Which of the following best explains the 'subsidiary trap' mechanism of Lord Wellesley's Subsidiary Alliance that systematically led to the financial bankruptcy of native Indian states?

Options:

• A: The British demanded immediate cash payments for the maintenance of the subsidiary force, which exceeded the total annual revenue of the state, forcing the ruler to borrow from British merchants at usurious rates.
• B: The British deliberately inflated the cost of the subsidiary force and demanded territorial cessions of the most fertile agricultural tracts, which permanently crippled the state's revenue base and led to administrative collapse.
• C: The treaty prohibited the native states from collecting land revenue from territories where British troops were stationed, leading to a sudden drop in state treasury reserves.
• D: The British Resident took direct control of the state treasury and diverted all tax collections to the East India Company's dividends, leaving no funds for local administration.

Related Practice Questions:

• Let $S_1$ and $S_2$ be two disjoint, non-empty convex sets in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Under which of the following conditions is there guaranteed to exist a hyperplane that strictly separates $S_1$ and $S_2$?
• Let the primal linear programming problem be: Maximize $Z = c^T x$ subject to $Ax \le b, x \ge 0$. If this primal problem has an unbounded optimal objective value, then which of the following statements is always true regarding its dual problem?
• Let $S = \{(x, y) \in \mathbb{R}^2 \mid x^2 + y^2 \le 9\}$ be a convex set in $\mathbb{R}^2$. The set of all extreme points of $S$ is given by:
• In a linear programming problem with $3$ independent equality constraints and $5$ variables (including slack/surplus variables), what is the maximum possible number of basic solutions?