The writer D. V. Dhindsa, Advocate(94660-18820) is an eminent lawyer at Punjab and Haryana high court Chandigarh. Political thinker and farmer activist assisted by Manpreet Singh Rana Advocate.
A common argument made by some critics is that India’s independence was merely a ‘transfer of power.’ However, an analysis of the rise of British rule, the course of the Indian freedom struggle, and the developments that followed independence shows that such criticism, based solely on the idea of a transfer of power, does not provide an accurate assessment of India’s struggle for freedom.
No doubt India as a state came into existence by an act of British Parliament. The British parliament passed “Indian Independence Act 1947” which got the Royal assent of King George VIon the 18th of July 1947 and declared that “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”.
The aims and objective of the act of British parliament read as “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”. Whereas section 5 of the act provides the provision for the appointment of Governor-General of the new Dominions by His majesty but by way of section 7 the suzerainty of the Crown over the Indian was stated to be lapsed from the appointed day. But a collective reading of the Indian Independence Act, post and after independence history especially the formation of constituent
Assembly by the people of India which drafted constituent as a guiding book for the state. The adoption of the constitution by the people of India on 26th of November 1950 with the declaration of Union of India as a sovereign democratic republic speaks for itself and loud about the autonomy of the Indian state.
The British era began in India when the British East India Company succeeded in gaining governance of Bengal, though it began with a conspiracy hatched behind the scenes in the Battle of Plassey in 1757 where the Nawab Siraj-ud-Daulah was betrayed by Mir-Jafar but this war laid the foundation of East India Company rule in India. The Battle of Buxar in 1764 completed this initiation or rather, finished the incomplete work of Plassey.
After annexing Delhi in 1803, Sindh in 1843, and Punjab in 1849, the Company established its undisputed supremacy over India. It was against this very Company rule tyranny that India's First War of Independence erupted in 1857. Though Indians were unsuccessful in completely overthrowing company rule in 1857, the long-term consequences emerged within months and governance was transferred from the East India Company directly to Queen Victoria and the British Crown. Following Queen Victoria’s Proclamation on November 1, 1858, a major transformation occurred in India's administrative setup.
Under British rule, the English language served as a common medium of communication across diverse linguistic regions. Furthermore, opportunities for prominent individuals to travel abroad and observing foreign systems sparked a new consciousness in India. Educated Indians who travelled abroad witnessed governance systems and civic rights, inspiring a deep belief that similar rights could be established in India. Gradually, people began to comprehend the social, economic, and political impacts of British subjugation. This led India’s intelligentsia to initiate the struggle for freedom.
From the founding of the Indian National Congress on December 28, 1885, until August 15, 1947, the Congress led a vast section of the Indian populace through this long freedom struggle. Consequently, when the transfer of power took place, British authorities naturally handed over governance to Congress leaders, recognizing them as representatives of the Indian masses.
Looking at key milestones of the freedom struggle, Mahatma Gandhi's Dandi Salt March started on 12 March 1930 stands out as a pivotal moment. Accompanied by 78 followers, Gandhi marched on foot from Sabarmati to Dandi. This small cadre of volunteers swelled into a massive movement as he directly challenged the Salt Law. Even if the march did not achieve its immediate legislative objective, it marked the first time when the Indian public realized that laws enacted by an oppressive government could be defied and protested. This birthed widespread awakening, dedication, and an urgent longing for independence.
The Gandhian and Congress-led approach, which utilized systematic methods ranging from boycott movements to the demand for Purna Swaraj (Complete Independence).
The Revolutionary approach, where figures like Bhagat Singh, Raj guru, and Sukhdev did not hesitate to supreme sacrifice their lives for the nation's freedom.
Driven by these continuous struggles and changing global dynamics, the British Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act of 1947, which legislated the creation of two Dominion states—India and Pakistan. On August 14 and 15, power was officially transferred to the representatives of Pakistan and India, respectively.
It is at this juncture that certain critics question India's independence, arguing that it was not achieved through struggle, but was merely a "Transfer of Power" (सत्ताकाहस्तांतरण ).
However, those who diminish the freedom movement by labeling it a mere "Transfer of Power" overlook the events that followed. While power was initially transferred under an Act of the British Parliament on August 15, 1947, a deeper legal and political analysis reveals that the criticism is unfounded.
The Indian Independence act 1947 had self-explanatory provisions wherein the act itself clarifies that the provisions of the act will cease to operate in Indian dominion and suzerainty of the crown over the Indian will lapse act. The independence is recognized in the name of the act and expressed through the symmetry of the various sections. Apart from this the famous speech by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru is a medium to peep in the historical development of independence.
“Long years ago, we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance. It is fitting that at this solemn moment, we take the pledge of dedication to the service of India and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity………….”
The people of India formed a Constituent Assembly, which drafted the Constitution of India after extensive debate and deliberation. On January 26, 1950, the people of India adopted and enacted the Constitution, explicitly declaring in its Preamble: "We, the People of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic..."and since then, India has functioned as an independent democratic republic. Those who question India's autonomy overlook post-1947 realities. India clearly possesses all core attributes of a sovereign state under as defined international law: a defined territory, a population, absolute internal and external sovereignty and Government.
India's independent foreign policy further proves the sovereignty of India and discards the criticism theory founded on transfer of power. During the Cold War, when the world was divided into opposing blocs (such as NATO and SEATO/Warsaw Pact alignments), India spearheaded the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), leading developing nations and maintaining a neutral balance of power. Had India not been truly sovereign, it could never have stood as a neutral power between two global superpowers.
India’s bold international stances—from the Suez Crisis, supporting Palestinian statehood, facilitating the creation of Bangladesh in 1971, to its independent positions on Palestine Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq—stand as testament to its genuine sovereignty. Critics who reduce this to a simple "Transfer of Power" ignore historical reality in favor of mere cynicism.
Dr. Ambedkar who played a pivotal role in the formation of the Constitution, was no doubt emerged as a critic of the transfer of power and constitution and expressed doubt about the participation of oppressed class in the governance. Dr. Ambedkar in his speech on 25 November 1949 said:
“On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality, and in social and economic life we will have inequality.
The theory of transfer of power propounded critics is not founded on sound analysis of Indian freedom movement and post independent incidents as the people of India committed to the ideals of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, and Justice by adopting constitution. But even after a long path the achieving of these goals in full remains an ongoing struggle. No doubt the political reservation has guaranteed representation to marginalized groups on paper, but vast sections of society remain deprived of true political and economic empowerment yet, despite these internal socio-economic challenges, dismissing India's hard-won independence as a mere "Transfer of Power" remains entirely baseless and historical revisionism.
