Respuesta :
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.
The period of 1750–1900 year was the period when the country faced the situation of Capitalism. This is referred to as the phase when the empire faces the capitalist economy.
Rulers of Indian states did not have autonomy under British Rule.
- The power and the authority the ruler had over dominion was nominal at their best and their royalty was subject to the British as they could evidence any reason and held their land from them.
- The power the ruler had depended on the large entire empire of the king or the ruler.
- Places like Delhi and Calcutta were more influenced by the British other than the places like Kerala and Orissa where the King still had more power.
To know more about the period 1750–1900, refer to the link below:
https://brainly.com/question/14534143
