State two reasons why historians refute the claim that the British introduced the rule of law in India.
State two reasons why historians refute the claim that the British introduced the rule of law in India.
Historians refute the claim that the British introduced the rule of law in India on account of two main reasons.
Firstly, colonial law was not devoid of arbitrariness. The Sedition Act of 1870 bears testimony to this. This Act allowed the police to arrest any person protesting against the British government, without due trial.
Secondly, Indian nationalists played a pivotal role in the framing of the Indian Constitution that upholds equality of all to law.
Hence, historians vehemently refute the claim that the British introduced the rule of law to India, because Indians were constantly discriminated against in various spheres of the social, political and administrative life of the country.
Historians refute the claim that the British introduced the rule of law in India on account of two main reasons.
Firstly, colonial law was not devoid of arbitrariness. The Sedition Act of 1870 bears testimony to this. This Act allowed the police to arrest any person protesting against the British government, without due trial.
Secondly, Indian nationalists played a pivotal role in the framing of the Indian Constitution that upholds equality of all to law.
Hence, historians vehemently refute the claim that the British introduced the rule of law to India, because Indians were constantly discriminated against in various spheres of the social, political and administrative life of the country.
