Did India really gain independence on August 15th, 1947? The answer is no. India was granted a dominion status on August 15, 1947, but we still unknowingly celebrate it as Indian Independence Day. Only on January 26th 1950 when India became a republic was the word Dominion replaced by Republic.
- EXPLOSIVE: Here’s what was uncovered in Hunter Biden’s iCloud Hack
- MAJOR PEER REVIEWED STUDY: Moderna Vaccine Increases Myocarditis Risk By 44 Times In Young Adults
- MUST READ: High Level International Bankers Simulate The Collapse Of Global Financial System
- BIG STORY: Wuhan Lab Isolated Monkeypox Strain In 2020
- EXPLOSIVE: Ukraine Biolabs Used Fever Carrying Mosquitoes To Spark Dengue Pandemic In Cuba
The real violence is committed in the writing of history, the records of the legal system, the reporting of news, through the manipulation of social contracts, and the control of information
– Bryant H. McGill
This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation; through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that
– John Perkins
India was granted a dominion status on August 15, 1947. According to Balfour Declaration of 1926 ‘dominions’ is defined as autonomous communities within the British Empire but united by a common allegiance to the Crown. So, by the definition, India was an autonomous community “within the British Empire”. So, why do we celebrate August 15th as our Indian Independence Day?
Many people in India still believe that a Dominion status is equivalent to an absolute independent status. All those who so believe should go back to elementary school to re-learn their English. According to the Oxford dictionary, a ‘dominion’ is a country of the British Commonwealth having its own government. This same mistaken belief was also held by all Congress leaders in those days who openly proclaimed that there was no difference between dominion status and independence and accepted the dominion status in their all party conference of November 1929. This same confusion was furthered by the approval of dominion status in the Lahore Conference of 1929. But later Subhash Chandra Bose proposed that independence meant complete dissolution of any relationship with the British; for this he was labeled a terrorist and foreign agent. Only on January 26th 1950 when India became a republic was the word Dominion replaced by Republic. Still Indians ignorantly celebrate August 15th as Indian Independence Day.
Also read: 2019 Pulwama Attack
When Britain gave independence to America 170 years before India, the resolution relating to declaring independence read “the united colonies of America are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved”. Now look at the wording in the Indian Independence Act which was accepted by the British Parliament on July 18th 1947; “to make provision for the setting up in India of two independent dominions, to substitute other provisions of the government of India Act 1945 which apply outside those dominions and to provide for other matters consequential on or connected with the setting up of those dominions.”
There are two things very clear from the above statement:
- The British did not want our allegiance to be completely dissolved from Great Britain and;
- The British wanted to replace some provisions of the dominion status of India and Pakistan which were applicable to other dominion of British Crown, namely Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa.
India was called “Dominion of India” from 1947 to 1950. We never taught in our history books that India had an official King in George VI post independence and this type of government system that could be called ‘Constitutional Monarchy‘.
After Indian Independence the monarchy of India was a system in which a hereditary monarch was the sovereign of India from 1947 to 1950. India shared the same person as it’s sovereign as the United Kingdom and the other Dominions in the British Commonwealth of Nations. The monarch’s constitutional roles were mostly carried out by the Governor-General. The royal succession was governed by the ‘Act of Settlement 1701’.
In 1948 Mountbatten left his position by appointing C. Rajagopalachari. Even till 1950, then Prime Minister of India was only the fourth in command. By January 26th, 1950 we wrote our own Constitution, and abolished the monarchy. So, effectively Indian Independence Day was January 26, 1950, and not August 15, 1947.
In the memoirs Reminiscences of the Nehru Age, Nehru’s aide M. O. Mathai wrote that even after India became independent, Prime Minister Nehru had to seek permissions from King George for all “humble duties of submission” by addressing himself in third person. One such letter, as Mathai recollected, had the following content:
“Jawaharlal Nehru presents his humble duty to Your Majesty and has the honour to submit, for Your Majesty’s approval the proposal of Your Majesty’s, Ministers in the Dominion of India that Sri Rajagopalachari, Governor of West Bengal, be appointed to be the Governor General of India on the demission of that Office by His Excellency Rear Admiral the Earl Mountbatten of Burma…”.
He had to affirm allegiance to King George VI, Emperor of India and also to affirm that he would well and truly serve “Our Sovereign”. Nehru was suddenly confronted with these. He had no choice. He suppressed his embarrassment and extreme annoyance and went through the affirmation of allegiance and affirmation of office which read as follows:
Form of Affirmation of Allegiance
I, Jawaharlal Nehru, do solemnly affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty, KING GEORGE THE SIXTH, Emperor of India, His Heirs, and Successors, according to law.
Form of Affirmation of Office
I, Jawaharlal Nehru, do solemnly affirm that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign, KING GEORGE THE SIXTH, Emperor of India, in the Office of Member of the Governor General’s Executive Council, and that I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of India without fear or favor of affection or ill-will.
What about our Army, Navy and Air Force leadership?
For any colonial nation, if independence means “not dependent” or not having to depend on anyone or anything else, it also means being strong and being able to survive alone. So, for India it means to see-off even the last British administrator from its land. We than would have to wait further until the late 1958 to celebrate ‘Independence’ because even after August 15th 1947, British officers Sirs Rob Lockhart and Roy Bucher were still heading the Indian Army and they left their positions in 1947 and 1949 respectively and World War veterans Sirs Edward Parry, Charles Pizey and Stephen Carlill were heading the Indian Navy until 1951, 1955, and 1958 respectively.
At the same time World War veterans Sirs Ronald Ivelaw-Chapman and Gerald Gibbs were heading our Air Force until 1951 and 1954 respectively. It was only in 1954 that we could see one of our own citizens, Subroto Mukherjee, at the helm of the air force affairs. Mukherjee himself was a war veteran and a graduate from the prestigious Royal Air Force College, Cranwell. But history has it that he told Mountbatten that he would need five to seven years time to take up the charge of the Air Force and also the navy took a very long time of eleven years for the transition of control to an Indian.
But then, how come the Army transition was over in just two years after our independence and that in the Navy took seven long years? Even Mukherjee, a winner of several decorations and awards from the mighty Queen, needed those seven years to rise to that level? He also had to undergo a course at the Imperial Defence College, London to shape himself up for the top post? After India saw ruthless rule of British for 250 years it would be foolish to think that they were under any sort of obligation to train us to the required level and ensure a smooth handshake.
What about Republic?
India became “Republic within Commonwealth on 1950”; now what is republic? Republic simply means ‘rule of law’ but note the word ‘within’; one cannot be free if they are ‘within’ other’s jurisdiction no matter how many constitutions we write.
On 2nd September 1953, Dr. Ambedkar clarified in his speech in the Rajya Sabha (Parliament) that
“People always keep saying to me: ‘Oh, you are the maker of the Constitution.’ My answer is I was a hack. What I was asked to do, I did much against my will.
My friends tell me that I have made the Constitution. But I am quite prepared to say that I shall be the first person to burn it out. I do not want it. It does not suit anybody….”
During the Second World War the Allies accepted a San Francisco Peace Treaty on September 8, 1951 which came into existence on April 28, 1952. That same day on April 28th, Independent India also issued a statement stating that the war between India and Japan has ended and we signed the separate ‘peace treaty’ called Treaty of Peace Between Japan and India on June 9, 1952 restoring relations between the two nations. What this signifies is that from September 1945 when Japan surrendered or from 15th August 1947 when we became Independent until June 9, 1952 India was officially in a state of war with Japan. What was the need for India to go to war with Japan after independence? Was the decision to declare war with Japan undertaken by independent India or was India fighting a proxy war? In that case who was in control of India’s foreign policy even after independence? What is the implication of such a thing? It should be kept in mind that Subhash Bose during the same period had made an alliance with Japan to eject the British from India and achieve complete freedom. Is this the reason why Bose was labeled a terrorist?
For more details read Bose’s Plot To Bring Down The British Empire
India’s response to these events suggests that the leadership, and the populace at large, is as ignorant about the international equations as they were during the colonization of India. We have completely failed to understand the players in this game, their motives, their powers and their means. Further few Indians even today care to ask themselves questions that would lead them in the direction of these answers. While India has produced scientists and engineers of very high caliber, its failure to produce social scientists of even mediocre capability in understanding the political equations is surprising. Although our society has focused its efforts in producing a vast talent base of students trained to think with the precision of modern mathematics, it has abysmally failed to apply this precise thought to the social sciences. This has resulted in an utter failure to answer even the most elementary of questions in international politics. One cannot help but surmise that these engineers and scientists were perhaps encouraged to serve unseen masters who deliberately kept the society in dark about the social sciences themselves.
It is natural for masters to keep their slave subjects from knowing too much about them. Even in the start of this new millennium few in Asia, and fewer in India in particular, have heard about the subject of Geopolitics. With most of the major players centered around Europe and the Middle East, it is no surprise that the Indians were kept ignorant about the deeper forces that drove the world for the past twenty centuries. In the best of cases, we have viewed these awful events with ignorance and what is worse, with a self-destructive arrogance. More often than not, we have chosen to bury our heads in the sand and refuse to view them at all.
At the end of the day the brutal truth is ‘August 15th’ is not a day of celebration or a day of distributing chocolates or not even a day to feel that ‘We are free’. The fact is it is a day to feel sorrow and shame on ourselves to celebrate as Independence Day a major event that triggered the riots which preceded the partition in the Punjab region that killed between 200,000 and 500,000 people in retributive genocide between the religions due to the evil policy of divide and rule by British. UNHCR estimates 14 million Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims were displaced during the partition; it was the largest mass migration in human history.
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet,
as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take;
but as for me, give me liberty (Swaraj) or give me death!”– Patrick Henry, 1775, fire brand Patriot urging his fellow Virginians to fight against East India Company’s British oppression in todays USA.
References
1. With the permission from Sreejith Panickar author of ‘Why August 15 should not be Independence Day’
2. The London Gazette: no. 38330. p. 3647. 22 June 1948. Retrieved 25 August 2014. Royal Proclamation of 22 June 1948, made in accordance with the Indian Independence Act 1947, 10 & 11 GEO. 6. CH. 30.(‘Section 7: …(2)The assent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is hereby given to the omission from the Royal Style and Titles of the words ” Indiae Imperator ” and the words ” Emperor of India ” and to the issue by His Majesty for that purpose of His Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of the Realm.’). According to this Royal Proclamation, the King retained the Style and Titles ‘George VI by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith’, and he thus remained King of the various Dominions, including India and Pakistan, though these two (and others) eventually chose to abandon their monarchies and became republics.
3. Reminiscences of the Nehru Age by M. O. Mathai
4. Jawaharlal Nehru and the Mountbattens
6. UNDER TWO ENSIGNS THE INDIAN NAVY 1945-1950 by Rear Admiral SATYINDRA SINGH AVSM (Retd.)
7. ‘Introduction to the Constitution of India’ by Brij Kishore Sharma
8. Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission by Dhananjay Kee
9. “The London Declaration of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, April 28, 1949”. de Smith, S.A. (July 1949). The Modern Law Review 12 (3): pp. 351–4.
Join us on WhatsApp or:
Support GreatGameIndia
Thanks GGI for putting it out in the public.. I wish more Indians out there could understand the gravity of information you guys share. British did a good job in keeping off the public so many dirty secrets otherwise we couldnt have witnessed anglophiles in such a huge number. Again great job
Thanks for reading MH
One must not forget that India is “Constitutionally” still a British surrogacy right from the Government of India Act (1935) that Ambedkar and Nehru plagiarized substantially, if not wholly, into India;s grotesque “Divide to Rule” Constitution:.
The Constituent Assembly (also known as Ambedkar under Nehru’s hidden whip) plagiarized the Indian Constitution from the Government of India Act (1935), a House of Lords Confection, that set out the British State as it was then, in response to the demand for home rule. The Right Honourable Srinivasa Shastri of the Servants of India Society was give the honorary title Right honourable (he could not be made a Lord) to enable him to represent Indian interests during this exercise. It was under this Act that Rajaji was elected Chief Minister of Madras Presidency. Sir Bhashyam Iyengar (Sir Bosham) wrote the rather grandiose and meaningless preamble that immediately delighted Nehru. Nehru and Ambedkar removed from the Act the notions of Defence, Foreign Policy and maintaining Standards of Propriety that were vested in the Crown Representative (Viceroy) and it seems India lost it forever thereafter. They then replaced the Council of Princes which was intended to provide continuity of culture,religious interests and local nuances and traditions insulated from Majoritarian Demographic Politics with the Rajya Sabha which became a sinecure or rogue’s gallery for political patronage. They then included inequality under law (anathema to a democracy) and exceptions to the rule of law.anathema to a Republic) and the Many Nations Theory (anathema to the notion of a sovereign state) and came up with the monster that threatens Indian existence, the reservations-corruption, dalit-mughal Indian Constitution that resembles George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” (Four legs good, two legs bad” and “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others”) more than any European or other Constitution. Primarily this was all about looting and plundering wealth and subverting the resources of the State for the exclusive pomp, pelf, pleasure, perversions and perpetuation of the new aristocracy that they had created i.e. the Neta-Babu-Cop-Milard-Crony-Kleptocracy and the Castes and Tribes they selected in this pursuit and the Christian, Moslem and Parsi religions that they favoured and protected. They followed through in 1952 by depriving the tribals from their right to free passage and foraging through the Western Ghats, Dandakaranya, and Himalayas which started the Naxalite Movement and North East insurgencies to which they added fuel by de-recognising the matriarchal and matrilineal systems of the North East and the South West along with the mischief of the Hindu Marriage Act, Succession Act and all that followed. The two combined created a vacuum of culture and tradition which in the North East was filled by Christianity and insurgency further accentuated by Nehru’s hand picked ICS Satraps who thought the North East was for their whim, pleasure, plunder and womanizing (rape). Manipur, which was even more cultured than Mysore in 1947 with the oldest written Constitution in the Sub Continent revolted (naturally) and till this day every Manipuri family has one member under ground and under arms. In 1959 they took over the Hindu Temples and Religious Endowment establishments for the loot and plunder of their neo aristocracy including financing Haj Pilgrimages, tormented the traditional priests (their salaries were never raised) and began the tradition of nationalizing and wallowing in other people’s wealth that continues to this day. India is, perhaps, the last surviving Soviet franchise in the World. We even have that Nehru-Gandhi brown nose Pranab Mukherjee who proposed “Retrospective” laws as recently as 2012 lolling in the Rashtra Potty Bhavan. The same year saw Parliament unanimously remove 1948 published newspaper cartoons from Government approved History text books and nationalize 20% of Private education (net of Minority educational institutions) after having dismantled Government primary and secondary education since 1947. India is now (UNDP – 2015) 135 out of 172 countries in Human and Social Development and 143 out of 172 in internal peace and stability. (Before 1947, Mysore, Travancore and Baroda had universal primary education, nutrition and health). Indira Gandhi’s “Secularism” simply means “Not under Holy orders”. This comes from the days when large swathes of property were owned and ruled over by prelates under “holy orders” of the “Holy Roman Empire” while the Christian laity or “serfs” toiled on the land as tax to prosper the Church and the Lords or Barons and Kings who kept order and “defended” the Church. Truly, the educated, the cultured, the law abiding and the upper caste Hindus are the sole disenfrachised excluded from the Constitutional entitlements and protections to deserve the status of Minority, Secular or “Serf”.
It may be far too late to find the truth after 65 years of the Indian Republic, just as it is to discover and re build competence, integrity, accountability, principles and standards. The disease inflicted on India by the Nehru-Gandhi Ambedkar Constitution seems irreversible. Alarmed by the “Freedom Movement” and still nervous from the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 that had been spear headed by Brahmins such as Mangal Pande, after the Great War, in 1921, the British began to dismantle what had passed for Hinduism until such time by commencing a canard of lies to discredit Brahmins and exterminate Brahmanism recognizing this to be the soul of “Hinduism”. It assumed particular virulence in the South of India as the sole act of violence against the British was carried out by Vanchinathan Aiyer who assassinated Ashe, the Collector of Tirunelvelli and V.V.S. Aiyar, an associate of Veer Savarkar ans Shri Aurobindo who became a thorn in the British side. The British were able to play on the non Hindu Majority such as Dalits in the South and the resentment of the upper castes to the success of Aiyers in Government service to build a fascist Anti-Brahmin rump. British stooge Patro of the Justice Party (ancestor of the “Dravids”) promulgated an ordinance (GO 613) to discriminate against the Brahmins in all walks of life. Until 1921, only those who adhered to Brahmanical Aryan Law were considered “Hindus”. Hindu is a defunct nationality of many religions adhering to common Aryan law though the name was coined by the Persians to refer to those who lived in the Indus Valley (present day Pakistan) at a time when both Persians and “Hindus” worshiped many common Gods and Goddesses. (The Vedai period that preceded the Avesthan period in Zoroastrian History). To break the back of Hinduism the British started many activities. In the Madras Presidency they coined the word “Dalit” and made them “Hindus in Law”. Recognizing Brahmanism as the soul of Hinduism (until 1921, a Pandit used to be consulted by the Judiciary on Hindu Law) they abolished Hindu Personal Law, In 1923, they took over the Temples, subverting the congregational temple welfare system. The Indian Political Service even infiltrated Sikhism at Sialkot and influenced Kartar Singh and Karag Singh to create the Akali movement and turn Sikhism away from the Hindus and against Hindus and adopt many Islamic beliefs and practices. The Indian Constitution of 1949, that enshrined inequality under law and exceptions to the rule of law and the 1959 law that took over the temples of the erstwhile kingdoms for the plunder and loot of the ruling classes including the funding of churches, madrassas and Haj pilgrimages rather than establishing schools centered on Vedic education and Ayur Veda hospitals for congregational benefit replaced Hinduism with a “secular” Government notion with the approval of the “secular” courts that were driven by”four legs good, two legs bad”, Dalit, Christian, Moslem. and other notions about what Hinduism must be. As a result, while Jallykatt is banned as cruel to animals, Halal is widely celebrated and while Karthikai Deepam is banned, the violence of illegally amplified Aazan continues five times a day.
When we compare US independence with Indian we can see the British were kicked out by the Americans and formed a constitution tailored to their needs. British was forced to give up empire under US pressure after being bankrupted by WW2 and India ended up with the mess you decsribe
Very good explanation Aiyer garu. I appreciate your efforts. Jai Bharat matha.
WOW, YOU SHOULD WRITE A BOOK. IT WILL BE A GREAT SERVICE TO THE FUTURE OF INDIA.
Call it “INDIAN DEPENDENCE”
Sri Suchindranth brought out many Historical facts unknown so far. The subversion of history and power game of Nehru clan ruined Bhath pushing it back by one century in development and fragmented the country to serve the game plan of the British TO rule India by proxies.This game plan is to be widely informed to the public at large and make them aware so that people of Bharat come together ,bury their differences to attain the past glory.
I had doubts since the beginning and today when i was going through history again, i thought of’ googling’ my doubt.. and expectedly i found very few links connected to my query.. this is a “himalayan blunder”done by our leaders.. i also think that Gandhi was against this type of independence and few power hungry leaders conspired and kicked Gandhi out.. it appears to be a bigger controversy.. and if u think deeper all the major party seems to be involved in this.. their mutual fight is just a big “diversion” for the common “sheep like public”..
This writeup is more of an emotional tomfoolery than any real rational argument. Let me destroy your arguments.
1. The British weren’t a monolithic entity. The quagmires of Parliamentary Democracy in Britain meant public opinion there swung back and forth according to the political debate of the time. The fact that Naoroji was an MP in House of Commons way back in 1890s prove that not all sections of British political establishment was anti-India. In fact I’d go so far to defend the Empire under Liberal and Labour Party for crafting a political class with democratic principles in India. Look at other European colonies and you will see that British colonies has fared better than French, Dutch or German colonies. The fact that the likes of Bose failed to realise the true evil of fascist nations like Japan and Germany could have been dire for India had Bose won.
2. Divide and Rule couldn’t have been played had the Indian society not been inherently divided. It is strange you ascribe “200 years of foreign rule” to Britain, even when it actually ruled less than 100 years, do remember East India Company was a privately owned Multinational Company and not the British government. The evils of East India Company cannot be ascribed to the British Empire, especially since the EIC was mostly aided by corrupt Indians and did not even have a civilsed bureaucracy that the British Government imported here after 1858.
It is also strange that 200 year of ‘foreign rule’ appears so evil to you, but not the 600 years of foreign Islamic rule imposed on India under millitary oppression, cultural destruction and undemocratic invader tyrants from the barbarian races of Central Asia. If Indian civilization has to revive, it should seek the direction of the civilized West, for indeed the world today would not have been so democratic without the British Empire.
Put up a simple comparison, Lord Minto institutionalised Direct Elections in India even when he din’t want to, simply because it was a constituonal duty to promulgate democracy in the nations ruled by Britain. Lord Bentinck (tho he was from EIC and not British Government) took active interest in reviving Vedic literature and ancient Indian philsophy to the West. Compare this to the Mughal attitude of destroying native Indian sensibilities, imposing Arabic customs and widespread cultural suppression. Why do you ascribe Pakistan to simply the British and not the Sultans and Mughals?
3. The attack on Jawaharlal Nehru is the worst display of immaturity. Ofcourse the nascent Indian democracy needed British help, our institutions had developed in British integration, how would you function if you were to kick off the heads of specialised departments just because you have to show your opponents that you are ‘independent’. The institutional mechanism is the heart of democratic culture, you have to first develop the required experience and master the specialised nitty-gritties before you can be appointed head. The British who worked with the nascent Indian governmenet didnt do it because they were a part of British Government, they did it because they were highly skilled individuals whom the Indian Government paid for their services. Are you going to kick foreign CEOs from your successful Indian company today because you are ‘indpendent’? Parochial nationalism is a thing of 20th century, come out of it already.
Drop your rancid ideas and re-read the history of the world.
It was not Britain’s fault that the English-speaking elite that led India’s freedom movement copied the British system 100%. They did so because it was the only system they could imagine. They were capable only of running the systems the British had created for them, and not too well because of corruption and divisions in the society. No wonder India struggled from pillar to post at least until 1980.
Only an uneducated fool would think that actually. India was originally based on Fabian Socialism and the English educated Indian elite mostly hung around with the British Communists and Democratic Socialists and not really the establishment that was hounding them 24*7 in their London stayovers. So after independence they not only went FAR AWAY from the British System, but by 1976 had reversed the centrist Constitution to a full fledged Socialist one only one step before a Communist Revolution. It was only thanks to the fall of USSR within 15 years and the terrible economy it landed India in that we went back to the Original one in 1991, which has since proved much better for India without the idiotic socialist regulations but not taking away the Welfare State model.
Britain could do well to adopt the Indian model, after all their NHS is the only reliable social security and its run mostly by Indian doctors lol.