Between midnight and republic: Theory and practice of India’s Dominion status

Abstract

Abstract India became independent on August 15, 1947, and became a democratic republic on January 26, 1950. For the three years in between it functioned as a British dominion, where unelected Indian nationalist leaders were administered oaths in the name of the King-Emperor by a British Viceroy. While this was a critical period for establishing the Indian state, as borders were fixed, populations exchanged, industries set up, electoral lists created, and the constitution written, the legal infrastructure of dominionhood has been ignored both in scholarly literature and in political writings. Central to the article is the problem that Dominion status creates for legal temporality, a gray zone between colony and a republic. This article excavates this neglected period, arguing that it is critical to understanding both the endurance of India’s postcolonial constitution and democracy and the legal processes of decolonization within the British Empire. The article examines the peculiarities of the debate over dominion status for India after World War I. Within the British Empire, India had a legal status somewhat less than dominion but higher than a colony, due to the failure to accommodate racial difference within imperial federalism. It then investigates the reasons behind the British government and Indian nationalists both accepting Dominion status in 1947 despite having opposed it for almost two decades. Finally, it examines how the “dominion period” is both a problem and a resource for the judicial construction of time and constitutional legitimacy in republican India.