question_answer

  On what ground was the 'Shoe respect' rule insisted by Governor General Amherst? To what extent is it justified to interfere in the personal matters of individuals? Give reasons for your answers.  

Answer:

                  It was a common practice of Indians that they took off their shoe when they entered a sacred place or home. (i) In 1824-1828, Governor General Amherst insisted that Indians take off their shoes off as a sign of respect when they appeared before him. But this was not strictly followed. (ii) By the mid-19th century, under Lord Dalhousie the rule became stricter. Indians were made to take off their shoes when entering any government institution, but those who wore European outfits were exempted from this rule. (iii) Many Indian government servants, who wore Indian clothes were uncomfortable with this rule. (iv) In 1862, this rule was resisted by Manockjee Cowasjee Entee while he was barred entry the court room where he worked. The judge insisted that he take off his shoes as that was the Indian way of showing respect to superiors. (v) The main intention of the British Government was to discriminate between an Indian and European. Further they even tried to discriminate between the Indians who wore Indians clothes and those who wore European outfits. (vi) Now government of a country can interfere or impose rule on private matters of an individual. Freedom of choice about what one should wear can not be restricted by any authority.