Admin Note: we have brought this picture to the top of BB’s excellent post, which is a Precedent Post, because it deeply move us. Haifa has huge spiritual and sacral significance for us. The Spectacular Shrine of the Báb, the Divine Forerunner of the Bahá’í Faith (and the Symbolic Return of the 12th Imam), overlooks the City.
Modi at Haifa, Israel paying tribute to the Indian soldiers who died during the Battle of Haifa
Bharat Mata Ki Ja and the Holy Land join together to shine light on the World. Hurrah.. Both Israel & India house extensive Bahá’í buildings, apparently the most visited Monument in New Delhi is the Lotus Temple. Nowhere else in the Muslim world does the Bahá’í Faith have Sites of Worship (Pakistan has been very good to Bahá’ís but terrible to the Ahmadis).
Apologies for the Hijacking but back to the Badshah of Balochistan, our very own Humza.
In my previous post about India being the successor state to the Mughal Empire, I mentioned how India was also the successor state to hundreds of other polities which existed across many millennia. British India is one such polity which I will discuss today.
Note: As before, when I use India below I mean the current day Republic of India, not the region of “India” which also encompasses some territories of the modern day states of Bangladesh and Pakistan
The Inheritance
Unlike the previous post, I won’t give as detailed a picture because in the modern age the definition of “successor state” is very well defined.
Some examples of succession in the modern period are the Russian Federation taking over from the USSR in 1991 and the French Fifth Republic taking over from the French Fourth Republic in 1958. Both of them got their predecessor’s UN seats as well as the permanent Security Council spot.
The United Nations
Since we are talking of the United Nations, let us begin with that.
India is a founding member of the United Nations, signing the UN Charter on June 26, 1945, and formally joining on October 30, 1945.
Sir Arcot Ramasamy Mudaliar led the Indian delegation and signed the United Nations Charter on June 26, 1945, in San Francisco, United States
Now I am attaching a 1962 memorandum prepared by the United Nations Secretariat regarding the “Succession of States in relation to Membership in the United Nations“. It references the partition of 1947.
Here is the link. I am going to quote verbatim.
From the viewpoint of international law, the
situation is one in which a part of an existing
State breaks off and becomes a new State. On this
analysis, there is no change in the international status
of India; it continues as a State with all the treaty
rights and obligations, and consequently, with all
the rights and obligations of membership in the United
Nations. The territory which breaks off, Pakistan,
will be a new State; it will not have the treaty rights
and obligations of the old State, and it will not, of
course, have membership in the United Nations.In international law, the situation is analogous
to the separation of the Irish Free State from
Great Britain, and of Belgium from the Netherlands.
In these cases, the portion which separated was considered
a new State; the remaining portion continued
as an existing State with all the rights and duties
which it had before.
Pakistan became a member of the UN on September 30, 1947.
Similarly when Bangladesh separated from Pakistan as Pakistan had once from India, it had to apply for membership. It became a member on September 17, 1974.
The Capital
British India had two capitals – Calcutta and Delhi. Both went to India.
The Parliament building at the time of independence in 1947 continued to be used as the Parliament of India until 2023.
Many of the official buildings of British India were converted to their Indian equivalents upon independence.
Rashtrapati Bhavan, Delhi – Residence of the President of India. Formerly the Viceroy’s Residence.
Old Parliament House, Delhi – Was the parliament building of India from 1947 to 2023. Previously was the legislature of British India (Imperial Legislative Council) from 1927 to 1947.
Old Secretariat, Delhi – Currently the legislative assembly of Delhi. Previously was the legislature of British India from 1912 to 1927 (until the Parliament House was constructed).
Raj Bhavan, Kolkata – Residence of the Governor of West Bengal. Formerly the Viceroy’s Residence when the capital was in Calcutta. Also was the legislature of British India until the capital shifted to Delhi.
Pakistan got a new capital at Karachi in 1947 and then shifted it to Islamabad in 1967.
Bangladesh got its capital in Dhaka in 1971.
The Memorials
Apart from the official government buildings, India also inherited other important memorials of British India.
I will just focus on one here (will elaborate more below).
India Gate, formerly known as the All India War Memorial was constructed as a memorial for the soldiers who fought for British India.
The Indian Army, also called the British Indian Army, was involved in World War I. More than one million Indian troops served overseas, of whom more than 60,000 died during the war. They mostly served in North Africa and Mesopotamia against the Ottomans (My own great grandfather was a doctor there).
India Gate, Delhi
Cricket
As desis we can’t ignore cricket.
India played its first match vs England at Lord’s, London on June 25, 1932.
India’s first test match at Lord’s, June 25-28, 1932
On partition, India inherited this team and the current Indian team’s all time records include the pre-partition records.
Pakistan got a new team and played their first match vs India at the Feroz Shah Kotla Ground, Delhi on October 16, 1952.
Bangladesh similarly got a new team on independence but had to wait longer to play international cricket. They played their first match vs Pakistan at Tyronne Fernando Stadium, Moratuwa on March 31, 1986.
The Olympics
British India first participated in the Olympics in 1900 when Norman Pritchard won two silver medals (Englishman but was born and raised in Calcutta).
The Indian Olympic Association was formed in 1927, and since that year was officially recognized by the International Olympic Committee as India’s national Olympic organization.
Upon independence, India inherited British India’s Olympic records as well as the IOA.
This included a hat trick of gold medals in field hockey led by Dhyan Chand. The last of these was at the 1936 Berlin Olympics where India defeated Germany in the final.
India vs Germany, Field Hockey final, 1936 Olympics
Pakistan Olympic Association was formed in 1948 and they participated for the first time in the 1948 London games.
Bangladesh Olympic Association was formed in 1979 and they participated for the first time in the 1984 Los Angeles games.
Modern Legitimacy
I mentioned the India Gate earlier and how British India fought in the World Wars.
On 12 February 2025, on his France visit, Modi along with Macron visited the Mazargues War Cemetery in Marseille.
This is what Macron had to say.
More than 100,000 Indians fought for France in 1914. Ten thousand never returned. They set foot on the soil of Marseille before fighting in the mud of the trenches, unaware that they were marching to their deaths.
Their sacrifice binds France and India forever.
Other countries recognize India as the inheritor of British India.
And like I said in the Mughal Empire post, only India is the one even “claiming” this inheritance by visiting these sites – similar to the Babur and Bahadur Shah Zafar graves.
Modi at the Heliopolis War Memorial, Cairo, Egypt dedicated to Indian soldiers who died in Egypt in the First World War
The “Independent” Argument
People might claim that British India was never an independent sovereign nation. I never said it was. But it was very much a distinct polity, separate from other similar polities like British Australia or British Kenya.
Here is what else is said in the UN memorandum I linked above regarding this.
Apart from the question of separation, the Independence Act has effected a basic constitutional change in India. The existing State of India has become a Dominion, and consequently, has a new status in the British Commonwealth of Nations, independence in external affairs, and a new form of government. It is clear, however, that this basic constitutional change does not affect the international personality of India, or its status in the United Nations.
The closest modern day analogy would be Hong Kong. Like India it used to be a part of the British Empire. Unlike India, it never got independent and has now passed over to China. But throughout its existence it has always been a separate polity with its own distinct currency, passport, flag etc.
Indians never used the pound or voted in elections for representatives in London. They had their own separate versions.
Interestingly, the Indian currency was issued by the Reserve Bank of India (established in 1935), another institute that India inherited.
Pakistan created the State Bank of Pakistan in 1948. Bangladesh created the Bangladesh Bank in 1972.
100 Rupee note with the face of King George VI
British Indian Passport
Conclusion
Similar to last time I’d like to conclude with an image transforming modern day figures to their historical counterparts.
So may I present Viceroy Narendra Damodardas Modi with a few of the rulers of the princely states – Maharaja Omar Abdullah of Jammu and Kashmir, Nizam Revanth Reddy of Hyderabad and Maharaja Bhajan Lal Sharma of Jodhpur.
Great post- we have unranked this post as we were alerted that a “repost” had been posted 10minutes after your post.
This is in violation of our Precedent Notes, Novel Content > Reposts
Substantive Novel Content > Novel Content
Next time we will simply remove the offending post.
Its telling that such an obvious fact needs such a long drawn out explanation and ‘defense’ against absurd claims denying Indian nation-hood prior to 1947.
Interestingly this is a politicised question, but a settled one.
Two doctrines compete in the literature on 1947. Under state continuity, British India carried on as the Republic of India, and Pakistan emerged as a new state. That is the position the UN actually adopted: India kept the seat, Pakistan applied afresh and was admitted on 30 September 1947. Same story at the IMF, World Bank, and Commonwealth.
Under dissolution, British India ceased to exist and both India and Pakistan are equal successors. Pakistan’s foreign ministry has historically leaned on this reading; Indian practice and most Western scholarship on the first.
We think the continuity view is the stronger one, simply because state succession in international law is determined by what the international community actually does, not by deduction from first principles. The bundle of practice in 1947, the UN seat, IMF and World Bank membership, Commonwealth status, all flowed to India without reapplication. Pakistan acceded separately to each. That is not retrospective rationalisation; it is what the system did in real time.
The dissolution reading, to hold, has to argue the community got it wrong. Hard case to win when the community’s behaviour is the source of the law.
The memorandum actually refers to that
In the Cairo image, can someone tell me if the text on the right is Arabic or Urdu?
Could be Arabic for the convenience of Egyptian visitors. Could be Urdu because the Indian Army consisted of many Muslims as well.
There is Gurmukhi catering to the huge Sikh contingent.
Almost certainly Urdu..
We should not push this argument too much. Chinese wumaos use this kind of argument to dismiss the Radcliffe line and claim both Arunachal and parts of Ladakh.
Also there was no country or state called British india, it was a part of the British Empire like British australia or British Kenya. Resting a lot of the system the British developed does not make us a continuation.
British India was very much a polity or a state. Maybe not a completely independent dominion but certainly a distinct entity.
The current countries of Australia and Kenya are also successor states of British Australia and British Kenya.
I guess the correct current day comparison would be Hong Kong? At no point has it been truly “independent”. Like India, Australia, Kenya etc it used to be a part of the British Empire but unlike them it never got “independent” per se. And then control shifted to China.
But it is very much a distinct polity.
British India had its own legislature and currency and passport etc. There was no unified “British Empire” currency/passport etc. Indians used rupees not pounds.
Also wumaos can claim what they want. Like I have said in the previous post – you need control of the “land” and the “people”.
Attached: Image of a five rupee note issued by Reserve Bank of India in 1938 (another inherited institution. Bangladesh and Pakistan had to make their own central reserves).
while we do believe India that is Bharat is an indivisible 5,000 yr old spiritual-civilisation-imperial entity; we are a bit askance at relying on the colonial inheritance for legitimacy alone
I will do one last part as well focusing on the Hindu kingdoms – from antiquity to partition.
Just broke it up into three different posts for easier digestibility.
Will release it on Sunday.
And Monday will then do an open thread on the assembly election results. West Bengal especially is of interest with the exit poll results.
that’s absolutely fine; we may also post Novel content in the interim. as you know we are not looking to drown out posts but it is an active posts.
as we just mentioned in our correspondence to all Authors; the formula that substantive novel content is the “gold dust” of BP..
presumably as the posting ratchets up by different Authors, we will need a much stronger editorial voice (to align posting standards etc), but that is further in the future.
we prefer “organicity” where we can to bypass elite spaces and their stranglehold on the discourse
@Kabir in his retort post has said: “There also seems to be comparatively little angst about the fact that Bangladesh exists as a separate entity and didn’t merge with West Bengal in 1971.”
At no point in this post have I shown any “angst” as imagined by @Kabir. In fact, I have placed Bangladesh and Pakistan at par and have mentioned both of them in every section. In fact, you could add Myanmar to it too which I just skipped because they separated from British India before 1947.
you do seem inordinately focus on Pk tbf BB..
Not in this post though.
ok but as a general rule
If there is no Major Iqbal, how will Hamza become a hero? 😂
touche..
what we then; Uzair or Rizwan?
Part 1 really was epic tbf
Sanyal.
@RecoveringNewsJunkie is Rizwan.
[…] Bombay Badshah on India is the successor state of British India – it got independence, Bangladesh and Pakistan w… […]
Thought my reply to @Calvin was important enough so I put it in the post under a new section.
While British India might not have been independent, it was also not just an internal entity in the “British Empire” (like say Maharashtra is within India today or California within the United States). It was its own separate polity distinct from the likes of Australia, Canada etc.
but it was a new Dominion right as opposed to the Old Dominions
As in?
“Dominion status” was first accorded to Australia, Canada, the Irish Free State, New Zealand, Newfoundland, and South Africa at the 1926 Imperial Conference through the Balfour Declaration of 1926, recognising Great Britain and the Dominions as “autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations
Aah okay. But it was still its own polity. Just the date of “independence” was different.
Pre-Independence British India would be similar to pre-Dominion Canada and Australia, which even then were their own polities with their own distinct currencies etc.
but also profoundly racist attitudes towards Indians.
we are simply providing context
Don’t disagree with that.
Just talking in context of @Calvin’s comment regarding British Australia and British Kenya.
@Kabir had mentioned one of his ancestors studied in St John’s College, Agra. It falls under Bhimrao Ambedkar University, formerly Agra University. The Yogi Adityanath government had it renamed.
Interesting insight into UP politics. Upper caste Hindus and Muslims are there in equal numbers so the votes cancel each other out. The OBCs and the Dalits then become the swing vote so BJP has been wooing them a lot.
BJP’s success in recent years all over India has been courting this vote (along with Tribal votes in the Northeast and the East). Upper caste Hindus have been voting for BJP from time immemorial.
BJP’s setbacks in UP in 2024 was the Dalit vote going over to the Samajwadi Party.
yes Dalit-Muslim divisions are particularly acute. but that is equivalent to how poor Whites and Blacks in the South were divided.
Dalit-Muslim and Dalit-OBC.
In Tamil Nadu, Dalit-OBC fights are common.
Speaking of World War I battles, I hope Indian directors get to making good movies from the Indian perspective during both wars. Hollywood has made some great movies about the wars as have the British, French, Germans, Japanese, Russians etc.
During the first World War, Indians were active all over the former Ottoman Empire so plenty of material – Haifa, Gallipoli etc.
Second World War more focused on the Japanese (although had contributions in Europe and North Africa vs the Germans and the Italians).
The Japanese push into Asia was stopped at the Battles of Imphal and Kohima, both currently Indian state capitals. Indians fought on both sides, as British India and the Japanese allied Indian National Army.
Budgets and technical ability have become a lot better. Expect to see such big budget war movies in 15 years or so when capabilities will have increased even more.
Addendum: As I was researching these battles, realized that even some of the military divisions that fought these battles are still active in the Indian Armed Forces today. Another inheritance.
BP used to have a lot of Indian Military posts btw
Put this through ChatGPT for fun.
When arguing that India is the main successor state of British India (the British Raj), the strongest case is based on state continuity—who continued the core institutions, capital, legal order, and international identity.
1. Continuity of the Capital: New Delhi
The capital of the late British Raj was New Delhi, and after 1947 it remained the capital of independent India.
Control of the imperial capital is often a major sign of continuity.
Example:
India retained Delhi; Pakistan’s first capital was Karachi.
2. Institutional Continuity
India inherited most of the central institutions of the Raj:
Pakistan had to create many new institutions rapidly from scratch.
This makes India look more like the continuing state.
3. Constitutional Continuity
The constitutional chain is:
British Raj → Dominion of India → Republic of India
India’s transformation in 1950 was seen as a constitutional evolution, not the creation of a totally new polity.
This continuity strengthens successor-state claims.
4. Majority of Territory and Population
India retained:
Pakistan inherited a partitioned section rather than the central core.
5. Administrative Core Stayed in India
The administrative center of British India was based around Delhi and the Indian heartland.
The central archives, bureaucratic command structure, and governance apparatus remained primarily with India.
This is a major continuity argument.
6. International Continuity
India inherited much of British India’s diplomatic standing and treaty continuity.
In global perception, India was often treated as the principal continuation of the old central state.
Pakistan was viewed more as a newly created dominion formed through partition.
7. Pakistan as a Partitioned-Off State
A common argument is:
Meaning India was the “default continuation,” while Pakistan was the new carved-out polity.
This is debated politically, but often used in state-continuity arguments.
8. Symbolic Continuity
India retained many symbolic markers of state continuity:
This strengthens the claim beyond just legal succession.
Best concise answer
India is considered the principal successor state of British India because it retained the imperial capital, most of the institutions, constitutional continuity, and the majority of the territory, population, and administrative structure of the British Raj.