You look back, and you feel chills down your spine when you see all the sacrifices and struggles of our brave freedom fighters during Britain’s rule in India for, like, what? 150-200 years? It was a seemingly never-ending tale of torture and misery. Indians had led several movements in the hope of igniting the revolutionary spark in the hearts of the citizens to claim what is rightfully theirs! The freedom! But, what happens when you come to know that India, our country, might not still be an independent nation?! The blood and sweat that had been given were for nothing! How would you feel? Well, I, for one, would be shocked.
So, is India still a colony of Britain? There are conjectures and theories to support this claim.
Well, conspiracy theorists first noticed it during the remarkable visit of the late Queen Elizabeth II and her husband, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip. It is believed that she traveled to India without a visa. Why would she not need one? It’s not like the royalties of other countries would also be exempted. There is no definite reply by the government to that. The comments have been withheld despite several requests/RTIs by intellectuals to know the reason.
Contentions As Per Conspiracy Theorists
Theorists, all the time, like to dig up old graves. Their first contention would be how the official website of the British monarchy declares that a British passport is already issued in Her Majesty’s name, so why would she possibly need another passport? This implies the self-proclaimed superiority of a British passport over others. But, is it “self-proclaimed” if others are following it?
Also many people also contend that she wouldn’t have needed a passport or visa to travel across the Indian subcontinent because, of course, the Queen wouldn’t need permission to visit her own country, provided the British ruled over India for around 200 years.
The first and foremost backing provided in the given context would be the transfer of power agreement of 1947, which apart from making India an independent nation, also implied that India would continue to serve as a Commonwealth Nation. So all Commonwealth nations, India included, were still a colony of the Queen.
The aforementioned agreement is a contract sealed by Nehru and Lord Mountbatten, which is not disclosed to the general public. It is understood that an oath of secrecy is administered to those in power upon this agreement; otherwise, it’ll wreak havoc as it allegedly mentions that after 99 years, the Constitution of India will be rendered ineffective, and The Government Of India Act, 1935, will come into force, as per the theorists.
Also, the Jana Gana Mana, our national anthem, is nothing but praise to the then British monarch who ruled over India. You must have heard about this one, no? Well, Rabindranath Tagore, after all, won an award for the anthem by Britishers only. Isn’t it too generous? Well, that’s another theory to be covered later on.
The theorists aggressively write about how we are still not independent, and this fake freedom is nothing but a sham. It was just a transfer of power, and it could any day be withdrawn and taken back by the British.
Moving on, there’s another theory that stands on the back of a ‘blast from the past.’ It suggests that India is still part of British colonized countries called the Commonwealth. You know, India’s entry into the Commonwealth is as a dominion state and not as an Indian republic. We all know the meaning of “Dominion State,” which is a small state being presided by a powerful state.
And as per the British monarchy’s website, in the Commonwealth countries where the Queen was the head of state, the request to all whom it may concern is made in the name of the realm’s Governor-General, as The Queen’s representative in that realm.
In Canada, the request was made in the name of Her Majesty by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This indicates that the highest position of authority that can be assumed in Commonwealth Nations is that of the governor-general. And the fact that the Indian president acts as a governor-general, that being second to the Queen, in her presence, just like Lord Mountbatten used to, just works as fuel to the fire in this theory.
It is also believed that if the Queen is in India, our president cannot make a law. He will always be the second signatory, with the Queen being the first one. Further, if they both differ on the legislation, the views of the Queen’s decision will precede. The president’s views have no value. This is an outrage and explicit mockery of the Constitution of India and the beliefs it upholds.
Another intriguing point is that the Indian judiciary is still not wholly independent. It is, on some levels, controlled by British laws. While adjudicating a legal point, if Indian law is silent on that point, our judiciary is bound to refer to British laws. What do you think about that?
This all has spun several doubts and logic to cover this fake independence theory. Everyone is eager to provide an unflawed version of their own.
The Known Position Of India
Well, once, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), in response to an RTI, said that the British Queen didn’t require a passport because British passports were issued in her name. The response also added that the Indian president and prime minister would require a visa to travel to Britain.
Now, it is a fact that India, as a dominion state, is a part of the Commonwealth nations. Also, as per the Indian Citizenship Act, 1856, which is still applicable, all unaltered, Her Majesty was still a citizen of India. But, these are mere paperwork. It’s not true that one day Britishers will march here and take back their “rightful” throne.
The Indian Independence Act 1947, which provided India an independent status, was passed in July 1947 by the British Parliament, which implies that they could, under power, withdraw the same act.
Surely, Indians cannot be subjected to the 70-80 years old atrocity again in the present times. But what would be India’s status in such circumstances is still a grey area. Also, the Commonwealth group should be altogether abandoned, keeping in view the liberal perspective of powers, and the availability of a bigger platform, i.e., the United Nations organization.
And why shouldn’t it happen? It’s just a reminder of the decades-old oppression and slavery the signatories were subjected to. It gives Britain a superior status, and it’s high time that it shall be done away with and their Royal bubble is burst. Or, at the very least, India could withdraw its participation from such a demeaning community that looks down upon India as a dominion state.
The status given to the Queen during her 1997 visit was surely a special one, and it cannot be ruled out by the logic of courtesy as no other nation has been treated with such supremacy. The loopholes and language of the agreement of 1947 and The Indian Independence Act, 1947, establish India as an “independent dominion,” keeping the British “supremacy” intact.
All this raises agitation, but, as far as the facts are to be believed, India is a socialist, secular, and sovereign state, as is enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution.