 "How a British law to declare India independent in 1947 shaped its future")
On July 4, 1947, the UK government brought the law to withdraw its colonial rule from India and the British Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act the next day. The new Act was notified on July 18. It was a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would forever alter the course of South Asian history.
This Act, effective from August 15, 1947, was the formal legal instrument through which British India was divided into two sovereign dominions: India and Pakistan. In the blink of an eye, the complex tapestry of British colonial rule, stitched together over nearly two centuries, was unravelled, giving birth to two independent nations. But what did this Act entail, and how did it shape the future of the subcontinent?
The blueprint for Independence
It was another Labour government that drafted the Indian Independence Act, with Prime Minister Clement Attlee taking the lead, reflecting a culmination of a long and arduous struggle for self-rule by Indian leaders. It was grounded in the Mountbatten Plan, proposed by Lord Louis Mountbatten, the last British Viceroy of India.
The Act was designed to address the demands for independence that had intensified in the wake of World War II and to navigate the complexities of communal tensions that had been simmering for years.
One of the central provisions of the Act was the Partition of India to create two independent dominions: India and Pakistan.
Pakistan itself was spread over two geographically and culturally distinct regions: West Pakistan (now simply Pakistan) and East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh through a struggle called the War of Liberation, led by the consequent country’s Father of the Nation Mujibur Rahman, the father of recently deposed and exiled former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.
This partition was a response to the demands of the Muslim League, which sought a separate nation for Muslims, fearing marginalisation in a predominantly Hindu India. The Indian leadership of the time — represented in politics by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, BR Ambedkar, Rajendra Prasad and others, mostly followers of Mahatma Gandhi — refused to buy the Muslim League’s arguments and ensured that India stayed a “Secular” state despite a Hindu majority.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsA majority of historians say that this communal problem of two nations (Hindus and Muslims) living in India was a British construct that shaped the ideology of the Muslim League. And Atlees’ government chose to address the problem created by his predecessors by partitioning India along religious lines, deepening the scar that the colonial rule had made on the Indian psyche through decades of divide-and-rule policy.
What was there in the Act?
One thing that the British rule brought to Indian polity was the rule of law. For centuries — particularly after shastras and smritis ceased to bear influence over kings and princes — the diktat of the throne was the law. The British rule brought several Acts, right from the days of the British East India Company in the late 18th century through the 90 years of the Crown rule until 1947. Their final law was the Indian Independence Act.
Let’s have a quick look at seven key provisions of the 1947 Act.
Partition of India: The Act mandated the partition of British India into two separate entities: India and Pakistan. This essentially was the division of the provinces of Punjab and Bengal between India and Pakistan.
Creation of two nations: The Act provided that these dominions would be sovereign and independent of British control.
Abolition of British suzerainty: The Act ended British suzerainty over the princely states of India. They were more than 560 in number.
A choice to princes: Princely states were given the choice to join either India or Pakistan or to remain independent. The majority of these states eventually acceded to India, with a few joining Pakistan.
New rulers: The title of ‘Emperor of India’ was abolished. The British monarch would no longer hold this title, marking the end of the British crown’s direct connection with India. India and Pakistan were to have their own Governor-General, appointed by the British monarch on the advice of the respective dominion’s government. The Governor-General would act as the constitutional head of state. The post later transformed into the office of the President.
The law-making powers: India and Pakistan were to have their own sovereign legislatures with the authority to enact laws. Legislation passed by the British Parliament would no longer automatically apply to India or Pakistan. Both India and Pakistan chose to have new constitutions.
Transitional governance: Until new constitutions were adopted, the governments of India and Pakistan would operate under the provisions of the Government of India Act 1935, with necessary adaptations.
How the Act was implemented and how it impacted India
The Indian Independence Act came into force at midnight on August 14–15, 1947. In ceremonies held in Karachi and New Delhi, the transfer of power was marked with significant historical symbolism. Jawaharlal Nehru, the newly appointed Prime Minister of India, and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the first Governor-General of Pakistan, assumed leadership as British rule officially ended.
As the Act mandated for the partition of the Bengal and Punjab provinces, the Radcliffe commission was asked to separate the Muslim-majority areas from those with predominantly Hindu and Sikh populations. Radcliffe was a British lawyer with no previous experience in India. He had little interest in understanding the complexities of Indian society. The haste in drawing these lines, combined with the complexity of the region’s diverse demographics, led to a chaotic and often violent transition.
The partition of India resulted in one of the largest and most traumatic mass migrations in history. An estimated 15 million people were displaced as Hindus and Sikhs moved to India and Muslims to Pakistan. The migration was accompanied by brutal communal riots, leading to the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives. The violence and displacement created deep-seated animosities and left scars that have lingered in the collective memory of the subcontinent.
The repeal of the and the enduring legacy
The Indian Independence Act was eventually repealed through the adoption of new constitutions by both India and Pakistan. India adopted its Constitution on January 26, 1950, officially becoming a republic and ceasing to be a dominion.
Pakistan followed with its own constitution in 1956, which similarly repealed the Act. Section 395 of the Indian Constitution and Section 221 of the Pakistan Constitution were key in nullifying the provisions of the Indian Independence Act.
The legacy of the Act is mixed. While it paved the way for the end of colonial rule and the establishment of self-governance, it also set the stage for enduring regional tensions and conflicts. The partition and its associated violence left a lasting impact on the subcontinent, influencing India-Pakistan relations and shaping the political and social landscape of the region.
As India celebrates its 78th Independence Day, the historical significance of the Indian Independence Act of 1947 can hardly be emphasised. It was definitely not just a legal document, it was a transformative instrument that reshaped the Indian subcontinent.
While it granted independence and sovereignty, it also left a legacy of division and conflict. However, by formalising the end of British rule, the Act marked a significant turning point in history. Its provisions and subsequent impacts continue to be a crucial part of understanding the complex legacy of decolonisation and the ongoing narrative of South Asia’s modern history.
Some social media enthusiasts jokingly call it the “Original Brexit” — Britain quit India, officially at the stroke of midnight on August 15, 1947, for a new nation and an old civilisation have tryst with destiny.
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
