For 17th century Europeans, the history of Eastern monarchies, like everything else in Asia, was stereotyped and invariable. According to accounts of Indian events, history unfolded itself with the predictable rituals of heavy-handed folklore. Typically, the founder of a dynasty, a brave soldier, is a desperate intriguer, and expels from the throne the feeble and degenerate scions of a more ancient house. His son may inherit some of the talent of the father, but in two or three generations luxury and indolence do their work, and the feeble inheritors of a great name are dethroned by some new adventurer, destined to bequeath a like misfortune to his degenerate descendants. Thus rebellion and deposition were the correctives of despotism, and therefore, a recurrence, at fixed intervals, of able and vigorous princes through the medium of periodical anarchy and civil war, occurred. It was this perception of history that allowed Britain's rulers to lay claim to the governance of the subcontinent. The British claimed to be interested in avoiding these periods of bloodshed. This claim justified British policy, as well as dictated how they thought about gaining the favor of India's local monarchies.

British armies and British administrators were able to insinuate rule over India by setting up native princes in positions of power. Their methods took advantage of existing "doctrines of lapse," and made use of what was already the declared law in cases of heredity. By intervening on behalf of one prince or another, both of whom may have been equally suited to claim the right to the throne in cases in which the rights to leadership lapsed, they put themselves in a position to support a leader they selected, and to maintain his power as long as it was in their interests. In this way the princes became practically obliged to cooperate with the British. The result was two generations of petty despots, insulated from the consequences of misrule by British bayonets. The despots spent their lives in listless debauchery, broken by paroxysms of cruelty and oppression.

It can be inferred from the passage that Britain could easily impose a proxy rule on the Indian subcontinent because of

(A) a language in common with that of the Indians
(B) a lack of corruption within the British administration
(C) the deployment of well-trained British soldiers
(D) superior weaponry
(E) the use of pre-existing laws of leadership lapses



The author of the passage would be likely to agree with which statement(s).

Indicate all that apply.

A British intervention in India was a positive influence on India
B The system of rule in India before the British arrived had no faults
C India would have been better off to carry out its cycle of lapse and renewal without British influence



The attitude of the author towards the reported cycle of rule can best be described as:

(A) Disparaging
(B) Despairing
(C) Skeptical
(D) Matter of fact
(E) Approving



The damage caused by British rule to the subcontinent was brought about by

(A) the refusal of the people to be ruled
(B) the inability of the people to choose their leader
(C) the inability of the people to resist oppression
(D) the demoralization of the Indian identity
(E) the exploitative nature of the relationship between Britain and the princes



One judgment about the British offered by this passage might be that

(A) they never pretended to undertake socially responsible activity
(B) they were interested exclusively in exploiting India's resources
(C) they got involved in governing colonies which they knew were beyond their powers of governance
(D) they had a benign influence on India
(E) they sought practical opportunity when their self-interest matched local rulers' objectives



The "doctrines of lapse" which positioned princes against one another for regional thrones gave Britain a foothold in India by

(A) allowing them to exchange a little influence at a critical time for significant influence later
(B) offering an opportunity to take over the leadership role in these areas while no one was in charge
(C) letting the British act as arbitrators in discussions between the dueling princes
(D) positioning the British as an impartial party in Indian politics
(E) ensuring there were no local candidates for leadership



From the passage, the attitude of Britain towards Indian politics can be described as:

(A) Conflicted
(B) Hypocritical
(C) Opportunistic
(D) Fair
(E) Unbiased



Replacement of the word despotism highlighted in the first paragraph with which of the following words would result in the LEAST change in meaning in the passage?

(A) stubborn
(B) tyranny
(C) democracy
(D) debauchery
(E) aristocracy