1803 war—the final war when they defeat the Marathas, when the banking dynasties of Benares are competing to fund the East India Companys armies—at every stage, the East India Company is working in collaboration with various Indian bankers and financiers, who support the Company as the least worst option in this time of anarchy.Q.What does the word anarchy as used in the passage mean?a)A state of lawlessness and disorderb)An obsession with a colonial governmentc)An option that would bring about the direst of resultsd)A level of development reached after a periodCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.All empires involve one set of people dominating another set of people; all empires are violent; all empires tend to be extractive. The story of the East India Company shows that when the British first came to India, it didnt come as a conquering state. They came in this very unexpected form of a trading company, which then militarizes. But the Company, from the point it begins to conquer Indian territory, has no motive other than profit. The idea that the British came here to bestow railways, the English language, cricket and tea is a later Victorian spin, that bears no historical reality at all.The Company made good profit trading Mughal textiles, and it found that it could make even more by conquering Indian territory, taxing Indians and not having to spend any money to buy the goods it was then selling. Which is not to say that there were not, obviously, benefits [for the colonised]. Roman rule was just as extractive of Britain in the early centuries BCE, but we gained ideas of law, the Latin language and so on. At the same time, the Roman Empire in Britain was incredibly brutal, involved massacres of the native people and existed for the benefit of the empire. So you can gain things, in a sense, accidentally, from being conquered by an empire, but thats never the motive of the conqueror.The East India Company was in many ways a disaster for Bengal, which moved from being the premier economy in the world to being asset-stripped, plundered and looted. That said, by 1947, India did have the best communications, education and health care in Asia. When the British first came to India, they controlled three per cent of the world GDP, while India controlled 37 per cent—that figure was more or less reversed by the time the British left. So, theres no question about who gained more. Whatever India gained, we gained much more.The East India Company, while being extractive and plundering, was also collaborative. From the very beginning it was in business with Indian businessmen; it almost never operated on its own. It gained an enormous amount from its business with Indian partners. And almost every stage, from the moment it arrives as a trading party to the moment that it begins to militarize and is used by the Jagat Seths to topple Siraj-ud-Daula, through to the 1803 war—the final war when they defeat the Marathas, when the banking dynasties of Benares are competing to fund the East India Companys armies—at every stage, the East India Company is working in collaboration with various Indian bankers and financiers, who support the Company as the least worst option in this time of anarchy.Q.What does the word anarchy as used in the passage mean?a)A state of lawlessness and disorderb)An obsession with a colonial governmentc)An option that would bring about the direst of resultsd)A level of development reached after a periodCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.All empires involve one set of people dominating another set of people; all empires are violent; all empires tend to be extractive. The story of the East India Company shows that when the British first came to India, it didnt come as a conquering state. They came in this very unexpected form of a trading company, which then militarizes. But the Company, from the point it begins to conquer Indian territory, has no motive other than profit. The idea that the British came here to bestow railways, the English language, cricket and tea is a later Victorian spin, that bears no historical reality at all.The Company made good profit trading Mughal textiles, and it found that it could make even more by conquering Indian territory, taxing Indians and not having to spend any money to buy the goods it was then selling. Which is not to say that there were not, obviously, benefits [for the colonised]. Roman rule was just as extractive of Britain in the early centuries BCE, but we gained ideas of law, the Latin language and so on. At the same time, the Roman Empire in Britain was incredibly brutal, involved massacres of the native people and existed for the benefit of the empire. So you can gain things, in a sense, accidentally, from being conquered by an empire, but thats never the motive of the conqueror.The East India Company was in many ways a disaster for Bengal, which moved from being the premier economy in the world to being asset-stripped, plundered and looted. That said, by 1947, India did have the best communications, education and health care in Asia. When the British first came to India, they controlled three per cent of the world GDP, while India controlled 37 per cent—that figure was more or less reversed by the time the British left. So, theres no question about who gained more. Whatever India gained, we gained much more.The East India Company, while being extractive and plundering, was also collaborative. From the very beginning it was in business with Indian businessmen; it almost never operated on its own. It gained an enormous amount from its business with Indian partners. And almost every stage, from the moment it arrives as a trading party to the moment that it begins to militarize and is used by the Jagat Seths to topple Siraj-ud-Daula, through to the 1803 war—the final war when they defeat the Marathas, when the banking dynasties of Benares are competing to fund the East India Companys armies—at every stage, the East India Company is working in collaboration with various Indian bankers and financiers, who support the Company as the least worst option in this time of anarchy.Q.What does the word anarchy as used in the passage mean?a)A state of lawlessness and disorderb)An obsession with a colonial governmentc)An option that would bring about the direst of resultsd)A level of development reached after a periodCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.All empires involve one set of people dominating another set of people; all empires are violent; all empires tend to be extractive. The story of the East India Company shows that when the British first came to India, it didnt come as a conquering state. They came in this very unexpected form of a trading company, which then militarizes. But the Company, from the point it begins to conquer Indian territory, has no motive other than profit. The idea that the British came here to bestow railways, the English language, cricket and tea is a later Victorian spin, that bears no historical reality at all.The Company made good profit trading Mughal textiles, and it found that it could make even more by conquering Indian territory, taxing Indians and not having to spend any money to buy the goods it was then selling. Which is not to say that there were not, obviously, benefits [for the colonised]. Roman rule was just as extractive of Britain in the early centuries BCE, but we gained ideas of law, the Latin language and so on. At the same time, the Roman Empire in Britain was incredibly brutal, involved massacres of the native people and existed for the benefit of the empire. So you can gain things, in a sense, accidentally, from being conquered by an empire, but thats never the motive of the conqueror.The East India Company was in many ways a disaster for Bengal, which moved from being the premier economy in the world to being asset-stripped, plundered and looted. That said, by 1947, India did have the best communications, education and health care in Asia. When the British first came to India, they controlled three per cent of the world GDP, while India controlled 37 per cent—that figure was more or less reversed by the time the British left. So, theres no question about who gained more. Whatever India gained, we gained much more.The East India Company, while being extractive and plundering, was also collaborative. From the very beginning it was in business with Indian businessmen; it almost never operated on its own. It gained an enormous amount from its business with Indian partners. And almost every stage, from the moment it arrives as a trading party to the moment that it begins to militarize and is used by the Jagat Seths to topple Siraj-ud-Daula, through to the 1803 war—the final war when they defeat the Marathas, when the banking dynasties of Benares are competing to fund the East India Companys armies—at every stage, the East India Company is working in collaboration with various Indian bankers and financiers, who support the Company as the least worst option in this time of anarchy.Q.What does the word anarchy as used in the passage mean?a)A state of lawlessness and disorderb)An obsession with a colonial governmentc)An option that would bring about the direst of resultsd)A level of development reached after a periodCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.All empires involve one set of people dominating another set of people; all empires are violent; all empires tend to be extractive. The story of the East India Company shows that when the British first came to India, it didnt come as a conquering state. They came in this very unexpected form of a trading company, which then militarizes. But the Company, from the point it begins to conquer Indian territory, has no motive other than profit. The idea that the British came here to bestow railways, the English language, cricket and tea is a later Victorian spin, that bears no historical reality at all.The Company made good profit trading Mughal textiles, and it found that it could make even more by conquering Indian territory, taxing Indians and not having to spend any money to buy the goods it was then selling. Which is not to say that there were not, obviously, benefits [for the colonised]. Roman rule was just as extractive of Britain in the early centuries BCE, but we gained ideas of law, the Latin language and so on. At the same time, the Roman Empire in Britain was incredibly brutal, involved massacres of the native people and existed for the benefit of the empire. So you can gain things, in a sense, accidentally, from being conquered by an empire, but thats never the motive of the conqueror.The East India Company was in many ways a disaster for Bengal, which moved from being the premier economy in the world to being asset-stripped, plundered and looted. That said, by 1947, India did have the best communications, education and health care in Asia. When the British first came to India, they controlled three per cent of the world GDP, while India controlled 37 per cent—that figure was more or less reversed by the time the British left. So, theres no question about who gained more. Whatever India gained, we gained much more.The East India Company, while being extractive and plundering, was also collaborative. From the very beginning it was in business with Indian businessmen; it almost never operated on its own. It gained an enormous amount from its business with Indian partners. And almost every stage, from the moment it arrives as a trading party to the moment that it begins to militarize and is used by the Jagat Seths to topple Siraj-ud-Daula, through to the 1803 war—the final war when they defeat the Marathas, when the banking dynasties of Benares are competing to fund the East India Companys armies—at every stage, the East India Company is working in collaboration with various Indian bankers and financiers, who support the Company as the least worst option in this time of anarchy.Q.What does the word anarchy as used in the passage mean?a)A state of lawlessness and disorderb)An obsession with a colonial governmentc)An option that would bring about the direst of resultsd)A level of development reached after a periodCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.All empires involve one set of people dominating another set of people; all empires are violent; all empires tend to be extractive. The story of the East India Company shows that when the British first came to India, it didnt come as a conquering state. They came in this very unexpected form of a trading company, which then militarizes. But the Company, from the point it begins to conquer Indian territory, has no motive other than profit. The idea that the British came here to bestow railways, the English language, cricket and tea is a later Victorian spin, that bears no historical reality at all.The Company made good profit trading Mughal textiles, and it found that it could make even more by conquering Indian territory, taxing Indians and not having to spend any money to buy the goods it was then selling. Which is not to say that there were not, obviously, benefits [for the colonised]. Roman rule was just as extractive of Britain in the early centuries BCE, but we gained ideas of law, the Latin language and so on. At the same time, the Roman Empire in Britain was incredibly brutal, involved massacres of the native people and existed for the benefit of the empire. So you can gain things, in a sense, accidentally, from being conquered by an empire, but thats never the motive of the conqueror.The East India Company was in many ways a disaster for Bengal, which moved from being the premier economy in the world to being asset-stripped, plundered and looted. That said, by 1947, India did have the best communications, education and health care in Asia. When the British first came to India, they controlled three per cent of the world GDP, while India controlled 37 per cent—that figure was more or less reversed by the time the British left. So, theres no question about who gained more. Whatever India gained, we gained much more.The East India Company, while being extractive and plundering, was also collaborative. From the very beginning it was in business with Indian businessmen; it almost never operated on its own. It gained an enormous amount from its business with Indian partners. And almost every stage, from the moment it arrives as a trading party to the moment that it begins to militarize and is used by the Jagat Seths to topple Siraj-ud-Daula, through to the 1803 war—the final war when they defeat the Marathas, when the banking dynasties of Benares are competing to fund the East India Companys armies—at every stage, the East India Company is working in collaboration with various Indian bankers and financiers, who support the Company as the least worst option in this time of anarchy.Q.What does the word anarchy as used in the passage mean?a)A state of lawlessness and disorderb)An obsession with a colonial governmentc)An option that would bring about the direst of resultsd)A level of development reached after a periodCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.