India was a natural successor to British India and therefore, Ceylon as it was called then, should have become an integral part of India.
The Indian Constitution was prepared for adoption by 26 November 1949, but its implementation was purposely postponed to 26 January 1950, a date of historical importance for India. It was on 26 January 1930 that Indians were encouraged to celebrate their Independence Day, following the Congress’ Purna Swaraj resolution in Lahore on 19 December 1929.
The Congress’ decision to celebrate 26 January 1930 day as “Full Independence Day” came as a response to Lord Irwin, the then Viceroy of British India, suggesting possible “dominion” status for India, which the British Crown ultimately rejected. Dominion status grants near independence but still maintains ties with the British Crown. Some leaders, such as Subhas Bose, sought full independence rather than dominion status. Had India been granted this status, British India might have remained intact, but the British chose to divide it upon granting independence on 15 August 1947.
The British government’s refusal to grant dominion status to India in 1929 led to Congress adopting the “Full Independence” resolution. Since then, the British attempted to diminish India’s stature, resulting in its current fragmented state. They systematically disintegrated British India, ensuring India achieved independence in pieces, without regaining its historical territories. Let us see to what extent have the British fragmented us from 1929 onwards. Only some countries will be covered:
* Sri Lanka: This island nation was under British rule when India became independent on 15 August 1947. It changed its status from a British ruled territory to a dominion status as late as 4 February 1948. India was a natural successor to British India and therefore, Ceylon as it was called then, should have become an integral part of India.
* Bhutan: Bhutan was being governed by the British-Bhutan treaty of 1910 wherein it had all kinds of freedoms for its internal administration, but its foreign affairs were under the British government. The issue of Bhutan should have been settled but the treaty of 1910 was replaced with the India-Bhutan Treaty of 1949, which has become a princely state after signing the 1910 treaty with the British and becoming a part of British India in this format. Like all other princely states, being contagious and landlocked, it was fair for it to become an integral part of India. But we allowed the game plan of the British to succeed in the case of Bhutan as well.
* Myanmar: Myanmar came under British control after three Anglo-Burmese wars. The British entered Mandalay on 28 November 1885 to occupy the present-day Myanmar. These territories were annexed as “British India” in 1862. It continued in its present form except for some time when Japan had occupied that country during World War II. It was on 1 April 1937 that a separate office of administration was established in Burma, which was seven years after the Indian declaration of independence on 26 January 1930. It was logical for Myanmar to become a part of independent India on 15 August 1947. But Myanmar was granted independence by the British on 4 January 1948.
* Nepal: While the treaty of Sugauli defined the contours of Nepal-British India relationship, the main treaty between the two was signed in 1923. The British recognised Nepal as a sovereign state but its fate was to be aligned with India on 15 August 1947 but the British left without the formal admission of Nepal in the newly formed India. A treaty of peace and friendship was signed between Nepal and India on 31 July 1950. When British granted independence to India, they created two nations into three geographies. The Radcliffe line was drawn as a border between India and Pakistan based on the religious majority in a particular area. Nepal also fitted the logic of being a part of India having a majority Hindu population. There have been some statements indicating that Nepal expressed keenness to support this argument and join India but documents supporting this argument could not be found.
* Partition of India: The divide and rule policy of the British manifested itself to the hilt even while granting independence to India. As against making India a successor state of British India, it was broken into three geographies to include West Pakistan, East Pakistan and India. The Radcliffe Line was hurriedly drawn, which resulted in large scale migrations from both sides and huge massacres taking place. Not only this, Lord Mountbatten terminated the British lease of Gilgit in 1947 and Gilgit reverted under the state of J&K. It was to become a part of India once the Instrument of Accession was signed in October 1947. Major Brown, a British officer in charge of the Scouts mutinied on 1 November 1947 (after J&K had already become part of India) overthrowing the Governor. He colluded with Pakistan to make Gilgit a part of Pakistan despite all the illegalities. The seeds of hatred sown by the British between India and Pakistan have only grown despite people being from the same stock on both sides of the Radcliffe Line.
* Sikkim: Sikkim became a British protectorate after signing the 1861 Treaty of Tumlong and it continued as such till 1950 after which a somewhat similar status existed under India. It would have been fair for Sikkim to become an Indian state as early as 15 August 1947 but it had to wait until it became the 22nd state of India on 16 May 1975. At the same time, Chumbi Valley was part of Sikkim at some stage and therefore India must claim it strongly. All that changed when the Chinese occupied Tibet forcefully in 1951. Had Chumbi valley been a part of India, the vulnerability of the Siliguri Corridor would not have existed.
***
The British played a masterstroke by fragmenting India. We have not been able to undo their game till date. The same game is now being played by China in Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to wean these further away from India besides establishing its military bases and debt trapping their economies. Different approaches of the Central and state governments have also played a major role in preventing friendly relationships between us and our smaller neighbours. Just as there is a need to give equal importance to all Indian states irrespective of their geographical size, there is a need to understand our neighbours better, however small they may be. Together, we can win.
Maj Gen Ashok Kumar is a former officer with the Indian Army.