IS INDIA STILL A DOMINION OF THE BRITISH CROWN OR ARE WE FULLY INDEPENDENT AFTER ALL?
A republic we are but a member of the Commonwealth of Nations with alleged confining clauses in relation to the Transfer of Power Treaty that are reportedly concealed from public scrutiny.
Are we a dominion of the British Empire still? This is an oft-asked question that one is faced with. Well, to my reckoning, how can that be when we have declared ourselves officially to be a sovereign democratic republic on 26 January, 1950? We were an 'independent' dominion of the British Empire from 15 August, 1947 to 25 January, 1950 till the Constitution of India was promulgated that made India completely a sovereign nation. Technically, therefore, we did not gain complete independence on 15 August, 1947 as the British King Emperor remained our titular sovereign head of state in the making. It was only on 26 January, 1950 that his titular sovereignty of India ceased and passed on officially to the people of India as is enunciated by the declaration of the Preamble to the Constitution of India thus, 'We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign democratic republic...', and we became a free nation in absolute terms.
Being not a legal man and neither a constitutional expert, I cannot pick any legal loopholes in the declaration as such, as is so often pointed out by conspiracy theorists who aver that India is still a dependent dominion of the British Crown. My stance is simple. I have not read the terms and conditions of the Transfer of Power and have to repose faith in the common perception that we are indeed a free nation, flawed and terribly deficient in truth terms, though, the conviction may be.
The Indian Independence Act of 1947 has since 1956 been constitutionally abolished both in India and Pakistan but continues to be in effect in the United Kingdom. What its significance may be in consequential terms for India's sovereignty is incomprehensible to my limited legal understanding but considering the fact that we have waged war against Pakistan in 1971 in opposition to the will of the British Crown seems to settle in my mind the conviction that, our foreign affairs being free, we are, therefore, necessarily, totally free as a nation of British control. Had we been a dominion of sorts of the British Crown, we would not have been in a position, owing to legal constraints, to wage the war in which Britain took the side of Pakistan and the British fleet was deployed in the Indian Ocean to combat the Indian Navy that was poised to attack Pakistan. But we went ahead with Soviet alliance at the height of the Cold War and the Royal Navy took to heels. Were all these military developments the sign of India's dominion status to the British Crown? I wonder.
However, when I witness the fawning attitude of the Prime Minister of India when in the presence of his British counterpart or the Queen of England, I feel that we may be politically independent of Great Britain but still suffer from psychological servitude to our erstwhile masters which, perchance, may prompt some people to doubting whether we are truly an independent nation in absolute legal terms with no strings attached to the British Crown.
Another persistent point raised is that the British monarch as head of the Commonwealth of Nations does not need a visa to visit India which is a member country but the President of India requires a visa to visit Great Britain. If India is indeed independent of Britain in absolute terms, how is it then that the British head of state is offered preferential treatment over and above the Indian head of state? Does this not violate the essence of our national sovereignty? This, indeed, is a pertinent point where it concerns the prestige of a free nation and the Queen's access into India without visa --- should it really be so --- seems to be a breach of our sovereignty as a nation despite her status as Commonwealth head. India ought not to bow down to such heinous terms of freedom after her protracted struggle to win it at the cost of millions of lives in war, famine and the liberation movement.
Moreover, there is this rumour doing the rounds on social media that India has been leased out for 99 years by the British Crown as its dominion to the Government of India that was handed over power on 15 August, 1947, the lease period ending on 14 August, 2046. I cannot vouch for this claim owing to lack of documentary evidence regarding it at my disposal and the obvious contradiction in terms involved considering India's constitutional declaration of sovereignty, and must be a mute witness to this affirmation, holding my judgement in abeyance on it. What I state is that nothing is proved unless incontrovertible evidence be furnished and in the absence of any such to the contrary of India's averred independent status, I continue to repose faith in the said status of my motherland. Others may differ but this is my considered stance till I be proved wrong in my determination. Jai Hind!
Written by Sugata Bose
A republic we are but a member of the Commonwealth of Nations with alleged confining clauses in relation to the Transfer of Power Treaty that are reportedly concealed from public scrutiny.
Are we a dominion of the British Empire still? This is an oft-asked question that one is faced with. Well, to my reckoning, how can that be when we have declared ourselves officially to be a sovereign democratic republic on 26 January, 1950? We were an 'independent' dominion of the British Empire from 15 August, 1947 to 25 January, 1950 till the Constitution of India was promulgated that made India completely a sovereign nation. Technically, therefore, we did not gain complete independence on 15 August, 1947 as the British King Emperor remained our titular sovereign head of state in the making. It was only on 26 January, 1950 that his titular sovereignty of India ceased and passed on officially to the people of India as is enunciated by the declaration of the Preamble to the Constitution of India thus, 'We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign democratic republic...', and we became a free nation in absolute terms.
Being not a legal man and neither a constitutional expert, I cannot pick any legal loopholes in the declaration as such, as is so often pointed out by conspiracy theorists who aver that India is still a dependent dominion of the British Crown. My stance is simple. I have not read the terms and conditions of the Transfer of Power and have to repose faith in the common perception that we are indeed a free nation, flawed and terribly deficient in truth terms, though, the conviction may be.
The Indian Independence Act of 1947 has since 1956 been constitutionally abolished both in India and Pakistan but continues to be in effect in the United Kingdom. What its significance may be in consequential terms for India's sovereignty is incomprehensible to my limited legal understanding but considering the fact that we have waged war against Pakistan in 1971 in opposition to the will of the British Crown seems to settle in my mind the conviction that, our foreign affairs being free, we are, therefore, necessarily, totally free as a nation of British control. Had we been a dominion of sorts of the British Crown, we would not have been in a position, owing to legal constraints, to wage the war in which Britain took the side of Pakistan and the British fleet was deployed in the Indian Ocean to combat the Indian Navy that was poised to attack Pakistan. But we went ahead with Soviet alliance at the height of the Cold War and the Royal Navy took to heels. Were all these military developments the sign of India's dominion status to the British Crown? I wonder.
However, when I witness the fawning attitude of the Prime Minister of India when in the presence of his British counterpart or the Queen of England, I feel that we may be politically independent of Great Britain but still suffer from psychological servitude to our erstwhile masters which, perchance, may prompt some people to doubting whether we are truly an independent nation in absolute legal terms with no strings attached to the British Crown.
Another persistent point raised is that the British monarch as head of the Commonwealth of Nations does not need a visa to visit India which is a member country but the President of India requires a visa to visit Great Britain. If India is indeed independent of Britain in absolute terms, how is it then that the British head of state is offered preferential treatment over and above the Indian head of state? Does this not violate the essence of our national sovereignty? This, indeed, is a pertinent point where it concerns the prestige of a free nation and the Queen's access into India without visa --- should it really be so --- seems to be a breach of our sovereignty as a nation despite her status as Commonwealth head. India ought not to bow down to such heinous terms of freedom after her protracted struggle to win it at the cost of millions of lives in war, famine and the liberation movement.
Moreover, there is this rumour doing the rounds on social media that India has been leased out for 99 years by the British Crown as its dominion to the Government of India that was handed over power on 15 August, 1947, the lease period ending on 14 August, 2046. I cannot vouch for this claim owing to lack of documentary evidence regarding it at my disposal and the obvious contradiction in terms involved considering India's constitutional declaration of sovereignty, and must be a mute witness to this affirmation, holding my judgement in abeyance on it. What I state is that nothing is proved unless incontrovertible evidence be furnished and in the absence of any such to the contrary of India's averred independent status, I continue to repose faith in the said status of my motherland. Others may differ but this is my considered stance till I be proved wrong in my determination. Jai Hind!
Written by Sugata Bose
No comments:
Post a Comment