State two reasons why historians refute the claim that the British introduced the rule of lawin India.

Pre-existing Legal Systems: One of the main reasons historians refute the claim that the British introduced the rule of law in India is because India had its own legal systems in place long before the British arrived. These systems were based on religious texts and customs and were deeply ingrained in the society. The British did not introduce the concept of rule of law, but rather imposed their own legal systems, often disregarding and undermining the existing ones.

Selective Implementation: Another reason is the selective implementation of the rule of law by the British. The British often manipulated the law to serve their own interests, particularly in matters related to land revenue and taxation. This selective implementation and manipulation of the law contradicts the very essence of the rule of law, which states that the law should apply equally to all, irrespective of their status or power. Therefore, it can be argued that the British did not truly introduce the rule of law in India.