Open Access Research Article
THE DOMINION OF INDIA: A TAIL OF 1947-1950
Published Paper
Article Details
THE DOMINION OF INDIA: A TAIL
OF 1947-1950
AUTHORED BY - TANMAY BANSAL
INTRODUCTION
"Long
years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall
redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At
the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to
life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we
step out from the old to new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation,
long suppressed, finds utterance…”[1]
These words of the infamous speech, A Tryst with Destiny, by the first Prime
Minister of India, late Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru is often said to mark a new
dawn of an Independent India on August
15th 1947; but was India actually independent on the said date? It is a misconception that India
became independent on 15th August 1947. In reality, this date marked
the day India became a British Dominion. From 15th August 1947 to 25th
January 1950 India functioned as a Dominion of the British Empire, with a
non-representive Legislative Assembly, also functioning as the constituent
assembly. Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru was the first Prime Minister, while Lord
Mountbatten served as the first Governor General of the Dominion of India. So,
what is the difference between the 3 years of Dominion of India and the 73 year
old Union of India? Why is the concept of Dominion of India more often than not
ignored while studying or researching the History of modern India? This paper
aims to focus on the so called forgotten period of non-independent independent
India and discover the mystery behind whether the ‘recorded’ 15th
August 1947 or ‘symbolic’ 26th January 1950 lies as the true
Indolence Day for the Union of India.
THE COMMONWEALTH AND INDIA’S DEMAND
The Balfour Declaration of 1926 and
the Statute of Westminster of 1931 gave formal and statutory recognition of the
autonomous status which the British Dominions had achieved by convention by
that time.[2] This shows a
transition from the Empire of Great Britain to the British Commonwealth of
Nations, wherein all the dominions had a similar standing, with one common
feature- their allegiance to the British Crown. States became immature members
of the international community as a result of their dominion status, a
transitional stage before adulthood. This signalled a change from an
international nation state system with a more uniform division of sovereignty
to an empire-based structure where imperial rulers could keep together diverse
legal spaces.[3] The Congress Party had
approved a statement outlining independence as its objective, but other groups
would not agree on a "higher ground" than Dominion status, at the All
Parties Conference of 1928. The Conference took note of the British
government's growing preference for "responsible government" over
"Dominion status" with a squinting eye. Therefore, it can be derived
that the radical leaders of the Indian National Congress were adamant about a
formation of a Republic, thus an allegiance to the crown and the retention of
the Dominion status was never an option, as observed by the calling for a Purna
Swaraj and the hoisting of Independent India’s flag by the then president of
the INC, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru at the Lahore session on 26th January 1950.
One of the main reasons why there was a full blown wave against the acquiring
of a dominion status across Indian Politicians was the denial of the British to
put the Defence Ministry under Indian Control. The British valued the manpower
which India had supplied to the empires defence during the world wars and
believed that the negotiation of India’s dominion status should lie on India’s
continued support to the imperial defence, which was against the famine
stricken Indian Soldiers and Politicians, thus leading to multiple unrests and
revolts by the British Indian Armed Forces. And by 1942’s civil disobedience
movement, the country was united in it’s demand for an Independent India.
INDIA’S AGREEMENT
The reasoning given behind the
acceptance of the dominion status by Indian leaders can be two fold. The first
could be the power politics of the Indian National Congress in an attempt to
shape an independent India the way it envisioned. It has often been argued that
the Indian National Congress used the draconian provisions in Indian law
established by the British to solidify their claim on the country. But the real
reason lies in an attempt to a smooth transition. The 500 princely states saw
independence as an opportunity to create their own individual kingdoms,
however, the retention of the dominion status lead to them still being pledged
to the British Crown. While the constituent assembly under Dr. Rajendra Prasad
and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar were forming a constitution for a new and modern India,
the prime minister Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, the home minister Shri. Vallabh
Bhai Patel and the Governor General Lord Mountbatten were convincing the
princely states to become a part of a Unified India, either through peaceful
negations or through the show of military might. Thus the adoption of Dominion
Status bought the centralist leaders time to prevent the complete
disintegration of country into small fragments of kings and establish a
Republic as envisioned by the makers of the Constitution. The acceptance of the
dominion status can be seen as a marriage of necessity, between the newly
formed nation and the old royal empire as it held different values in the eyes
of Indians and British; while Indian leaders looked at it as an opportunity for
integration before complete independence, the British envisioned that the
addition of India to Commonwealth nations would secure future military ties
which would continue even post complete independence of the country.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TITLES AND
THE ARGUMENT
After noting a brief track of
accounts while lead to a compromise and an agreement between India and Great
Britain, it is important to point out the difference which persisted between
the Dominion of India, as on 15th August 1947 and the Republic of India post
26th January 1950. By passing the Act of 1947, the British Parliament handed
its sovereign authority to India and Pakistan, making them Dominion territories
under international law. The British Crown was remained the official head of
state, but its authority was mostly symbolic.[4] So in essence, on 15th
August 1947, the prime minister of India, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru worked at
the pleasure of the Governor General Lord Mountbatten, and Lord Mountbatten
worked at the pleasure of the King of India and the Great Britain, King George
VI. Although countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. are still
British Dominions, none of them has asserted that they are not sovereign
nations under international law. In their capacity, they are participants in
the United Nations. However, when it comes to India, there is no King of the
state. As of 26th January 1950, India has a prime minister, who works at the
pleasure of the President, and considering that India is a Republic, the head
of the state, i.e. the President is also elected by the people through an
indirect parliamentary process.
Now it has often been argued by
modern day radical scholars that the real Independence Day of India is 26th
January 1950 and not 15th August, 1947. But this is not true at all.
The British Monarch, i.e. King George VI was only the symbolic and not the
actual head of the government. He had no decision making powers. If one was to
consider that India became independent only after the British left the complete
and not only the actual administration of India in the hands of the Indians, then according to this logic, the
independence day should be shifted late in 1950’s because, World War veterans Sirs Ronald Ivelaw-Chapman and
Gerald Gibbs were the heads of Indian Air Force until 1951 and 1954
respectively. Similarly, Sirs Rob Lockhart and Roy Bucher were the heads of
Indian Army until 1947 and 1949 respectively. Therefore, the argument doesn’t
seem to have any technical merit, even though it may be validated by confined
legal sense.
CONCLUSION
Even under the British, unlike other colonies
India was always given a special status, so much so that it became an
Independent member of not only the United Nations but also the member of the
League of Nations as British India. The Supreme Court has considered 26th
November 1949, or the Constitution Day as a new dawn of law for the Union of
India. There have been multiple cases of citizens lacking any remedy for the
crimes committed before the said date. Furthermore, it was only after 26th
January 1950 that India became a true republic, for it was only then that Dr.
Rajendra Prasad was elected as the First President of India and it marked the
true end British in India. However, from a logical point of view, from 15th
August 1947, it was the constituent assembly of India which truly functioned as
the supreme legislative authority of the country. The assembly deliberated upon
the matters of making the constitution in the morning hours and legislated upon the issues of immediate
concern in the afternoons. The executive was authoritatively headed by an
Indian Prime Minister, with an Indian Cabinet. The British had none but only
symbolic presence in the countries decision making. The years between 1919 to
1942 can be defined as the definitive years of India which lead to the actual
ideals on which the country is formed. By the end of the Second Civil
Disobedience Movement in 1942, unlike dominions of Australia, Canada and New
Zeeland, the voice in India was always one and clear- ‘Purna Swaraj’ or
‘Complete Independence’. The two and a half years as a British Dominion are
nothing but an attempt to build a Unified Republic under the Indian Tri-colour
and can’t be defined as a period of British Rule over the nation. Therefore,
after the presentation of all the facts, evidences and testimonies, this paper
concludes that 15th August 1947 and not 26th January 1950
is the true and legitimate Independence Day of the Union of India.
[1] www.youtube.com. (n.d.). Tryst with
Destiny | Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Independence Day Speech | 1947. [online]
Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Cudc5Mhlcc [Accessed 20 Apr.
2023].
[2] RAO, P.K. (1953). INDIA: THE
REPUBLICAN DOMINION. Current History, [online] 25(148), pp.331–338. Available
at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/45308565?seq=1 [Accessed 25 Apr. 2023].
[3] De, R. (2020). Between midnight and
republic: Theory and practice of India’s Dominion status. International Journal
of Constitutional Law, 17(4), pp.1213–1234.
[4] theleaflet.in. (2019).
Declaration as Republic of India in 1950 versus gaining of Independence in
1947: What’s the difference? – The Leaflet. [online] Available at:
https://theleaflet.in/declaration-as-republic-of-india-in-1950-versus-gaining-of-independence-in-1947-whats-the-difference/
[Accessed 25 Apr. 2023].
Article Information
THE DOMINION OF INDIA: A TAIL OF 1947-1950
Authors: TANMAY BANSAL
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/06/29
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.