Overførsel af magt

Overførsel af magt


Kalder du dette en fredelig magtoverførsel?

Philip Gerard er forfatter til Cape Fear Rising, en roman, der dramatiserer White Supremacy Coup i 1898. Han er på arbejde Mod en mere perfekt union: Hvorfor tabte amerikaneren borgerkrigen og hvordan man vinder den nu.

En omstridt præsidentkampagne føres af den ene side med propaganda og stærkt bevæbnede guppegrupper, der angriber statshuse og den anden kandidat & rsquos -kampagne, der næsten ikke får konsekvenser. Strongman -kandidaten ved magten forsøger at undergrave de temmelig verificerede valgresultater ved at kalde og true lokale valgembedsmænd og derefter sin egen vicepræsident og uden held.

I et sidste forsøg på at holde på magten tilskynder han en pøbel til at storme nationen og rsquos Capitol og stoppe certificeringen af ​​afstemningen. De gør som han befaler, bryder døre ned, overvælder den tynde vagtlinje, slår en politimand ihjel og ransager kontorer, søger efter lovgivere for at straffe. Senatorer og repræsentanter flygter med deres liv og mdashbarely.

Oprørerne går ud og griner efter deres egne kameraer og praler med deres kup: det er første gang, at Capitol er blevet angrebet siden krigen i 1812.

Strongman & rsquos -partiet anerkender ikke valgets legitimitet, fortsætter selv efter det dødelige angreb for at forsøge at undergrave resultaterne, og senere stemmer et flertal af senatorer i hans parti overvældende over, at han er uden for anklager og mdashand således uden for loven.

Bare to uger efter opstanden aflægger den nye præsident sin embedsed og mdash, mens broerne, der leder ud af byen, er lukkede, jernbanen har standset sydgående tog, gader er lukket af, regeringsbygninger er spærret, og civile er blevet opfordret til at blive fra gaderne i deres egen hovedstad.

Abraham Lincoln talte til en nation på randen af ​​krig den 4. marts 1861, praktisk talt ubevogtet blandt en skare af ængstelige borgere. Selv under de værste dage i borgerkrigen stod Lincoln igen på Capitolens trin for at holde sin elskede anden indledende tale og ikke omgivet af legioner af soldater, men af ​​civile, skarer af håbefulde mænd og kvinder knust af krig og bad for deres høje , stolt leder for at lykkes.

Nu holder den nye præsident sin tale om håb og enhed omgivet af høje metalhegn og motorkøretøjsbarrikader, bevogtet af en falanks af bevæbnede livvagter og en kardon af 25.000 tropper.

Hvis vi så denne scene udspille sig i Argentina, Tyrkiet, Ukraine eller Thailand, ville vi beklage demokratiets fiasko, skrive om en skrøbelig regering, der kæmper med oprørske oprørere i sin egen hovedstad, komme med forfærdelige forudsigelser om, hvor længe en sådan regering kunne bestå.

Men på denne belejrede tid og sted hylder amerikansk presse dette som en fredelig magtoverførsel. & Rdquo


Et kig på en magtoverførsel i modsætning til alle andre i amerikansk historie

NBC News 'Savannah Guthrie rapporterer om den rolle, en fredelig magtoverførsel spiller i vores demokrati og præsident Trumps fravær fra dagens indvielsesceremoni.

Victoria 's Secret havde lige en 'realistisk ' model. Fans siger det 's ' bedre sent end aldrig. '

Victoria 's Secret -fans bifalder mærket for at have brugt en & quotrealistisk & quot -bikinimodel i deres nye Summer Solstice -badedragtannonce.

Willie Nelsons ærlige svar om hans nye bog får Jimmy Fallon til at gå off -set

Country -legenden 's deadpan -svar var for meget for & quotThe Tonight Show & quot -vært.

AdLæg en pose på dit bilspejl, når du rejser

Strålende bilrengøringshacks De lokale forhandlere ville ønske, at du ikke vidste det

AOC reagerer på, at Marjorie Taylor Greene siger, at hun ikke er amerikaner: Først og fremmest er jeg højere end hende '

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene talte ved den tidligere præsident Donald Trump 's Ohio -stævne, hvor hun fremsatte ubegrundede krav mod et medlem af kongressen.

Trump ved rally i Ohio: ⟞t fortalte jeg dig '

Tidligere præsident Donald Trump tog en sejrrunde under sit første stævne siden afgang fra kontoret og sagde om præsident Joe Biden, & quotJeg fortalte dig det. & Quot

Tour de France Arrangører tager skridt mod tilskuer, der forårsagede etape -nedbrud

"Vi gør dette, så det lille mindretal af mennesker, der gør dette, ikke ødelægger showet for alle."

AdMor tilbagebetaling - hun købte nabo ejendom

Efter så meget drama og mange politibesøg fik hun overtaget. Hvem ville have troet, at et lille stykke papir har sådan en kraft?

Sammenbrudte lejlighed i Miami havde sunket ned i jorden allerede i 1990'erne, siger forskere

Bygningen havde sunket i en alarmerende hastighed - cirka 2 millimeter om året - ifølge en undersøgelse fra 2020.

Tidligere Boston Celtics -vagt Kemba Walker skal efter sigende blive handlet "umiddelbart"

Kunne den tidligere Boston -vagt være på farten igen så hurtigt?

Jeg føler, at det var et setup ': Gwendolyn Berry slutter på tredjepladsen i hammer, føler sig forblændet af nationalsangen

Berry, der skal konkurrere i hammerkastet ved sit andet OL, har tidligere protesteret, mens hun var på podiet ved en international sportsbegivenhed.

Trump brokker sig om militæret og reciterer sangtekster ved Ohio Rally

Stephen Zenner/AFP via Getty Tidligere præsident Donald Trump lancerede sin hævn-tur lørdag under sit første stævne i kampagnestil, siden præsident Joe Biden tiltrådte, og sprængte sine sædvanlige mål: Demokrater, medier og valget i 2020-selvom han ikke byder på noget nyt selv som han antyder et løb i 2024. "Med din hjælp kommer vi til at besejre de radikale demokrater," sagde han til tilhængere i Wellington, Ohio. “Og vi har ikke noget valg.” Fanning af flammerne i den GOP-orkestrerede panik over kritisk race

Prins Charles vil ikke forblive tavs over prins Harrys eksplosive påstande

Fotoillustration af The Daily Beast/Photos via Getty Den årlige offentliggørelse af de kongelige regnskaber i anden halvdel af juni er traditionelt en mulighed for britiske republikanere til at baske den britiske kongefamilies sløvhed og udgifter. Windsors og deres monarkistiske cheerleaders hævner sig med et finpudset argument om, at de kongelige kun "koster" det britiske folk en ubetydelig sum pr. Person (tallet i 2021 er 77 pence, lidt over en dollar) og repræsenterer derfor fremragende værdi for m


Om fredelig magtoverførsel: lektioner fra 1800

Sara Georgini er serieredaktør for John Adams papirer, del af Adams Papers -redaktionelle projekt baseret på Massachusetts Historical Society og medlem af AHA Council for Research Division. Hun tweeter @sarageorgini.

John Adams jagtede daggryet lige ud af Washington, DC og forlod den halvbyggede by kort efter fire timer om morgenen den 4. marts 1801. Han vidste, at det var tid til at gå. I et voldsomt valg, der stillede Adams mod hans ven, der blev rival Thomas Jefferson, led New England Federalist et ydmygende og livsændrende nederlag. Hans populære forgænger, George Washington, svingede let ind i en anden periode. Men spillereglerne havde ændret sig: Adams stod over for voldelig fraktionisme inde fra sin administration, en svedende presse, voldsom valgkamp og udbrud af partipolitik.

For mange var Adams & rsquos track record i embedet i bedste fald kontroversielt takket være vedtagelsen af ​​Alien and Sedition Acts og en upopulær udenrigspolitik med Frankrig. Mens den anden præsident sommerede på sin gård i Quincy, Massachusetts, trawlede Alexander Hamilton og et nyligt præget korps af kampagnefolk for at få stemmer. De viftede ud over byer og byer og satte ild til politiske brande i den lokale presse, der flammede over de stater, Adams havde brug for for at vinde, og ville ikke rsquot. Han så langvejs fra og afsky kampagnens taktik, der slog rod. & ldquoHvis min administration ikke kan forsvares af de iboende fortjeneste ved mine foranstaltninger & amp af min egen myndighed, må det blive fordømt, & rdquo skrev han til sin søn Thomas Boylston Adams i slutningen af ​​august. Den ældste Adams havde stærke meninger om valg, informeret af hans tætte undersøgelse af klassiske republikker og renæssancestatsdannelse. Han håbede på at blive kendt som 1700-tallets ideal om en uinteresseret offentligt ansat, så et hårdt tab ved valgmøderne betød én ting: Overfør magten fredeligt til en ny præsident og værner derved om kontoret og den nation, det tjente.

Valget i 1800 opfandt ikke denne idé, men det graverede Amerika ind i historien som et demokrati. Begge mænd, der kæmpede om præsidentposten, ville have kendt Platon & rsquos forsigtighed. Demokratierne trivedes på grænsen til oligarki, og den udøvende magt og legemliggjort af enten præsident eller konge og mdashrisked blev til tyranni jo længere dens embedsperiode. Hvornår vidste John Adams, at hans formandskab var forbi, og hvad gjorde han ved det? I den mest tekniske forstand levede han (akavet) med det forestående tab af magt fra december 1800, da centrale valgstemmer ikke kunne tippe. Han var ikke ivrig efter at blive ved med at se den næste indvielse.

Historikere kan læse masser af spidse lektioner i præsidentvalget i 1800. Det er revolutionen efter revolutionen. Det markerer fødslen af ​​et partisystem og den synlige forfald af federalistisk magt. Det viser en kritisk udøvelse af forfatningsmæssig kraft fra hver regeringsgren, der gennemgås under kontrol og til store omkostninger. Det er et overraskende uborgerligt slagsmål mellem to aldrende revolutionære, deres lange venskab forsuret af partipolitik. Men for borgere som Margaret Bayard Smith, den amerikanske forfatter og politiske kommentator, understregede dagen for Jefferson & rsquos indvielse holdbarheden af ​​det amerikanske demokrati. Smith er opvokset i en føderalistisk husstand og gift med en demokratisk-republikansk avisredaktør og nød skiftet. & ldquoJeg har i morges været vidne til en af ​​de mest interessante scener, et gratis folk nogensinde kan være vidne til, & rdquo skrev hun. & ldquo Ændringerne i administrationen, som i enhver regering og i alle tidsaldre mest generelt har været epoker af forvirring, skurkskab og blodsudgydelse, i dette foregår vores lykkelige land uden nogen form for distraktion eller uorden. & rdquo For både Adams og Jefferson er drivkraften behov for at opretholde det nye demokrati og bevare fagforeningens overvældede partikrav.


Historien om det 25. ændringsforslag

Den 25. ændring blev ratificeret i 1967, men nationens ledere var begyndt at tale om behovet for klarhed om magtoverførsel årtier tidligere. Forfatningen var vag om proceduren for forhøjelse af en vicepræsident til formandskabet i tilfælde af, at øverstkommanderende døde eller trådte tilbage.

Afklaring af magtoverførselsprocessen blev af afgørende betydning midt i den kolde krig og de sygdomme, som præsident Dwight Eisenhower led i 1950'erne. Kongressen begyndte at diskutere muligheden for en forfatningsændring i 1963. NCC fortsætter:

Senator Birch Bayh, en demokrat fra Indiana, der tjente i løbet af 1960'erne og 1970'erne, betragtes som hovedarkitekten for det 25. ændringsforslag. Han fungerede som formand for Senatets retsudvalg for forfatning og civilret og var den ledende stemme i at afsløre og reparere fejl i forfatningens bestemmelser om en ordnet magtoverførsel efter Kennedys attentat. Bayh udarbejdede og introducerede det sprog, der ville blive den 25. ændring den 6. januar 1965.

Den 25. ændring blev ratificeret i 1967, fire år efter Kennedys attentat. Forvirringen og kriserne ved JFK's drab i 1963 afslørede behovet for en jævn og klar magtovergang. Lyndon B. Johnson, der blev præsident efter Kennedys død, tjente 14 måneder uden vicepræsident, fordi der ikke var nogen proces, som stillingen skulle besættes med.


Kalder du dette en fredelig magtoverførsel?

Philip Gerard er forfatter til Cape Fear Rising, en roman, der dramatiserer White Supremacy Coup i 1898. Han er på arbejde Mod en mere perfekt union: Hvorfor tabte amerikaneren borgerkrigen og hvordan man vinder den nu.

En omstridt præsidentkampagne føres af den ene side med propaganda og stærkt bevæbnede guppegrupper, der angriber statshuse og den anden kandidat & rsquos -kampagne, der næsten ikke får konsekvenser. Strongman -kandidaten ved magten forsøger at undergrave de temmelig verificerede valgresultater ved at kalde og true lokale valgembedsmænd og derefter sin egen vicepræsident og uden held.

I et sidste forsøg på at holde på magten tilskynder han en pøbel til at storme nationen og rsquos Capitol og stoppe certificeringen af ​​afstemningen. De gør som han befaler, bryder døre ned, overvælder den tynde vagtlinje, slår en politimand ihjel og ransager kontorer, søger efter lovgivere for at straffe. Senatorer og repræsentanter flygter med deres liv og mdashbarely.

Oprørerne går ud og griner efter deres egne kameraer og praler med deres kup: det er første gang, at Capitol er blevet angrebet siden krigen i 1812.

Strongman & rsquos -partiet anerkender ikke valgets legitimitet, fortsætter selv efter det dødelige angreb for at forsøge at undergrave resultaterne, og senere stemmer et flertal af senatorer i hans parti overvældende over, at han er uden for anklager og mdashand således uden for loven.

Bare to uger efter opstanden aflægger den nye præsident sin embedsed og mdash, mens broerne, der leder ud af byen, er lukkede, jernbanen har standset sydgående tog, gader er lukket af, regeringsbygninger er spærret, og civile er blevet opfordret til at blive fra gaderne i deres egen hovedstad.

Abraham Lincoln talte til en nation på randen af ​​krig den 4. marts 1861, praktisk talt ubevogtet blandt en skare af ængstelige borgere. Selv under de værste dage i borgerkrigen stod Lincoln igen på Capitolens trin for at holde sin elskede anden indledende tale og ikke omgivet af legioner af soldater, men af ​​civile, skarer af håbefulde mænd og kvinder knust af krig og bad for deres høje , stolt leder for at lykkes.

Nu holder den nye præsident sin tale om håb og enhed omgivet af høje metalhegn og motorkøretøjsbarrikader, bevogtet af en falanks af bevæbnede livvagter og en kardon af 25.000 tropper.

Hvis vi så denne scene udspille sig i Argentina, Tyrkiet, Ukraine eller Thailand, ville vi beklage demokratiets fiasko, skrive om en skrøbelig regering, der kæmper med oprørske oprørere i sin egen hovedstad, komme med forfærdelige forudsigelser om, hvor længe en sådan regering kunne bestå.

Men på denne belejrede tid og sted hylder amerikansk presse dette som en fredelig magtoverførsel. & Rdquo


Kunde anmeldelser

Top anmeldelser fra USA

Der opstod et problem med at filtrere anmeldelser lige nu. Prøv igen senere.

Jeg har uden tvivl lært mange fakta om amerikansk og europæisk pengepolitik og udenrigspolitik gennem hele denne bog. Der er mange citater hele vejen igennem, desværre peger nogle citater på tvivlsomme websteder (brietbart, tfmetalsreport, zerohedge). Intet fremlagt lød for off, men mod slutningen af ​​bogen spekulerede jeg på, om dette var udgivet af russeren eller en guldskubber. Her er et eksempel på en passage: "fortsæt som vasalstater til Amerikas Forenede Stater". Denne sætning blev brugt mere end én gang i denne bog.

Hvem er James S. Gibson? Jeg kunne ikke finde ham i en Google-søgning, og jeg prøvede endda "James S. Gibson" CEO eller "James S.Gibson" SEC-arkivering, da hans navn uden tvivl ville være på noget, hvis han var en C-suite executive.

Det er en selvudgivet bog trykt på bestilling. Den læser helt sikkert som en selvudgivet bog, har til tider næsten en manifestation til det, og der blev fundet nogle redigeringsfejl.

Ingen tvivl om, at kineserne indstiller sig til at blive den næste verdensmagt gennem størrelse, BNP, guldakkumulering, ekspansion på tværs af verden osv. Jeg vidste allerede, at dette skete, og denne bog gjorde et godt stykke arbejde med at forklare, hvordan det foregik.

Til alle dem, der overvejer at købe James Gibsons bog: Jeg anbefaler stærkt at gøre det, da jeg fandt det som en klar, kortfattet og hurtig læsning, der var velorganiseret og bestemt veldokumenteret. Det er også en autoritativ kilde, der kan overdrages til dem, der måske ikke tror på dig, men måske tror på en international bankmand.

En profet er uden ære i deres eget land. " Tro på denne fyr !!

James Gibsons udtømmende undersøgte bog, From West to East giver læseren et fuldt omfang af den økonomiske historie og handlinger bag den skyggefulde gruppe mennesker, han kalder " The Puppeteers "
Hvis du overhovedet har spekuleret over, hvorfor verden virker så dysfunktionel i dag, hvis du har stillet spørgsmålstegn ved, hvorfor ting ikke virker rigtigt, når de skulle være, har du kigget ind under hjørnet af forhænget, der dækker de mennesker, der trækker i magtstængerne og har gjort det i flere hundrede år.
Fra vest til øst belyser, hvordan magterne konstant manipulerer alt, hvad vi holder nær og kære. Det gør det fra både et fuldt spektrum historisk grundlag til en opdateret, samtidig redegørelse for, hvordan vestens magt og rigdom bevæger sig mod øst, hvem der flytter den, hvorfor det sker, og hvordan det vil påvirke dem i vest . James beskriver tidslinjen for denne bevægelse, de spillere, der er en del af den største formueoverførsel i verden, og hvordan du enten kan være ved virkningen af ​​den eller beskytte dig selv mod dens virkning. Alle de centrale begivenheder i de sidste 10 år, der tilsyneladende ofte er afbrudt fra hinanden, er i virkeligheden en del af den samme strøm af strøm og penge, som dukkemændene brugte til gavn for deres planer.
Hvis det ser ud til, at vi i vest og vores verden er i en stigende tilstand af uorden, viser fra vest til øst, hvordan vi kan vende
tidevandet, hvad udfaldet af bevægelsen vil være under og efter genstart og gulds store betydning i den brede plan.

Hvis du køber en bog i år, skal du sætte denne øverst på din liste over en "Must Read ", hvis du skal have styr på alle de ting, der skaber overskrifterne, og hvorfor disse overskrifter ikke præcist skildrer den virkelige historie


Mountbatten og magtoverførsel

På 50 -årsdagen for indisk uafhængighed revurderer Alan Johnson Mountbattens rolle i processen med opdeling og hans arv.

Mens Mountbatten fra begyndelsen havde insisteret på en streng tidsfrist på femten måneder inden for at udføre sin opgave som værende den nødvendige stimulans for at opnå en løsning, havde ingen for alvor forventet en så hurtig transformationsscene, og der var udbredt akklamation for Mountbattens energi og dygtighed til at instruere og producere det. Lord Samuel, den liberale filosofstatsmand, der havde en tendens til at vælge sine ord omhyggeligt, talte om parlamentarisk lovforslag om at ratificere indisk uafhængighed som 'en moral for alle kommende generationer - en fredstraktat uden krig', mens Lord Listowel, Storbritanniens sidste udenrigsminister for Indien, og selv en studerende i historie, beskrev begivenheden som et af vendepunkterne i det tyvende århundrede. Da ti år senere henledte Harold Macmillan opmærksomheden på 'Wind of Change', der påvirkede Afrika, var det naturligt at antage, at det blæste ind fra Det Indiske Ocean.

For at fortsætte med at læse denne artikel skal du købe adgang til onlinearkivet.

Hvis du allerede har købt adgang, eller er abonnent på print & amp -arkiver, skal du sørge for at være det logget ind.


Sikh -historie: sikher og magtoverførsel

Sikherne mistede efter de to anglo-sikh-krige deres rige, og Punjab kom under det britiske styre i 1849. Briterne bragte ved anlæg af jernbaner, veje og kanaler provinsen stabilitet. Sikherne blev sammen med andre Punjabis de mest velstående bønder i Indien, og de sluttede sig i stigende antal til hæren under briterne. Men tegn på uro begyndte at dukke op blandt dem, da lovgivning, der begrænsede kolonisternes rettigheder i de kanalvandede lande, der blev tildelt dem, blev vedtaget. I 1907 var der demonstrationer og anholdelser. De britiske myndigheder frygtede spredningen af ​​utilfredshed til sikhsoldater i hæren og trak lovgivningen tilbage, og uroen faldt. Et par år senere førte hård behandling af sikh -immigranter af den hvide befolkning på den vestlige halvkugle til dannelsen af ​​et revolutionært parti, hvoraf de fleste var sikher. Kendt som Ghadr -partiet var dets erklærede formål at vælte det britiske styre, og i begyndelsen af ​​Første Verdenskrig tog en række Ghadr -ledere deres vej tilbage til Indien i håb om at sætte gang i oprør. Mange af dem blev anholdt i havnene umiddelbart efter ankomsten, og bevægelsen petered ud. Men sikhs energi og interesse blev hurtigt koncentreret om et rent religiøst spørgsmål- genoprettelsen af ​​kontrollen over sikhiske tilbedelsessteder (gurdwaras). Gurdwara Reform -bevægelsen fortsatte fra 1920 til 1925, og sikherne kom i åben konflikt med de britiske myndigheder, der greb ind for at beskytte de degenererede mahanter eller præster med ansvar for gurdwaras. Lovgivning, der forvaltede ledelsen af ​​gurdwarerne i Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak -komitéen, som blev valgt til et organ, bragte til sidst ophidselsen til ophør, men den havde fremmedgjort for briterne en betydelig del af sikherne og akali -aktivisterne i Gurdwara -reformen bevægelse fremkom som et magtfuldt parti. Den generelle opvågning forårsaget af Akali -kampagnen styrket den nationale bevægelse i Indien. Sikherne spillede også i det en vovet rolle langt ude af proportion med deres lille procentdel i landets befolkning.

De indiske muslimers krav om anerkendelse af deres separate politiske enhed var en alvorlig udfordring for sikhernes position i Punjab. Regeringen satte sit segl på muslimsk kommunalisme ved at indføre separate vælgere under Minto-Morley-reformerne fra 1909 og ved at give vægtet repræsentation til muslimer i provinser, hvor de var i mindretal. Vedtagelsen af ​​dette splittende princip skabte en permanent spaltning mellem hinduer og muslimer. I 1916 forsøgte den indiske nationale kongres at blidgøre den muslimske liga ved at indrømme sine kommunale krav og indgå en aftale med den, der er kendt som Lucknow -pagten. Ved denne pagt havde muslimerne deres repræsentation i de forskellige lovgivningsråd specificeret, og i Punjab skulle de have deres egen eksklusive vælgere 50 procent af rådets pladser. Sikherne, der var et indflydelsesrige samfund i regionen og havde vigtige interesser på spil, blev fuldstændig ignoreret i denne ligakongress. Sikherne fandt sig reduceret til en tilstand af politisk vildmark og begyndte at presse på for deres egne rettigheder. De forlangte at blive behandlet i Punjab på samme måde som muslimerne blev behandlet i provinser, hvor de var i mindretal. Deres synspunkt blev ventileret af chefen Khalsa Diwan, dengang deres vigtigste organiserede fest. Sir Sundar Singh Majithia, sekretær for Diwan, skrev et brev til Punjab -regeringen den 26. december 1916 med angivelse af sikhernes krav om repræsentation i de kejserlige og provinsielle råd.

I august 1917 afgav statssekretæren for Indien, Edwin Samuel Montagu, sin betydningsfulde erklæring om, at formålet med britisk politik med hensyn til Indien var den gradvise udvikling af selvstyrende institutioner med henblik på en gradvis realisering af ansvarlig regering. Da Montagu besøgte Indien det efterår, formidlede Maharaja Bhupinder Singh fra Patiala Sikhs ’ visninger til ham. En deputation af sikh-lederne ventede også på vicekongen (22. november 1917) og pressede sikher ’ krav på en tredjedel repræsentation i Punjab på grundlag af deres tjenester i krigen.

Montagu-Chelmsford-rapporten, der blev udsendt i foråret 1918, beroligede sikherne. Dets forfattere var uenige i princippet om separat repræsentation, som blev givet til muslimerne og udtrykte beklagelse over, at det ikke kunne ændres. Men de mente, at det, der var blevet givet til muslimerne, ikke på nogen måde kunne være nægtet sikherne. Montagu-Chelmsford-forslagene blev drøftet i det fælles udvalg i Punjab Lovgivende Råd. Den muslimske leder, Mian Fazl Husain, forsøgte at presse en resolution igennem om, at den muslimske andel i Punjab Lovgivende Råd skulle være baseret på Lucknow -pagten. Sardar Gajjan Singh fra Ludhiana foreslog, at ordene, der er genstand for sikhernes retfærdige krav, tilføjes til beslutningen. Den uskyldige ændring blev kraftigt modsat af både muslimske og hinduistiske medlemmer. Formanden henledte deres opmærksomhed på den uretfærdighed, de gjorde mod sikherne, men forgæves. Ændringsforslaget blev sat til afstemning og som forventet tabt med seks til to-begge negative stemmer som sikhernes.

Government of India Act fra 1919 gav sikherne ikke den repræsentation på 33 procent, som de havde forventet. I henhold til den nye forfatning ville Punjab Lovgivende Råd bestå af 93 medlemmer, hvoraf 15 skulle være sikher valgt af sikh -vælgere Centralforsamlingen skulle have 145 medlemmer, hvoraf tre skulle være sikher. Statsrådet ville have 60 medlemmer, af hvem man skulle være sikh. Chief Khalsa Diwan gjorde en sidste indsats for at påvirke den britiske regering til at revidere sin beslutning. En delegation bestående af Sewaram Singh, Shivdev Singh Uberoi, Sohan Singh fra Rawalpindi og Ujjal Singh ankom til London en uge efter at det blandede parlamentariske udvalg havde aflagt sin rapport.
Den eneste tilfredshed, de kunne få, var viden om, at udvalget havde øget sikhs repræsentation i Punjab med to.

Det første valg under loven fandt sted. sted i 1920. Unionistpartiet, en kombination af muslimer og hinduer, der repræsenterer landbrugsinteresser, kom til magten. Sundar Singh Majithia, en repræsentant for Chief Khalsa Diwan, blev nomineret til guvernørens råd og blev betroet at varetage indtægtsspørgsmål. Nogle akalier, der blev valgt til lovgiver et par år senere, holdt afstand, selvom Unionistpartiets politikker gavnet sikh -bønderne.
Stort set det samme politiske mønster fortsatte med indførelsen af ​​provinsielt selvstyre under Government of India Act fra 1935. Efter valget vinteren 1936-37 dannede unionisterne under Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan regeringen og Sir Sundar Singh Majithia, hvis parti, nu kendt som Khalsa National Party, havde vundet omkring halvdelen af ​​de 33 sikh -sæder, accepteret embedet som indtægtsminister, men de fleste af de andre sikh -medlemmer, Akalis, Congress Sikhs og uafhængige, sluttede sig til oppositionen.

Under den anden af ​​rundbordskonferencerne, der gik forud for vedtagelsen af ​​1935 -loven, havde sikhs repræsentanter, Ujjal Singh og Sampuran Singh, presset på for at give vægt, hvilket gav dem 30 procent repræsentation i Punjab og 5 procent i centret, med mindst et sikh -medlem i centralkabinettet. Alternativt foreslog de en omlægning af grænserne for Punjab, hvorved de to muslimske flertalsdivisioner i Rawalpindi og Multan, med undtagelse af kolonidistrikterne Lyallpur og Montgomery, ville blive løsrevet og inkluderet i provinsen North-West Frontier. Hvis dette blev gjort, ville sikherne ikke bede om nogen vægtning i de resterende områder, da den muslimske og hinduistiske befolkning ville være omtrent lige stor, og sikherne ville holde balancen. Der blev ikke taget hensyn til dette forslag. Pakistans råb var endnu ikke blevet rejst
og ingen var villige til at overveje en deling af Punjab til fordel for sikherne. Af den britiske regerings kommunale pris blev sikherne kun tildelt en marginal stigning i deres vægt i Punjab -33 sæderne ude. af i alt 175- men de var sikret en vis repræsentation i forbundsloven og i North-West Frontier Province.

Sir Sikandars unionistiske ministerium tiltrådte i henhold til loven fra 1935 i foråret 1937. Inden for meget kort tid skete der en radikal og uforudsete ændring i den politiske situation. På. rundbordskonferencerne var tanken om Pakistan kun blevet nævnt for at blive latterliggjort, men i 1938 begyndte den muslimske liga under MA Jinnahs ledelse at genoplive den og i marts 1940 vedtog man i Lahore en resolution, der krævede uafhængige suveræne muslimske stater i muslimen de fleste områder i Indien, herunder det meste af Punjab. Desuden havde Sikandar Hayat Khan i efteråret 1938, der følte, at alle muslimer skulle stå sammen mod truslen om hinduistisk dominans i en potentiel forbundsregering, tilsluttet sig ligaen med alle sine muslimske tilhængere, og selvom de stadig var medlemmer af unionisten Parti, som medlemmer af ligaen blev de alle udadtil engagerede i kravet om Pakistan. Sikandar selv troede ikke på Pakistan og forsikrede hinduistiske og sikhiske tilhængere af Unionistpartiet om, at fuldstændig adskillelse af de hinduistiske og muslimske provinser i Indien til uafhængige suveræne stater ikke var tiltænkt. Men Jinnah udviste ingen intentioner om at rokke ved jorden, og sikherne så sig selv stået over for truslen om at blive et lille mindretal i en stor muslimsk stat, for dette ville være deres skæbne, hvis Punjab blev inkluderet i Pakistan, som Jinnah krævede. I stedet for at acceptere denne skæbne, ville sikherne og#8217 tilbøjelighed kræve opdeling af Punjab.

På dette tidspunkt gik effektiv ledelse af sikherne over til Akalis, for Khalsa National Party, der støt havde mistet indflydelse, blev yderligere svækket af døden i begyndelsen af ​​1941 af Sundar Singh Majithia. Akalierne havde altid været noget isolerede-anti-britiske og i opposition til den anglofile unionistiske regering i Punjab. De følte nu, at de havde brug for venner, især især efter at pakistansk resolution var vedtaget, var der endnu en trussel mod sikhs interesser og et forslag om at stoppe al yderligere rekruttering af sikher til de væbnede styrker. Dette var resultatet af tegn på utilfredshed blandt sikh -tropper i de første måneder af krigen, som akaliernes egen foruroligende indflydelse på sikh -bønderne delvis var ansvarlig for. Forslaget, der i sidste ende faldt, foruroligede akalierne, der var meget bevidste om værdien for sikherne af deres position i hæren, og de besluttede, at de skulle ændre deres modstand mod den unionistiske regering og deres hidtil lunkne holdning til krigsindsatsen. De deltog derfor i tilrettelæggelsen af ​​en Khalsa Defense of India League for at stimulere sikh -rekruttering, og i juni 1942 indgik de en regelmæssig pagt med Sikandar ’s unionistiske regering og en Akali -kandidat, Sardar Baldev Singh, blev minister. Denne pagt varede i resten af ​​krigen og repræsenterede en aftale mellem sikher og Punjabi -muslimer, som man håbede kunne vise sig at være en hindring for Jinnahs krav om et suverænt Pakistan og afværge faren for en opdeling af Punjab.

I løbet af de næste kritiske år samledes sikher under Akali -banneret, selvom der var elementer blandt dem, der var tilhængere af kongressen og kommunistpartiet. Men i 1942 på tidspunktet for Cripps ’ -missionen var næsten alle sikh -ledere forenet i deres modstand mod Pakistan og i deres beslutsomhed om at modstå adskillelsen af ​​Punjab fra resten af ​​Indien. De hilste selvfølgelig ligesom andre indianere velkommen, at Cripps ’ tilbuddet om virtuel uafhængighed i slutningen af ​​krigen, men de protesterede mod den ret, Cripps ’ -forslagene gav til en individuel provins om at fravælge den forventede indiske union. Dette forekom dem at svare til en accept af Pakistan, og det var utvivlsomt en succes for Jinnah, for det var briternes første offentlige erkendelse af muligheden for, at Indien kunne blive delt. It was followed immediately after Cripps’ departure by Rajagopalachari submitting to the All-India Congress Committee a resolution that the principle of Pakistan should be conceded. To the Sikhs, who had always thought that the Congress could be relied on to stand firm against any dismemberment of India, Rajagopalachari’s resolution came as a rude shock and , though it was rejected and Rajagopalachari himself resigned from the Congress, it was an indication to them of a possible Congress weakening over the issue. Shortly afterwards, the Congress leaders by launching the Quit India movement condemned themselves to jail for most of the rest of the War, leaving Jinnah a free field in which to carry on his Pakistan propaganda. He steadily strengthened his hold over the Muslims and gained ever wider support for his demand for Pakistan.

In 1944, he expelled from the League Sir Khizar Hayat Khan Tiwana who shared Sikandar’s views about Pakistan and on his death, in 1942, had succeeded him as premier of the Punjab. Khizar was able to retain the loyalty of most of the supporters in the provincial assembly, but a rift opened in the ranks of the Muslim Unionists and it became doubtful whether the Punjabi Muslims would resist the lure of Pakistan. In the same year Rajagopalachari provided further evidence that the Congress might not stand firm on the unity of India. He persuaded Mahatma Gandhi to offer Jinnah a Pakistan consisting of contiguous Muslim-majority areas in the northwest and northeast of India. Jinnah rejected this offer of a `moth-eaten’ Pakistan, but the Sikhs were very indignant at the offer being made at all. Claiming that. the Sikhs were, like the Muslims, a separate nation, they began to talk of demanding an independent sovereign Sikh State. This was to have boundaries roughly the same as those proposed for the Punjab by the Sikh representatives at the Second Round Table Conference and would include the whole of the Lahore Division and the colony districts of Lyallpur and Montgomery. The idea of pressing for such a State had been simmering in the minds of some of the Akali leaders ever since the League’s Pakistan resolution was passed but most of them recognized that it was impracticable, for the Sikhs were not in a majority in any definable area and the Muslims could not be expected meekly to surrender areas where they were in a majority. The demand was not therefore formally put forward at this stage.

By the end of the War, Jinnah appeared to have gained the allegiance of the great majority of Muslims and this was confirmed by the elections held during the cold weather of 1945-46. Except in the North-West Frontier Province, the League everywhere won almost all the Muslim seats. For the Sikhs its most significant success was in the Punjab where the once powerful Unionist Party with which, since the Sikandar-Baldev Singh pact, most of the Sikhs had been in alliance, was virtually wiped out, and the League emerged as the largest single party. The Sikhs, in order to demonstrate their solid opposition to Pakistan, had all joined together with the exception of the Communists to fight the elections as a single party under the auspices of the Panthic Pratinidhi Board. This was every where successful and the Communist Sikhs, who supported Pakistan, were eliminated. The League, despite its electoral success, did not command a majority in the provincial assembly and without the support of some other groups, which it failed to obtain, was unable to form a ministry in the Punjab. So Khizar, with the backing of the Panthic party, led by Baldev Singh, and of the Congress, continued as premier. But now that his Muslim Unionists were reduced to a mere handful, the Unionist Sikh alliance could no longer be a defence against the Muslim demand for Pakistan.

The Labour Government. which took office in England in July 1945 was determined to transfer power to Indian hands as soon as possible but the Hindu-Muslim cleavage over Pakistan stood in the way. In the hope of resolving the differences a Cabinet Mission (the Secretary of State for India, PethickLawrence, along with Sir Stafford Cripps and A.V. Alexander) came out to India in March 1946 and started interviewing representatives of all major parties and interests. The Sikh representatives, Master Tara Singh, Giani Kartar Singh and Harnam Singh (a Lahore lawyer), and Baldev Singh, who was interviewed separately, said that they stood for a united India, but if it was to be divided then they would want a separate Sikh State, which Giani Kartar Singh explained to mean a province where the Sikhs were in a dominant or almost a dominant position, and this should be free to federate either with Hindustan or Pakistan. So as to bring most of the Sikhs within it, the boundaries of this province were to be much the same as proposed by the Sikhs before and would include considerable Muslim-majority areas but the Sikhs argued that population was not the only factor to be considered and that the Sikhs’ large holdings of land in the areas they claimed must also be taken into account. They also suggested that there should be a transfer of population under government auspices and said that within five or ten years nearly all the Sikh population could be concentrated in the proposed Khalistan. The Central Akali Dal (Baba Kharak Singh’s group) presented a separate memorandum on behalf of their party. It drew attention to the faulty compilation of census figures which made the Muslims a majority community in the Punjab. It opposed the partition of the Punjab and reiterated the demands that had been made by the Chief Khalsa Diwan many times since the introduction of democratic institutions, viz. 33%representation in the Punjab, 5% in the Centre, one Sikh member in the Central Cabinet. In addition, it demanded an 8% representation in the Constituent Assembly (as recommended by the Sapru Committee), a permanent 14% Sikh quota in the defence services Sikh representation in U.P, Sindh, Bihar, Bengal and Bombay and an increase in Sikh representation in the North-West Frontier Province. The Central Akali Dal supported joint electorates with reservation of seats for minorities and the setting up of special tribunals for the protection of minorities.

The Mission did not countenance the Sikhs’ demand for a separate autonomous State, though it did recognize their strong feeling against being subjected to the Muslim rule and their desire to keep the community together. Moreover, they had been convinced by their other numerous interviews that, outside the supporters of the Muslim League, there was an almost universal desire to preserve the unity of India. They rejected, therefore, a Pakistan of six provinces as claimed by jinnah, since this would place substantial minorities, particularly the Sikhs, under Muslim rule. They also rejected, as did jinnah himself, a truncated Pakistan of contiguous ,Muslim-majority areas, involving a radical-partition of the Punjab. This, they believed, would be contrary to the wishes of most of the people and would of necessity divide the Sikhs, leaving substantial bodies of them on both sides of the border. Having rejected Pakistan, they put forward a scheme for an All-India union limited to defence, foreign affairs and communications within which the provinces claimed for Pakistan could be formed into sub-federations and they suggested a procedure for forming on this basis a three-tier constitution- Provinces, Groups of provinces and Union. A Constituent Assembly, elected by the provincial legislatures, would divide up into three sections, one representing the six Hindu-majority provinces and the two others the Pakistan provinces in the northwest and northeast of India. These sections, meeting separately, would draw up constitutions for the provinces included in them and decide whether a Group should be formed and with what subjects. All the sections would then meet together to frame the Union Constitution. The Muslim League and the Congress accepted this scheme the latter, however, with reservations. Sikhs were united in rejecting it. Complaining that they had been included, without safeguards, in a Muslim Group of provinces where they would be in a hopeless minority, they declined to elect representatives to the Constituent Assembly and prevailed on Baldev Singh to refuse an invitation to serve in an Interim Government that. the Viceroy was trying to form. The Mission felt their fears to be exaggerated, and, in reply to an indignant letter from Master Tara Singh, the Secretary of State pointed out that of the various alternatives open to the Mission their scheme was, from the Sikh point of view, the best. They had escaped inclusion in a sovereign Muslim State and also escaped division through a partition of the Punjab. Eventually, the Sikhs were persuaded by the Congress to take part in the Constituent Assembly and Baldev Singh became defence minister in an Interim Government which Jawaharlal Nehru, on the Viceroy’s invitation, formed on 2 September 1946. Some hope was also held out to them that, by agreement between the Congress and the League, they would be allowed in the section in which they were included the same power of vetoing a resolution raising any major communal issue as under the Mission’s scheme had been granted to the Muslims in the Union Constituent Assembly. By this time, however, Sikh objections to the Mission’s scheme were becoming somewhat academic, as the. chances were, receding that it would ever be put into operation.

The Congress’ acceptance of the Mission’s scheme had been ambiguous, for they persisted in an interpretation of its provisions regarding the sections and the grouping of provinces which the Mission had declared to be erroneous. At a meeting in Bombay on 29 July 1946 the Council of the League withdrew their previous acceptance of it and decided that a programme of `Direct Action’ should be prepared for the achievement of Pakistan. Jinnali also declined to collaborate in the Interim Government. The immediate sequel to the Bombay resolution was an outbreak of communal rioting on an unprecedented scale in Calcutta on 16 August fixed by the League as Direct Action Day. This was followed in October by Muslim assaults on Hindus in East Bengal, which in turn provided a large-scale massacre of Muslims by Hindus in Bihar. In the hope of easing the communal tension by bringing the League into the Interim Government the Viceroy, Lord Wavell, himself entered into negotiations with Jinnah and, at the end of October, five League nominees joined the government on the understanding that the League would rescind the Bombay resolution and take part in the work of the Constituent Assembly.

After the League’s entry into the government there was a lull in communal rioting, but Jinnah was unwilling to reconsider the Bombay resolution without an assurance that the Mission’s scheme would be worked in the manner the Mission intended and this assurance the Congress were unwilling to give, for they stuck to their own interpretation of the scheme. The main point now at issue was whether in the sections the voting regarding the provincial constitutions and the formation of groups should be by provinces, as the Congress, with the full concurrence of the Sikhs, contended (which would almost certainly preclude the formation of groups), or by simple majority vote, as the League claimed. After discussions in London, to which at the beginning of December 1946 the leaders of both parties along with Sardar Baldev Singh, as a representative of the Sikhs, were invited, the British government issued a statement upholding the latter interpretation. The All India Congress Committee accepted this interpretation, but with the qualification that there must be no compulsion for a province or part of the province and that the rights of the Sikhs should not be jeopardized. Jinnah was not persuaded to modify his stand and, on 31 January 1947, the Working Committee of the League declined to recommend reconsideration of the Bombay resolution and called on the British government to dissolve the Constituent Assembly, which had met in December without League representatives.

The British government, realizing that some fresh initiative was now required, announced on 20 February that Lord Mountbatten would replace Lord Wavell as Viceroy and that, come what may, they would transfer power to Indian hands not later than June 1948. They instructed Mountbatten to try to preserve the unity of India on the basis of the Mission’s plan, but if by 1 October this proved to be impossible, to report what steps should be taken for handing over power by the date fixed. The League had now firmly rejected the Mission’s plan, and if civil war was to be averted the only solution to which all parties might be induced to agree, was truncated Pakistan of contiguous Muslim-majority areas, involving the partition of Bengal and the Punjab and the division of the Sikhs. Though Jinnah had previously rejected it, he realized that this was the most he could get and was content to take it rather than have no sovereign Pakistan at all. The Congress had always said that they would not contemplate compelling the people of any part of the country to remain in India against their will, and in face of Jinnah’s obduracy were now ready to let him take the areas which on a population basis he could indisputably claim. The Sikhs who would suffer most if the Punjab was partitioned on this basis, since this would divide them leaving some two million out of about 5-1/2 million on the Pakistan side of the border, were insistent on partition rather than that the whole Sikh community should be included in Pakistan. So Mountbatten had no great difficulty in securing the acquiescence of all three parties, the Congress, the League and the Sikhs, in a plan for dividing the country, and proceeded with the utmost speed to carry it out.

Jinnah’s original aim had been to include in Pakistan the whole of the Punjab except for some Hindi-speaking districts of the Ambala division. His only way of achieving this aim would have been to conciliate the Sikhs, the most compact and militant minority. Some of the Akalis, notably Giani Kartar Singh, were not wholly averse to the Sikhs throwing in their lot with Pakistan, provided they could get good terms. Det. would avert the danger of division, and in Pakistan the Sikhs, because they were so distinct from the Muslims would unquestionably retain their identity and as a well-organized minority could have some political weight. The Sikh Communists, who favoured joining Pakistan, suggested that within it a small Sikh-dominated province should be created, consisting of five central Punjab districts plus the Sikh Princely states. Giani Kartar Singh would have wanted to add to this at least the Lahore and the Sheikhupura districts and one colony district, Montgomery, and would also have demanded weightage for the Sikhs in the Pakistan services and a favoured position in the army. But Jinnah, though he said that he intended to give to Sikhs anything they asked for within reason, never troubled to ascertain what they wanted or made them any concrete proposals.

Then early in March 1947 events occurred that determined the Sikhs that in no circumstances would they allow themselves to be included as community in a Muslim-dominated Pakistan. In a widespread outbreak of communal rioting throughout the province, touched off by the resignation of Khizar’s government and a belief among Hindus and Sikhs that a League ministry might take its place pockets of Sikhs in the Rawalpindi and Attock districts were barbarously attacked by Muslim mobs, their houses pillaged and set on fire and themselves murdered or compelled to fly for their lives. After these atrocities which the League leaders signally failed to condemn, Jinnah continued to express a desire for a settlement with the Sikhs but Baldev Singh and Giani Kartar Singh both said that there could be no discussion with him on the basis of the Sikhs being included in Pakistan, and Master Tara Singh declared that he could have nothing further to do with the Muslim League.

The Sikh leaders were as determined to keep their community together as to avoid its inclusion in Pakistan, and with this in view urged that in partitioning the Punjab population should not be the sole criterion but that weight should also be given to such factors as ownership of property, the Sikhs’ stake in the canal colonies and the existence of important Sikh shrines in west of Lahore. An attempt was made to satisfy them by giving instruction to the Boundary Commission, appointed at the end of June 1947 as part of Mountbatten’s partition plan, that in laying down the line of division on the basis of contiguous majority areas of Muslims and non Muslims, should also take into account other factors.

A memorandum was presented to the Boundary Commission by thirty-two Sikh members of the Punjab Legislative Assembly arguing, mainly on the basis of these other factors, that the boundary should be drawn along the Chenab and thus keep over 90 per cent of the Sikhs in eastern Punjab. But few Sikh leaders really expected that regard for other factors would lead the Commission to make an award so favourable to them and whereas the Congress and League leaders publicly pledged themselves to accept its award, Sikh leaders declined to do so and many of them openly declared that they would resist it, if it was not to their liking. Giani Kartar Singh warned the Governor of the Punjab, Sir Evan Jenkins, that there would be tears and bloodshed if the boundary problem was not suitably solved, and stressed the need for a large-scale exchange of population as he had, earlier suggested to Mountbatten.

Early in August, communal riots erupted in the Amritsar district, and these increased in scale and number as 15 August, the date fixed for the transfer of power, approached. Muslims made reprisal attacks on Sikh villages in the Lahore district, as the Sikh attacks had generally been in revenge for the earlier Muslim onslaughts on Sikhs in the Rawalpindi district.

As had been expected, the Boundary Commission fixed the line of division down to the centre of the Punjab, leaving about 2 million Sikhs on the Pakistan side of the border. If the small Sikh community was to survive as an integral whole, as the Sikh leaders desired, these had to move, and soon after 15 August large number of Sikh colonists in the Montgomery district and smaller number in the colony areas of Multan and Bahawalpur state, left their villages as though at the word of command and trekked into eastern Punjab. But not all the Sikhs on the Pakistan side of the border moved so quickly or got off so lightly. Those who moved after 15 August faced murder and despoliation. The other side of the Punjab where Muslims were in a minority was also engulfed in violence. The Sikhs as a community were the worst sufferers, for Muslims made Sikhs rather than Hindus the principal target of attack but they were successful in realizing their aim of retaining unbroken the community’s cohesion.


Pages from History – 1947 August 15 : Some Documents that explain the Transfer of Power

Lord Mountbatten, then Viceroy of India, describes the 15th August as ‘the most remarkable and inspiring day of my life’…. He was asked to become the Governor-General of India after independence, which he accepted for a limited transitional period…

Viceroy’s personal report no. 17, dated 16th August, 1947, marked as

Top Secret and Personal, says :

“ At 6 p.m. the great event of the day was to take place – the salutation of the new Dominion flag. This programme had originally included a ceremonial lowering of the Union Jack: but when I discussed this with Nehru he entirely agreed that this was a day they wanted everybody to be happy, and if the lowering of the Union Jack in any way offended British susceptibilities, he would certainly see that it did not take place, the more so as the Union Jack would still be flown on a dozen days a year in the Dominion.”

And new India led by Jawaharlal Nehru promised India would continue to be part of Commonwealth led by the British Crown. India continues to be so till date.

Following are EXTRACTS from some materials, official and historical documents, about 1947 August 15. Notes, and emphases are added by us. They show what a sham the independence was.

1) Indian Independence Act 1947

1947 CHAPTER 30 10 and 11 Geo 6

An Act to make provision for the setting up in India of two independent Dominions, to substitute other provisions for certain provisions of the Government of India Act 1935, which apply outside those Dominions, and to provide for other matters consequential on or connected with the setting up of those Dominions [18th July 1947]

(1)As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan.

(2)The said Dominions are hereafter in this Act referred to as “the new Dominions”, and the said fifteenth day of August is hereafter in this Act referred to as “the appointed day”.

Long title : An Act to make provision for the setting up in India of two independent Dominion states, to substitute other provisions for certain provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935, which apply outside those Dominions, and to provide for other matters consequential on or connected with the setting up of those Dominions.

Citation: 1947 c. 30 (10 & 11. Geo. 6.)

Date of Royal assent 18 July 1947.

Note : The word independence nowhere occurs….It says : two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan.

The Concise OXFORD Dictionary gives the meaning : “ Dominion (historical) is a self-governing territory of the British Commonwealth”

It speaks of “setting up in India”….here India can only mean British India… , ie., setting up two units, India and Pakistan, in British India.

Earl of Listowel , a minister in the (wartime) Churchill and Attlee governments, who was part of Mountbatten’s team wrote : We had assumed, when the Bill was drafted, that the two new Dominions would have a common Governor-General, and that Mountbatten would be willing to stay on in this capacity.

That is both will have the same British Boss.

He revealed, rather recalled in a 1980 speech :

“ In the first draft of the India Bill, the title at its head appeared as ‘India (Dominion Status) Bill’. Cripps sensed immediately that Indian opinion would think that this was an imperialist trick to give something less than complete independence. At his suggestion the Cabinet therefore decided to change the title to ‘India (Independence) Bill’…” However, the content remains the same, and speaks of setting up two dominions. (More about him and his speech is given below)

The legislation was formulated by the government of Clement Attlee with the recommendation of the Governor General of India Lord Mountbatten, after representatives of the Indian National Congress, [2] det Muslim League, [3] og Sikh community [4] came to an agreement with Lord Mountbatten on what has come to be known as the 3 June Plan eller Mountbatten Plan. This plan was the last plan for independence.

Article 395 of Constitution of India – Repeals The Indian Independence Act, 1947 , and the Government of India Act, 1935 , together with all enactment s amending or supplementing the latter Act, but not including the Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act, 1949 ..Thus this Act of 1947 was in operation until 1950 January 26. Later, it is repealed, but its content is essentially retained. India continues to be part of Commonwealth as envisaged in it.

The 1947 Act has not been repealed in the United Kingdom, where it still has effect, although some sections of it have been repealed, says Wikipedia.

Picture : The British Empire’s Seal under which the Act was made

Ninth Lecture – by the Earl of Listowel 24 June 1980

(Following extracts from the lecture are self-evident. They stress the deciding role of Britain, and Mountbatten as its Representative. Emphases added.)

The story of the transfer of power has been told before…. I know from my personal experience as a minister in the (wartime) Churchill and Attlee governments. This gave me some insight into the part played by the British Government in its dealings with the Government of India and the Indian political leaders during the final stages. But before I proceed any further I am sure you would wish me to remind you that we are meeting on the eve of what would have been Lord Mountbatten’s eightieth birthday…..

He accomplished his task with so much skill and understanding that it bound our two countries in the close friendship we enjoy at the present time. This was brought home to me with startling vividness by the welcome accorded to a parliamentary delegation with which I visited India last year, traversing the country from New Delhi to Chandigarh, and from there to Madras and Bombay. Wherever we went his (Mountbatten’s) name was remembered and acclaimed, with that of Nehru and Gandhi, as one of the founding fathers of the Indian nation. …

But imagine our astonishment when Mountbatten went on to inform us that both new nations now wished to stay in the Commonwealth, on condition that their independence could be expedited. He pointed out that Jinnah had always wanted Pakistan to become a Dominion in the Commonwealth, and that Congress, realizing that this would place them at a disadvantage, had asked for a similar constitutional status, provided the transfer could be effected earlier than June 1948. Nehru also regarded Dominion Status as a transitional arrangement that might lead to Indian unity.

It was V. P. Menon who drafted the Dominion Status scheme, which had proved acceptable to all concerned. Ministers were of course delighted by this change of front, and agreed without a murmur to a plan for the final transfer that now had the support of both communities as well as the Viceroy. ….

The process of partitioning British India was now in the hands of Mountbatten and the Indian party leaders,….. For this purpose Boundary Commissions were set up, and I was asked to find an independent chairman. As he was to have a casting vote, he would in fact decide the boundaries between the two new Dominions, and this obviously required the judicial mind of someone outside politics. I was advised that the best choice would be a High Court judge, with a brilliant record at the Bar, Sir Cyril Radcliffe. …I remember my trepidation when I went to see him …But with fine public spirit he accepted this difficult and controversial assignment without a moment’s hesitation….

We were thankful that Mountbatten shared our views to the full. We owe it to his remarkable influence with their rulers that the vast majority of the Princely States speedily negotiated their accession to one or other of the new Dominions. It was thus, thanks mainly to Mountbatten’s persuasive power and royal blood, that a legacy of potential strife and further fragmentation was avoided…

Over 560 princely states acceded to Indien by 15 August. Much credit is given to Patel and the Army in building new India. Facts are otherwise. Vast majority of the Princely States speedily negotiated their accession to one or other of the new Dominions, influenced and guided by Mountbatten, as seen above.

Vallabhai Patel , the Iron man, was only implementing the accession Plan by the British political engineer Mountbatten.

It was executed by the Indian Army, trained and reared under the British for more than a century, which continued to be under the Supreme Command of the British Commander-in-Chief, General Boucher for two years after August 15, 1947. Communist Revolutionary T. Nagi Reddy, in his monumental work , India Mortgaged,quotes Indian army’s Brigadier J.R Dalvi, author of the famous book, Himalayan Blunder :

“ Thus the Indian Army was developed as a mercenary army in the interests of the Imperialist power, completely cut off from the mainstream of the people, without national aims, and purposefully kept aloof from the political environment. It was such an army as this that the Indian Government received as a legacy from the British. Along with its anti-national legacy, the Indian Army continued to be under the Supreme Command of the British Commander-in-Chief, General Boucher for two years after August 15, 1947. Our Defence Services Education continued to be in the hands of the Imperialists, as was the case at the Defence Services Staff College at Wellington where, in October 1950 “the Commandant, General W.D.A. Lontaigne, strode into the main lecture hall, interrupted the lecturer and proceeded to denounce our leaders for their short sightedness and inaction in the face of Chinese Action “…

(Brigadier J.R Dalvi, Himalayan Blunder, Page. 28)

by MK Adithya, in countercurrents.org, of August 13, 2016.

Før India Office disappeared for ever on 15 August, the day of Indian Independence, I was expected to return my seals of office to the King. But when I asked for them, I was informed by my officials that they had been lost a long time ago by one of my predecessors. This has always seemed to me rather a strange story, as Secretaries of State do not go about with their seals of office like small

change in their pockets. But I dare say the mystery of the vanishing seals will remain one of the unsolved mysteries of history. …

4) Indian Independence: Transfer of Power

Rear-Admiral Viscount Mountbatten of Burma’s personal report No. 17 which was his last report as Viceroy of India, 16 August 1947, the last week of British rule in India. [IOR: L/PO/6/123]

(The extracts, self-explanatory, throw light on the mood of the day, August 15, 1947, as seen by him, and among elite classes, and reveals the slavish mindset, cultivated by the Congress etc. The numbers indicate the para numbers of the Report. Emphases added.)

Above : Times of India reports independence.

Lord Mountbatten, Viceroy of India, describes the 15th August as ‘the most remarkable and inspiring day of my life’ (see para 62). He was asked to become the Governor-General of India after independence, which he accepted for a limited transitional period.

Viceroy’s personal report no. 17, dated 16th August, 1947.

This last week of British rule in India has been the most hectic of any. We have been working longer hours and under more trying conditions, and with crises of differing magnitudes arising every day, and sometimes two or three times a day. The problem of the States continued to occupy most of my time, particularly of those Rulers who have kept changing their mind up to the last moment, whether to accede to India, to Pakistan, or to neither. I paid my farewell visit to Karachi, and took part in unbelievable scenes on the day of the transfer of power in Delhi. The issue which has created the greatest and most serious crisis to date has been the awards of the Boundary Commissions, a summary of which is given in appendix I.

  1. We got back from Karachi on the afternoon of the 14th. At twenty minutes past midnight on that night the President of the Constituent Assembly, Rajendra Prasad, and the new Prime Minister , Nehru, arrived to tell me that at the midnight session of the Constituent Assembly they had taken over power, and had endorsed the request of the leaders that I should become their first Governor General. The press had been allowed into my study to witness this historic event and after “Rajen Babu” as Rajendra Prasad is called by his friends, had delivered his message, Nehru said in ceremonious tones “May I submit to you the portfolios of the new Cabinet”. He then handed me a carefully addressed envelope, (on opening it after his departure I found it to be empty).
  2. The 15th August has certainly turned out to be the most remarkable and inspiring day of my life. We started at 8.30 with the Swearing-In ceremony in the Durbar Hall in front of an official audience of some 500, including a number of ruling Princes. The official guests, including Ambassadors, Princes and the Cabinet, then drove in procession from Government House (ex-Viceroy’s House) to the Council Chamber.
  3. Never have such crowds been seen within the memory of anyone I have spoken to. Not only did they line every rooftop and vantage point, but they pressed round so thick as to become finally quite unmanageable….
  4. It took us half an hour to go the short distance back, for we had to go slowly through the crowds. Once we were held up for some five minutes by the pressure of the crowds. Apart from the usual cries of “Jai Hind” and “Mahatma Gandhi ki Jai” and “Pandit Nehru ki Jai”, a surprising number shouted out “Mountbatten ki jai”.
  5. At 6 p.m. the great event of the day was to take place – the salutation of the new Dominion flag. This programme had originally included a ceremonial lowering of the Union Jack: but when I discussed this with Nehru he entirely agreed that this was a day they wanted everybody to be happy, and if the lowering of the Union Jack in any way offended British susceptibilities, he would certainly see that it did not take place, the more so as the Union Jack would still be flown on a dozen days a year in the Dominion.
  6. Meanwhile danger of a large scale accident (because of huge crowds-Ed) was becoming so great that we decided that the only thing to do was to try and move the coach on through the crowd and draw the crowd with us. For this reason I invited Nehru to stay in the coach which he did, sitting like a schoolboy on the front hood above the seats. ….Hundreds of thousands of people all running together is an impressive sight several thousands ran the whole three miles back alongside the coach and behind it, being stopped finally by the police only at the gates of Government House.
  7. No British or Indian whom I have since met has ever remembered crowd scenes even approaching those that were witnessed yesterday Indian observers all agreed that the reception which was accorded to us was no whit less enthusiastic than that accorded to their own leaders. This sounds rather incredible but it appears to be a fact and was generously referred to by Nehru in his speech last night as the best omen for the future good relations between our two countries.
  8. There are two other significant facts which I feel I should report. The first is that the President of the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, invited me on behalf of the Assembly to send back a “loyal” message of thanks to His Majesty saying that India and Britain even if their precise future relations wee different would always be the greatest friends. The other is that at a State banquet of a hundred that night Nehru made a speech in the most friendly terms possible prior to proposing the toast of the King. I replied and proposed the Dominion of India.
  9. Close on 3,000 people came to our evening party at Government House and stayed till after two o’clock in the morning. At this dinner and subsequent party the Ambassadors, the new Cabinet, the senior British and Indian officers of the Services, and Ruling Princes were freely mixed. I have never experienced such a day in my life…..

Postscript telephoned from Bombay on the evening of 17 August

The departure of British troops went off extremely well amidst scenes of great enthusiasm.

Our reception in Bombay was far more remarkable than in Delhi. The local police estimated the crowd as the greatest in the history of the city. Several hundreds of thousands lined the many miles of route, often breaking through the cordon and stopping our open car through sheer weight of numbers….

The crowd definitely shouted out, England Zindabad og Jai England.

  • (Extract) Secret Cabinet paper of conclusions of a meeting held at 10 Downing Street on 31 Dec 1946 – concerning the withdrawal from India.

The general feeling of the Cabinet was that withdrawal from India need not appear to be forced upon us by our weakness nor to be the first step in the dissolution of the Empire. On the contrary this action must be shown to be the logical conclusion, which we welcomed, of a policy followed by successive Governments for many years. It was too late to reverse the whole direction of our Indian policy, even if we had had any desire to do so, and there was no reason to fear special repercussions from the completion of that policy. Our main objective now was to bring the principal communities in India to co-operate, so that there should be a properly representative authority to whom we could hand over power. If the Viceroy was correct in his estimate that we should in any case be unable to continue effectively to rule India beyond the early part of 1948, and if the announcement of our intention to leave India by a specified date might have the effect of bringing the communities together, then it would be well of derive whatever advantage we could from the early announcement of action which would, in fact, be inevitable.”

“The view was expressed that a statement in these terms would give the impression that we were being forced out of India because we were unable to maintain our position there. In fact, our withdrawal would be the final stage in a deliberate policy of encouraging India’s development towards self-government, to which successive Governments in this country had subscribed for the last thirty years. It was certainly the desire of the present Government that the Indian people should assume full responsibility of self-government. There was, therefore, no occasion to excuse our withdrawal: we should rather claim credit for taking this initiative in terminating British rule in India and transferring our responsibilities to the representatives of the Indian people. ….

“Thus independence was proclaimed. The Union Jack was hauled down. The tri-colour was hoisted.

“At last the bride was brought home, but only after she had become a prostitute ”The national leaders “sought to cheat destiny by constitutional cunning “.

(Karl Marx. “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.”)

The above lines are from chapter one of INDIA MORTGAGED by Tarimela Nagi Reddy ,pages 2-8, 1971. It narrates how transfer of power took place and it was not real independence.


Se videoen: overførsel af billeder fra telefon til pc