Correct Answer:

B

Explanation of Options:

Option A: Allied with the British  
 • Incorrect. The Nawab of Awadh was already in a subsidiary alliance with the British, which meant that they were under British influence and control.
 • The annexation was not due to a lack of alliance but rather due to the British desire to consolidate their power.
 • The British used the Doctrine of Lapse and other pretexts to annex territories, regardless of alliances.
 • Therefore, simply allying with the British would not have prevented annexation.

Option B: Not refused to introduce reforms as suggested by the British  
 • Correct. The British accused the Nawab of misgovernance and used it as a pretext for annexation.
 • The Nawab's refusal to implement reforms suggested by the British was seen as a failure to govern effectively.
 • The British used this as justification under the Doctrine of Lapse and other policies to annex Awadh.
 • If the Nawab had implemented the reforms, it might have removed the British pretext for annexation.

Option C: Fought against the British  
 • Incorrect. Fighting against the British would likely have hastened annexation rather than prevented it.
 • The British had superior military strength and resources, making resistance difficult.
 • Historical instances show that resistance often led to quicker annexation and harsher consequences.
 • Therefore, fighting would not have been a viable strategy to prevent annexation.

Option D: A natural heir  
 • Incorrect. The Doctrine of Lapse was primarily used for states without a natural heir, but Awadh was annexed on grounds of misgovernance.
 • The presence of a natural heir would not have prevented annexation under the pretext of misrule.
 • The British were looking for opportunities to expand their control, and having a natural heir was not a significant deterrent.
 • Thus, having a natural heir would not have changed the outcome for Awadh.