Unlike (i) Britain, the Indian Constitution has a Bill of Rights. This was a break with the past and the roots of the change lay in the history of the Indian freedom. Prior to the enactment of the…

Unlike (i) Britain, the Indian Constitution has a Bill of Rights. This was a break with the past and the roots of the change lay in the history of the Indian freedom. Prior to the enactment of the Parliamentary Act of 1935, demands were made (ii) India for the incorporation into the Act a Bill of Rights. This demand was rejected by the British Government following its own tradition that freedom was best preserved not by constitutional provisions but by adherence to the rule of law and to unwritten practices and conventions. This was not (iii) to the Indian mind which had long suffered from discriminations, disabilities and oppressive acts of the foreign rulers. To Indians, as to most modern minds, a Bill of Rights was an essential feature of a complete Constitution. It has been said that "the Indian reaction" (in enacting the Bill of Rights), "like the American reaction, is in large measure a product of the British rule." The Indian Bill of Rights (iv), in a certain measure, the pattern of the Constitution of the United States of America, but it has also borrowed (v) from other Constitutions, and some of its provisions are indicative of the peculiar difficulties of the institutions of the country itself.

Pick the most appropriate word to fill (ii) in the given passage: