ಮೊದಲಿಗೆ ಬ್ರಿಟಿಷರು ಇಡೀ ರಾಜ್ಯವನ್ನು ತಮ್ಮ ಕೈವಶಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದರು. ಈಗ್ಗೆ ಐವತ್ತರವತ್ತು ವರ್ಷ ಹಿಂದೆ ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದು ಲಾವಣಿ ಎಲ್ಲಡೆ ಪ್ರಸಿದ್ಧವಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಅದರ ಕೆಲವು ಸಾಲುಗಳು ಹೀಗಿದ್ದವು:
ಮಹಿಳೆಯೊಳು ಭಾರತಭೂಮಿಯ ವೈಭವ-
ಬೆಡಗನು ಕೇಳಿದ ಬ್ರಿಟೀಷರು
ಮಹದಾಕಾಂಕ್ಷದಿ ಬಂದರು ಇಲ್ಲಿಗೆ
ವ್ಯಾಪಾರಕೋಸುಗ ಮೊದಲಿಹರು.
ಕ್ಲೈವನ ಕಪಟಾಚಾರದಿ ಭಾರತ-
ಖಂಡದಿ ನೆಲಸಿದ ಬ್ರಿಟೀಷರು
ದೈವಧರ್ಮವನು ದೃಷ್ಟಿಸದೆಮ್ಮಯ
ದೇಶದ ಸಿರಿಯನು ದೋಚಿದರು…
ಜನಸಾಮಾನ್ಯರಲ್ಲಿ ಎಷ್ಟುಮಟ್ಟಿನ ರೋಷ ಇತ್ತೆಂಬುದನ್ನು ಇದರಿಂದ ಊಹಿಸಬಹುದು.
[07.04.2007ರಂದು ಗೋಖಲೆ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ವಿಚಾರ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯಲ್ಲಿ 1857ರ ಸ್ವಾತಂತ್ರ್ಯ ಸಂಗ್ರಾಮದ ನೂರೈವತ್ತನೆಯ ವರ್ಷದ ಉತ್ಸವದ ಅಂಗವಾಗಿ ಖ್ಯಾತ ಇತಿಹಾಸಕಾರರಾದ ಡಾ॥ ಕೆ. ಶ್ರೀಪತಿ ಶಾಸ್ತ್ರಿಯವರ ಉಪನ್ಯಾಸ ಮಾಲಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಏರ್ಪಡಿಸಿತ್ತು. ಅವರ ಉಪನ್ಯಾಸವನ್ನು ಶ್ರೀ. ಎಸ್. ಆರ್. ರಾಮಸ್ವಾಮಿಯವರು ಲಿಪೀಕರಿಸಿದ ಕೃತಿ ಇದಾಗಿದೆ.]
It is important for us to understand the concept of a ‘colony’ and ‘colonising a country’ before we dwell on the subject of ‘decolonising legal system’. The term ‘colony’ finds its root in the Latin word colonus, which referred to ‘a farmer’ or ‘a husbandman’, who would hold his own land as a tenant for a money payment. The person who lent money to the farmer would partake the character of a landlord until the money was repaid by the farmer. Thus, the concept of becoming a debtor in one’s own land was often referred to as being colonised.
Mahmud returned again in 1020–21 CE, to punish Chandella legend Vidyadhara. On the way, Shahi Trilochanapala opposed him on the banks of the Yamuna. He was defeated again and was on his way to join Vidyadhara when he is known to have been killed. Thus, the great Shahi Trilochanapala died in 1021 CE.[1] Although Mahmud advanced to meet Vidyadhara, neither Mahmud nor Vidyadhara seem to have taken the initiative to fight and instead returned to their capitals after a show of strength.
His younger contemporary, Abhinavagupta, of Kashmir, is a giant in every sense of the word. By his own admission, he was not short of guidance, and it shows in his works. In his commentaries, he fondly mentions two of his Gurus: Bhaṭṭatauta, who taught him Nāṭya-śāstra,[1] and Bhaṭṭendurāja, who taught him Dhvanyāloka.[2] Both were from Kashmir and, by Abhinavagupta’s own description, were masters of Aesthetics.
It is during the time of Jayapida that we see the next stage of evolution of Alaṅkāra-śāstra. It was led by two scholars in his court, Udbhaṭa and Vāmana, who can be considered as the successors of Bhāmaha and Daṇḍī, respectively. Udbhaṭa is known to have written a commentary called vivaraṇa on Bhāmaha’s Kāvyālaṅkāra, which is not available today. He is also supposed to have written a commentary on the Nāṭya-śāstra, which is also not available.