A very good essay by @sanchirai on a fascinating topic - who succeeded British India?
"Before independence, stakeholders debated whether India and Pakistan should be regarded as two new states, or was India a continuation of British India, with Pakistan seceding from it?" 1/21
"Before independence, stakeholders debated whether India and Pakistan should be regarded as two new states, or was India a continuation of British India, with Pakistan seceding from it?" 1/21
"In the former scenario, the earlier ‘India’ would have ceased to exist. The paper focuses on two clear lines of inquiry. Firstly, and perhaps counterintuitively, India’s keenness to become the legal successor to British India and accept the consequent treaty obligations." 2/21
Archival research shows that.. Congress, especially Nehru, fought uncompromisingly for this legal status. It was a matter of ‘prestige’ that the India they had fought hard to free legally continue to exist.. its enduring identity & essence align with its new legal personality.
"The aforementioned treaty obligations became an important aspect of Independent India’s foreign policy, especially on the eastern border, with ramifications for Tibet and Sino-Indian relations, underlining the continuity of British Indian foreign policy post-independence." 4/21
"India would continue the legal personality of British India, with Pakistan being seen as a new state that seceded from India. The latter interpretation was eventually followed. However, this approach was arrived at after much consideration and deliberation." 5/21
India’s decision to negotiate for an understanding that independent India be seen in name – & spirit – as the heir of British India’s legal personality, as opposed to that personality being extinguished, & two new nations with new legal personalities being born in its place.
Treaties.. that had a direct implication for Pakistani borders devolved onto Pakistan. However.. Pakistan was not considered a natural successor to British India’s legal personality. In the UN & other international organisations, it was expected to apply for membership anew.
important.. distinction between treaties signed before 1919 & after.. rationale.. was that by being an independent signatory to the Treaty of Versailles & an original member of the League of Nations, 🇮🇳 came of age legally in 1919, on a similar footing to 🇨🇦 & other Dominions.
"a situation that HMG wanted to avoid at all costs. They were clear from the beginning that paramountcy over the princely states would lapse along with British rule in India, and would not be transferred to India." 9/21
"Mountbatten pointed out that there would be a ‘grave objection to India’s national identity being extinguished by reasons of the partition’. This, he said, would create an awkward international precedent, whereby states might borrow in excess and then.." 10/21
"go through a formal partition, subsequently relinquishing these debt obligations by claiming that neither of the new countries was responsible for debts incurred before partition." 11/21
"Pakistan wanted to be a ‘co-successor’ & hence an original member of the UN along with India, whose international personality would have then disappeared in 1947. This claim was supported by ‘Chile, Australia, Argentina, Haiti, Philippines, Egypt, Iraq, El Salvador etc.’" 12/21
"Nehru’s view was that ‘Hindustan’ will succeed to India’s position as an entity in international affairs & will be represented automatically at U.N.O. However, HMG’s view at that juncture was ‘that two new states will be created and that neither of them can claim to be India’.
"what is truly remarkable is how the Congress Committee and Nehru seemed adamant about commenting on even the smallest of clauses that could, directly or indirectly, challenge the idea of India being the successor authority to British India." 14/21
"Congress conveyed in no uncertain terms that they wanted the Dominion of India to inherit the international personality of British India, further insisting that all the rights and obligations of international treaties should also devolve on the Dominion of India." 15/21
extremely sensitive matter for the 🇮🇳 leaders, & Mountbatten was quick to perceive the gravity.. in an official telegram had warned.. was indeed a matter of ‘prestige’ for the Indians – so important that it had the potential to derail the entire process of transfer of power.
Reading the exchanges.. during transfer of power, one gets the sense that HMG thought of ‘India’ as a larger umbrella term for the entire subcontinent. This India of theirs definitely had a Pakistan and a Hindustan in it (and maybe a potential for even more nationalities).
clear that HMG agreed to Congress’ insistence of remaining India only to ‘please’ Congress. They knew the party attached great importance to being a successor to the international personality of 🇮🇳, even though they knew that the Muslim League did not accept such a proposition.
"Interestingly, when India insisted on being the legal successor of British India, it also insisted on being called ‘India’. This was an insistence that irked both HMG and Jinnah, since they wanted to call post-partition India Hindustan." 19/21
"Bharat was not considered as a formal name for India in official discourse with HMG. Interestingly, as an official name of India, Hindustan had no takers either in 1947 or in 1949." 20/21
"By becoming a successor state and agreeing to honour all the international agreements made by the British Indian government, Indian leaders ensured that what happened on 15th August 1947 was merely a transfer of power.." 21/21
Loading suggestions...