Sugata Bose Yes, true it was so till 25 Jan, 1950. Since 26 Jan, 1950 ever since the Constitution of independent India became effective, India became a Republic and no longer remained a Dominion of Great Britain although she opted for continued membership of the British Commonwealth with special Republic status.
Sourav Saumya Das No, this is not correct at all. "Republic" don`t mean that we are free from "dominion status". The then UK Prime Minister allowed the Govt. of India to use the word "Republic" with a lot of conditions and agreements which the people of India are not aware of. Even if a country is "Republic" then don`t mean the country is independent. "Dominion Status" and the conditions of "Transfer of Power" still apply until and unless something is done about that.
Sourav Saumya Das You should read the lecture delivered by Harold Wilson, Prime Minister of England, where he revealed what he said to nehru when the later wanted to take permission in order to declare India a Republic. He said to nehru, "If you accept the allegiance of the british queen, then you can declare yourself to be a republic." So, why should India accept the allegiance of the british queen and why at all should we seek permission from the british in order to be a "Republic".
Sugata Bose True enough but then the Preamble to the Constitution of India states that 'We, the people of India, declare ourselves to be a SOVEREIGN, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC' with SOCIALIST, SECULAR later added to it to make it read now as follows : 'We, the people of India, declare ourselves to be a SOVEREIGN, SOCIALIST, SECULAR, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC' with the word SOVEREIGN meaning that we have not remained a DOMINION since 26 Jan, 1950 for the word implies by definition FREEDOM FROM INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL CONTROL BY ANY AUTHORITY OTHER THAN THE POPULAR WILL OF THE PEOPLE FORMING THE POLITY AS EXPRESSED IN THEIR FRANCHISE EVERY TIME THE NATION GOES TO THE ELECTORATE FOR RE-SANCTION OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY BY POPULAR MANDATE.
Sourav Saumya Das You should read the lecture delivered by Harold Wilson, Prime Minister of England, where he revealed what he said to nehru when the later wanted to take permission in order to declare India a Republic. He said to nehru, "If you accept the allegiance of the british queen, then you can declare yourself to be a republic." So, why should India accept the allegiance of the british queen and why at all should we seek permission from the british in order to be a "Republic".
Sourav Saumya Das You may like to read the lecture by clicking on this link : https://www.cambridgetrust.org/.../documents/Lecture_8.pdf
Sugata Bose I went through the entire text of the lecture by Harold Wilson and could find nothing in it that undermines our sovereign status since 26 Jan, 1950.
Sourav Saumya Das I am afraid, that there things in the lecture which Harold Wilson openly said for the first time and why should India accept the allegiance of the british queen and why at all should we seek permission from the british in order to be a "Republic" ?
Sugata Bose These were considerations before 26 Jan, 1950 when the British probably still hoped to eke out some advantage from India but in the event of India declaring herself a Sovereign State through promulgation of her Constitution on 26 Jan, 1950, these became irrelevant and India's continued membership in the Commonwealth was merely to keep her economy stable without the marauding of any world power other than who she was used to, Britain (hahaha). It suited Britain fine as well.
Sourav Saumya Das No, this is not correct. If a free country wants to be "Republic" under no circumstance that country would go on to seek permission from any other country. Nothing became irrelevant. It is exactly the same until we do something about this.
Narayanan Gandhi Sourav Soumya Das, Indian Republic did not make any compromise with its Sovereignity. It showed Statesmanship by remaining in Commonwealth as an equal to Britain. Pakistan didn't. We didn't lose anything while Pakistan did.
Sugata Bose No, you see when these were the deliberations India was still a dominion for that was till 26 Jan, 1950 her status, the basis of the Partition Agreement. Then things changed and India became fully a sovereign nation.
Sourav Saumya Das How do you think things changed? And why at all a country should seek any kind of permission in order to become a "Sovereign" country. Why at all should anyone seek permission from outside for matters of one`s own home? And most of the volumes of the "Transfer of Power" agreement has not been declassified yet.
Sugata Bose Because the Transfer of Power Agreement did not give outright sovereignty to India in the absence of her Constitution and which is quite understandable. British India got partitioned into two dominion States and not sovereign ones till they had established their respective Constitutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment