Statement I : The British legal scholars relied on Indian Pandits and Maulavis for understanding of canons of authoritative texts Statement I : British codified the Hindu Laws in 1783 and the Muslim Laws in 1785

examrobotsa's picture

Submitted by examrobotsa on

Q: 5 (CAPF/2017)

Statement I : The British legal scholars relied on Indian Pandits and Maulavis for understanding of canons of authoritative texts
Statement I : British codified the Hindu Laws in 1783 and the Muslim Laws in 1785

question_subject: 

History

question_exam: 

CAPF

stats: 

0,11,46,26,18,11,2

keywords: 

{'hindu laws': [0, 0, 0, 1], 'muslim laws': [0, 0, 0, 1], 'british legal scholars': [0, 0, 0, 1], 'indian pandits': [0, 0, 0, 1], 'authoritative texts': [0, 0, 0, 1], 'canons': [0, 0, 0, 2]}

Option 1: This option states that both statements are true and that Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I. However, this is incorrect. While it is true that British legal scholars relied on Indian Pandits and Maulavis for understanding the canons of authoritative texts, this does not explain why the British codified the Hindu Laws in 1783 and the Muslim Laws in 1785. The two statements are not directly related in terms of cause and effect, so this option is incorrect.

Option 2: This option states that both statements are true, but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I. This is the correct answer. Statement I is true because British legal scholars did rely on Indian Pandits and Maulavis for understanding the canons of authoritative texts. However, Statement II is false because the British did not codify the Hindu Laws in 1783 and the Muslim Laws in 1785.

Option 3: This option states that Statement I is true but Statement II is false. This is the correct answer. British legal scholars did rely on Indian Pandits and Maulavis for understanding the canons of authoritative texts, but the British did not codify the Hindu Laws in 1783 and the Muslim Laws in 1785.