What were India and Pakistan like before becoming Republics?

[ronki23]

I heard that there was a period after Independence in 1947 where India and Pakistan still had British Monarchs. But the Monarch hasn't / doesn't have any real power since the Magna Carta.

I also heard Jinnah said he wanted to return to India and regretted the creation of Pakistan?

@Aupmanyav

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is right. India had a Governor-General till 1950. Lord Mountbatten from 15 August 1947 to 21 June 1948 and Chakravarti Rajagopalachari from 21 June 1948 to 26 January 1950.
"After 1947, the sovereign continued to appoint the governor-general, but thereafter did so on the advice of the newly-sovereign Indian Government."

Flag of the Governor-General of India
Governor-General of India - Wikipedia

As for Jinnah and Pakistan, I could not care less. However, I wish them well.

 

[pearl]

I always found it curious that the longed for freedom from British rule resulted in so much hatred.

 

[exchemist]

I always found it curious that the longed for freedom from British rule resulted in so much hatred.

You almost always get some settling of old scores when countries become independent, due to the lack of control during the transition and the jockeying for power and influence that goes on as the new order is established. Yugoslavia is a recent example.

 

[ronki23]

That is right. India had a Governor-General till 1950. Lord Mountbatten from 15 August 1947 to 21 June 1948 and Chakravarti Rajagopalachari from 21 June 1948 to 26 January 1950.
"After 1947, the sovereign continued to appoint the governor-general, but thereafter did so on the advice of the newly-sovereign Indian Government."

Flag of the Governor-General of India
Governor-General of India - Wikipedia

As for Jinnah and Pakistan, I could not care less. However, I wish them well.

I always found it curious that the longed for freedom from British rule resulted in so much hatred.

You almost always get some settling of old scores when countries become independent, due to the lack of control during the transition and the jockeying for power and influence that goes on as the new order is established. Yugoslavia is a recent example.

So what was India like with a Governor General ? How did it differ from Republic India ?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I always found it curious that the longed for freedom from British rule resulted in so much hatred.

That is not true. India has no hatred for UK. What has happened has happened. How does it matter now? India and UK have had excellent relations during the last 72 years. India was a mature nation even when it became independent. I do not say that we did not make mistakes.

So what was India like with a Governor General ? How did it differ from Republic India ?

It did not differ. The Prime Minister has most powers. The role of Governor-General or later the President is very clearly defined. After the 1977 emergency, the Constitution was amended to make a recurrence more difficult. Indian Supreme Court has enough control on the government.

 

[exchemist]

That is not true. India has no hatred for UK. What has happened has happened. How does it matter now? India and UK have had excellent relations during the last 72 years. India was a mature nation even when it became independent. I do not say that we did not make mistakes.

He may have been referring to the enmity between Hindus and Muslims in the run up to partition.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, that was unfortunate, but it is not that Muslims in India are under any disadvantage. After all some 180 million Muslims live in India today, which is the third largest population of Muslims in the world. Muslims have participated as equals in all fields of life, including politics, administration, police and armed forces. Sure, politicians, Pakistan and clerics create problems; but we have been able to manage it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But the Monarch hasn't / doesn't have any real power since the Magna Carta.

Not true.

The Magna Carta is more symbolic than anything. Its terms were mostly ignored by King John. Its importance is mainly in establishing - in the English tradition, at least - that the monarch is subject to the rule of law.

Since then, various laws have limited the power of the monarch in various ways. There are also lots of powers that recent monarchs have claimed they still hold but just choose not to use.

The remaining powers of the monarch vary a bit from country to country in Commonwealth Realms (i.e. the Commonwealth countries that have retained the monarchy), but the monarch does still have powers that occasionally matter in important ways.

When the monarch isn't present - which is almost all of the time for every Commonwealth Realm except the UK - the Governor General exercises the powers of the monarch on the monarch's behalf.

 

[Shad]

But the Monarch hasn't / doesn't have any real power since the Magna Carta.

This isn't true. A lot of early English political disputes were between the upper class were over taxes and their rights none of which made the monarch a powerless figurehead. Post-MC saw some of the strongest monarchs in English history ranging from tyrants to politically savvy. Take Henry the 8th for example. He was a tyrant that did what he wanted whenever he pleased. He controlled Parliament via bribery, threats, sycophants and torture. The MC did nothing to curb his power. Parliament didn't start to exercise real power over the King until the English Civil War, post-Civil War, and the Windsor dynasty. The monarchy still has power today but the dynasty practices soft-power and as representatives of the people via E2. Her ancestors often let their own hardliner view creep into their public persona.

When the UK controlled India it was not as part of English Crown thus not subject to English law. The monarch of India was the Emperor/Empress of India. The Head of State of the British Empire held multiple titles simultaneously. England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Canada, India, Hanover, and so on. England was not the executive nor legislative branch of the British Empire. The Monarch of the Empire and the individual governments in those regions were. Each holding had it's own laws passed by whatever system the British Monarch or their representatives agreed to.

Canada and the USA were colonies of Europeans especially the British Isles demographics. So there is a population with specific legal and cultural set of expectations. Leadership aligned with those expectations in governing more often than those colonies and holding with no such cultural history. Hence the control and laws in different holdings varies based on culture and history of the populations present and what representatives could get away with.

Keep in mind delegation and vassals government was required in an era in which basic trans-Atlantic communication took 2-3 month one way voyages during the best seasonal winds. Keeping in mind what seasonal winds are in the Atlantic (Google it). One could issue an order in London to an oversea holding but wait a year for a reply.

I also heard Jinnah said he wanted to return to India and regretted the creation of Pakistan?

It is reported hearsay. Nothing official.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, that was unfortunate, but it is not that Muslims in India are under any disadvantage. After all some 180 million Muslims live in India today, which is the third largest population of Muslims in the world. Muslims have participated as equals in all fields of life, including politics, administration, police and armed forces. Sure, politicians, Pakistan and clerics create problems; but we have been able to manage it.

Until Modi came to power, perhaps. But it is now in question.

 

[exchemist]

This isn't true. A lot of early English political disputes were between the upper class were over taxes and their rights none of which made the monarch a powerless figurehead. Post-MC saw some of the strongest monarchs in English history ranging from tyrants to politically savvy. Take Henry the 8th for example. He was a tyrant that did what he wanted whenever he pleased. He controlled Parliament via bribery, threats, sycophants and torture. The MC did nothing to curb his power. Parliament didn't start to exercise real power over the King until the English Civil War, post-Civil War, and the Windsor dynasty. The monarchy still has power today but the dynasty practices soft-power and as representatives of the people via E2. Her ancestors often let their own hardliner view creep into their public persona.





It is reported hearsay.

Yes, I'd largely agree with that. The power of the monarch has been reduced in stages over the course of English (and then British) history. Magna Carta was a step to control the king, but only for the benefit of the barons. The Civil War, and the terms on which the monarchy was subsequently invited to return at the Restoration was a bigger change.

Arguably though the most significant development by far was the Bill of Rights in 1689, after the abdication of James II and the accession of William of Orange at the so-called "Glorious Revolution". That Bill established Parliament as free from interference by the monarch and ensured that all taxation had to be signed off by Parliament. So we had a constitutional monarchy from that point onward. This control of taxation led to a progressive transfer of executive authority in practice from the monarch to parliament. Treasury officials took to sitting in parliament to enable the finances to be discussed. In time the First Lord of the Treasury became a member of parliament. "First Lord of the Treasury" remains to this day the official title of the prime minister.

 

[Shad]

Yes, I'd largely agree with that. The power of the monarch has been reduced in stages over the course of English (and then British) history. Magna Carta was a step to control the king, but only for the benefit of the barons.

That is what Parliament has been for most of English history. Nobles often would trade control and their rights for access to the Crown.

The Civil War, and the terms on which the monarchy was subsequently invited to return at the Restoration was a bigger change.


Arguably though the most significant development by far was the Bill of Rights in 1689, after the abdication of James II and the accession of William of Orange at the so-called "Glorious Revolution". That Bill established Parliament as free from interference by the monarch and ensured that all taxation had to be signed off by Parliament. So we had a constitutional monarchy from that point onward. This control of taxation led to a progressive transfer of executive authority in practice from the monarch to parliament. Treasury officials took to sitting in parliament to enable the finances to be discussed. In time the First Lord of the Treasury became a member of parliament. "First Lord of the Treasury" remains to this day the official title of the prime minister.

I had William of Orange in mind. However I would add that the war was still being waged when the Bill was passed. Both parties had vested interests in maintaining the legitimacy of the war over the Crown, ergo claims on it, thus would compromise more in my opinion. Keep in mind a lot of the issues with the James were religious in nature not merely political.

 

[ronki23]

Yes, I'd largely agree with that. The power of the monarch has been reduced in stages over the course of English (and then British) history. Magna Carta was a step to control the king, but only for the benefit of the barons. The Civil War, and the terms on which the monarchy was subsequently invited to return at the Restoration was a bigger change.

Arguably though the most significant development by far was the Bill of Rights in 1689, after the abdication of James II and the accession of William of Orange at the so-called "Glorious Revolution". That Bill established Parliament as free from interference by the monarch and ensured that all taxation had to be signed off by Parliament. So we had a constitutional monarchy from that point onward. This control of taxation led to a progressive transfer of executive authority in practice from the monarch to parliament. Treasury officials took to sitting in parliament to enable the finances to be discussed. In time the First Lord of the Treasury became a member of parliament. "First Lord of the Treasury" remains to this day the official title of the prime minister.

That means Empress Victoria didn't have any real power ?

 

[exchemist]

That is what Parliament has been for most of English history. Nobles often would trade control and their rights for access to the Crown.



I had William of Orange in mind. However I would add that the war was still being waged when the Bill was passed. Both parties had vested interests in maintaining the legitimacy of the war over the Crown, ergo claims on it, thus would compromise more in my opinion. Keep in mind a lot of the issues with the James were religious in nature not merely political.

OK, that's not the Civil War, then, it was 30 years after the Restoration. I presume that is what you mean by post Cvil War.

But yes, a lot of the new settlement was concerned with making sure a Catholic could not get into a position of power. It took 140 more years before Catholics were allowed to sit in parliament and no longer be treated as 2nd class citizens - due to Irish agitation and the Duke of Wellington.

 

[MNoBody]

it has always been a curiosity to me as to how such an ancient and venerable culture such as India, with such rich heritage and traditions going back to pre-history, could be so easily put to hand by such upstarts as those the so called 'modern-age' landed on those shores.
That to me has been far more interesting than the ensuing historical account from that point.

 

[exchemist]

That means Empress Victoria didn't have any real power ?

Not to make decisions on her own, not really. Policy was made by her ministers and carried out in her name. No doubt she could voice an opinion to her ministers and be taken seriously, but she would in the end go along with the government policy determined by the ministers. That is how the British constitution works. It is also how the other constitutional monarchies in Europe work (Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway).

 

[Aupmanyav]

Until Modi came to power, perhaps. But it is now in question.

Modi's rule will not change the picture in any way. Muslims will continue with their life as they were doing all this time. The Indian Constitution and the Indian Supreme Court has ruled for a uniform civil code. And that should be coming soon, perhaps before Indian goes to polls again in Feb. '24. A separate Muslim personal law will not last long. It is for this that Modi and the clerics are in conflict. A uniform civil code will pull the rug from under the feet of the clerics. And it will be good in general for Muslims and especially for Muslim women.

 

[Aupmanyav]

it has always been a curiosity to me as to how such an ancient and venerable culture such as India, with such rich heritage and traditions going back to pre-history, could be so easily put to hand by such upstarts as those the so called 'modern-age' landed on those shores.

This was succinctly put by Saint Tulsi Das in a verse in his venerable Ramayana, 'Ram Charit Manas' - "kohu bhaye raja hamein ka hani?" (What loss do we suffer whoever be the king?), meaning that whoever ruled, people will have to pay taxes. So, empires and kings came and went, life nevertheless went on. Perhaps Indians had a better understanding of history.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I always found it curious that the longed for freedom from British rule resulted in so much hatred.

Well, once you're free from the hated opressor, you are also free to turn your hatreds onto those who believe differently than you do. There was little that both Hindus and Muslims seem to have enjoyed more, as partition was ongoing, then slaughtering each other as they went their separate directions.

Great read: Freedom at Midnight -- Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre.