The Rowlatt legislation referred to in the statement was a set of laws passed by the British government in India in 1919 that allowed for the detention of individuals suspected of terrorism without trial and the suppression of political activism. The legislation was deeply controversial and was opposed by a wide range of groups in India, including political leaders, civil society organizations, and ordinary citizens.
The statement suggests that the retention of the Rowlatt legislation in the face of this widespread opposition is a significant affront to the nation, and that its repeal is necessary in order to restore national honor. This position is based on the idea that the government has a responsibility to listen to the will of the people and to respect their rights and freedoms. If the government fails to do this, it can be seen as undermining the nation’s honor and dignity.
There are a number of arguments that could be made in support of this position. One argument might be that the Rowlatt legislation was fundamentally undemocratic, as it allowed the government to bypass due process and to suppress political opposition without any accountability. This could be seen as a violation of the basic principles of justice and fair treatment, which are essential to the functioning of any democratic society. copyright©iasexpress.net
Another argument might be that the retention of the Rowlatt legislation was likely to further destabilize an already volatile situation in India, as it was likely to fuel resentment and anger among those who opposed the laws. This could lead to further unrest and conflict, which would be harmful to the nation as a whole.
Overall, it seems reasonable to conclude that the retention of the Rowlatt legislation in the face of widespread opposition was indeed an affront to the nation and that its repeal was necessary in order to restore national honor and respect for the rights and freedoms of the people.