By Mohammed Kudrati
False claims have gone viral on social media questioning the absoluteness of India's independence from the United Kingdom (UK) citing a 'Transfer of Power Agreement, 1947'. This law, the claim says, inhibited India's institutions even after independence and was allegedly kept secret by the Congress party.
These series of claims are arbitrary and unrelated to each other.
BOOM did not find evidence for any agreement between India and United Kingdom, termed as a 'Transfer of Power Agreement'. India gained independence through the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the details of which are public.
Further, these posts state that this agreement curtailed India's authority to make amendments to certain sections of the Constitution of India. Further, the claim states India also had to pay a pension of ten billion rupees to the British monarch, export 30,000 tons of beef to the UK while its citizens still remained British subjects.
These social media posts have called for incumbent Prime Minister Narendra Modi to be voted back to power to reverse these changes.
The message can be seen below. BOOM received it on its WhatsApp tipline (7700906588).
Such posts are also highly viral on Facebook.
FactCheck
1. Is there any such agreement as the "Transfer of Power Agreement"?
The message cites the existence of 'Transfer of Power Agreement' due to which India's independence from the UK is not complete. Further, the claim alleges that this was deliberately kept secret at the behest of the Indian National Congress.
BOOM did not find any evidence to the existence of such an agreement.
The Indian Independence Act, 1947, which laid the foundation of India and Pakistan. This Act of British Parliament is public. Further, Part 7 of the Act clearly states that the British have no responsibility in the newly created states and that their legislatures would have full authority to create and change laws.
This Act can be found with the British government here.
2. Can't Parliament, the Prime Minister or the President amend certain sections of the Constitution of India?
The claims state that neither the Parliament of India, the President or Prime Minister can amend Articles 366, 371, 372 and 395 of Constitution of India. It remains unclear as to why the claim has singled out these Articles of the Constitution in particular.
These article relate the following:
- Article 366 outlines several definitions as used in the Constitution
- Article 371 includes special provisions for 11 states in India
- Article 372 dealt with the continuance of laws at the time of the enforcement of the Constitution
- Article 395 repealed certain Acts pertaining to India's pre-independence polity
While it is the prerogative of Parliament to enact laws with respect to the amendment to the Constitution, it is false that it cannot legislate on these four Articles.
Article 371 was amended consequently several times. As this Indian Express article explains, while Article 371 was inserted at the time of the formation of the Constitution, Articles 371A to Article Article 371J were subsequently inserted through Acts of Parliament.
3. India provides 10 billion rupees in pension to Queen Elizabeth
This claim is unclear, like the timeframe or periodicity.
However, BOOM could find no evidence that India is paying a pension to the British monarch; the incumbent being King Charles III.
To the contrary, India remains a recipient of British aid.
According to the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), a British government watchdog on grant and aid given by it worldwide, India received £1.9 billion in aid from 2016 to 2020.
This figure includes £480 million in bilateral aid, including technical assistance, development capital and research. It also includes an estimated £679 million of aid to India through an imputed share of core contributions to multilateral organisations, largely through the World Bank and the multilateral Climate Investment Funds, which focus on clean technology. In addition, the UK contributed an estimated £756 million in India via replenishments to BII (British International Investment)
ICAI
4. India must export 30,000 tonnes of beef to the UK annually
According to Indian laws, the export of beef is banned. This is defined as cow or calf meat.
However, the export of buffalo meat is permitted. This was outlined before Parliament in a reply.
"As per Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020, export of beef (which includes meat and edible offal of cow, oxen, calf) is ‘prohibited’", the reply states.
It can be seen here (triggers download).
Moreover, data provided by the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) under the Ministry of Commerce, buffalo meat exports to the UK is merely a fraction of what is being claimed if that is the source being considered.
In 2019 - 2020, buffalo meat exports to the UK were 29 metric tons values at ₹39.90 lakhs. However, there was no exports to the UK in 2020 - 2021 and 2021 - 2022.
These numbers prove the claim that India must export 30,000 tons of beef to the UK wrong.
This can be seen below and found here.
Buffalo meat exports from India (Source: APEDA)
5. Are citizens of Commonwealth countries still British subjects?
No, as 'The Commonwealth' is an intergovernmental organisation of nations that were part of the British Empire, or are still dominions under it. It is possible to leave and rejoin The Commonwealth quickly, as Maldives left it in 2016 over allegations of political interference but rejoined it again in 2020.
The membership of this organisation is voluntary, regardless of the countries being dominions or full republics, like Singapore, India or South Africa, where the head of state (usually a president) is elected by the citizens of these countries. Countries like Australia, Canada and New Zealand are dominions as the British monarch - represented through a Governor General - still remains the ceremonial head of these countries.
A British subject currently does not consist of citizens of countries who are part of the The Commonwealth. This can be seen here. The citizens of independent countries continue to remain citizens of these countries.
6. Why are Commonwealth countries represented by High Commissioners among each other?
While a country is generally represented abroad through an ambassador, when two countries share full diplomatic relations; a feature of the members of The Commonwealth is that they are represented by High Commissioners among each other.
The claims states that this is testament to the fact that member countries within the Commonwealth are not truly independent.
However, this is only terminological in nature, and the High Commissioner in each of these nations has full sovereign autonomy. This confusion between a High Commissioner and an ambassador was brought up in the British Parliament in 1965, when newly independent countries (from the British Empire) continued using titular High Commissioners to represent their countries in the UK and vice versa.
A Member of Parliament in the House of Commons, Geoffery de Freitas, a former High Commissioner himself, asked then Prime Minister Alec Douglas-Home if High Commissioners superseded Ambassador in terms of power, status or authority.
"Quite apart from the difficulty of the juridical problem of ambassadors being accredited to a country with a different Head of State from ourselves, I should have thought that there was some advantage—as I think the whole House would feel—in maintaining the special title to mark the special relationship within the Commonwealth", the Prime Minister replied.
This can be seen here.
Historical revisionism is growing to be a prominent trend in the misinformation space. BOOM previously debunked claims that it was the British that had given Gandhiji the title of 'Mahatma'.
Also Read: Did The British Give The 'Mahatma' Title To Gandhi? A FactCheck
