Plzz help What was the benefit of using indirect rule in India as opposed to direct rule?
A. Indirect rule was less likely to face resistance from the Indians.
B. Indirect rule made it easier to trade with other European nations.
C. Indirect rule allowed many more freedoms for British colonizers.
D. Indirect rule did not require permission from the British government.

D

Explanation:

They didnt wanna cause any malice implications towards the british

hilary clinton

explanation:

trump won the popular vote and ended up becoming the president in 2016 because of this and the electoral college.

it was certainly a debatable decision, mainly because it was based primarily on political - and not on legal or social - views. since the congress at that time was led by members of the republican party, and the territory that the tribes wanted to turn into an exclusively indian state was predominantly democratic, the proposal (as expressed in the constitution) did not succeed, but the constitution itself proved to be of crucial importance in the creation of the state of oklahoma, and, most importantly, it guaranteed the involvement of representatives of the indian tribes in the government of the future joint state.  

as a member of congress, i would have voted to ratify the constitution, or at least to have it tabled. ignoring it was an interested and partial decision.