Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T02:21:09.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New States in the Indian Realm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Russell H. Fifield
Russell H. Fifield*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The rise of new states in the Indian realm is an outstanding development of the postwar era. India, Pakistan, Burma, and Ceylon have gained independence, and Nepal in the Himalayas is emerging from isolation. The United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union have extended diplomatic recognition to some or all of the five states of the Indian realm. India, Pakistan, and Burma are now Members of the United Nations, but the applications of Ceylon and Nepal have been vetoed by the Soviet Union. Another consequence of the emergence of new states in the Indian realm is the creation of complex international boundaries with subsequent territorial disputes for the agenda of the Security Council of the United Nations.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , July 1952 , pp. 450 - 463
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1952

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Bhutan is not included in this study. According to a letter from the Indian Embassy in Washington to the author, “India pays a subsidy to Bhutan and Bhutan has agreed to abide by the advice of the Indian Government in the conduct of its external relations.” These provisions were actually embodied in a treaty between Bhutan and India concluded on Aug. 8, 1949. See Friendship Pact between India and Bhutan (Washington, D. C: Government of India Information Services, Aug. 11, 1949, 3905/DC).

2 Pari. Deb. (Hansard), 5th Ser., Vol. 420, House of Commons Official Report, March 4–22, 1946, col. 1421.

3 Ibid., Vol. 422, House of Commons Official Report, April 30–May 17, 1946, col. 2120.

4 Ibid., cols. 2109–2120.

5 Ibid., col. 2114.

6 Ibid., Vol. 433, House of Commons Official Report, Feb. 10–28, 1947, cols. 1395–1398.

7 Ibid., col. 1396.

8 Ibid., Vol. 438, House of Commons Official Eeport, June 3–20, 1947, col. 39.

9 Ibid., col. 42.

10 10 and 11 Geo. 6, c. 30.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid.

13 22 Geo. 5, c. 4.

14 Statement of Meeting of Commonwealth Ministers, April 27th, 1949 (Washington, D. C: British Information Services, May 6, 1949, p. 905/1).

15 Draft Constitution of India (New Delhi: Government of India Press, 1948). For the constitution as adopted, see The Constitution of India (New Delhi: Government of India Press, 1949).

16 The Government of India Act, 1935, As Adopted by the Pakistan (Provisional Constitution) Order, 1947 (Karachi: Government of Pakistan, 1948).

17 600 Princely States Reduced to 25 Units, extracts from White Paper (Washington, D.C.: Government of India Information Services, July 9, 1948, 3736/GA).

18 New York Times, June 18, 1947, p. 14.

19 India’s Place in World Affairs (Washington, D. C.: Government of India Information Services, Aug., 1948, S/16/MM).

20 Highlights of India’s Second Year of Freedom (Washington, D. C.: Government of India Information Services).

21 The Statesman’s Year Book, 1949 (London: Macmillan and Co., 1949), p. 191.

22 See the Legal Opinion of Dr. Ivan Kerno, Assistant Secretary General for Legal Affairs, U.N. Press Release, PM/437, Aug. 12, 1947, and his statement to the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, U.N. Doc. A/C.6/146, Sept. 27, 1947.

23 For action of Security Council, see U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 186, Aug. 18, 1947; for General Assembly action, see U.N. Doc. A/519, Jan. 8, 1948.

24 For Pakistan viewpoint, see India-Pakistan Dispute on Kashmir (Pakistan Embassy, Washington, 1948); and for Indian viewpoint, see Indian White Paper on Kashmir, March 4, 1948, extracts in article under same name (Washington, D. C.: Government of India Information Services, March 5, 1948, 3630/GA).

25 U.N. Doc. S/628, Jan. 2, 1948.

26 U.N. Doc. S/616, Jan. 15, 1948.

27 “Tasks of India-Pakistan Commission,” United Nations Bulletin, Vol. 4, No. 12 (June 15, 1948), p. 479.

28 U.N. Doc. S/654, Jan. 20, 1948.

29 U.N. Doc. S/726, April 22, 1948.

30 U.N. Doc. S/819, June 3, 1948.

31 U.N. Doc. S/995, Sept. 13, 1948.

32 For Secretary of State Dean Acheson’s statement on President Truman’s action, see Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XXI, No. 532 (Sept. 12, 1949), p. 399.

33 India’s White Paper on Hyderabad (extracts) (Washington, D. C: Government of India Information Services, Aug. 18, 1948, 3786/GA).

34 For Hyderabad appeals to the Security Council in September, see U.N. Doc. S/998, Sept. 13, 1948, and U.N. Doc. S/1000, Sept. 14, 1948.

35 U.N. Doc. S/1011, Sept. 23, 1948.

36 See the article by Taraknath Das, “ The Status of Hyderabad During and After British Rule in India,” this Journal, Vol. 43 (1949), pp. 57–72; and article by Clyde Eagleton, “The Case of Hyderabad before the Security Council,” ibid., Vol. 44 (1950), p. 277.

37 U.N. Doc. A/64/add. 1, Jan. 31, 1947, and U.N. Doc. A/507, Nov. 20, 1947.

38 U.N. Doc. A/900, May 31, 1949.

39 India’s Place in World Affairs (Washington, D. C.: Government of India Information Services, Aug., 1948, S/16/MM).

40 Future Status of French Possessions in India (Washington, D. C.: Government of India information Services, July 2, 1948, 3732/GA).

41 New York Times, July 25, 1949, p. 5.

42 See especially New York Times for April, May, and June, 1949, passim.

43 Parl. Deb. (Hansard), 5th Ser., Vol. 389, House of Commons Official Report, May 4–27, 1943, col. 1556.

44 Ceylon Report of the Commission on Constitutional Reform, Sept., 1945. Cmd. 6677 (Soulbury Report).

45 Statement of Policy on Constitutional Reform, Oct., 1945. Cmd. 6690.

46 “The Ceylon (Constitution) Order in Council, 1946, at the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 15th day of May, 1946,” Statutory Rules and Orders, 1946, Vol. 1 (London, 1947), pp. 2248–2277.

47 Parl. Deb. (Hansard), 5th Ser., Vol. 438, House of Commons Official Report, June 3–20, 1947, col. 2015.

48 11 Geo. 6, c. 7.

49 U.N. Doc. S/951, Aug. 5, 1948, Annex I (The Ceylon Independence Order in Council, 1947).

50 Ceylon: Proposals for Conferring on Ceylon Fully Responsible Status Within the British Commonwealth of Nations, Nov., 1947. Cmd. 7257.

51 Ibid.

52 ibid.

53 ibid.

54 ibid.

55 U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 351, Aug. 18, 1948.

56 Conclusions Reached in the Conversations between His Majesty’s Government and the Delegation from the Executive Council of the Governor of Burma, Jan., 1947. Cmd. 7209.

57 The Constitution of the Union of Burma (Rangoon: Government Printing, 1947), p. 1.

58 Ibid., p. 52.

59 Treaty between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Provisional Government of Burma regarding the Recognition of Burmese Independence and Related Matters, Oct. 17, 1947. Treaty Series No. 16 (1948), Cmd. 7360.

60 Ibid.

61 Ibid.

62 Ibid.

63 11 Geo. 6, c. 3.

64 U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 279, April 10, 1948; and for action in General Assembly, see U.N. Doc. A/555, May 19, 1948.

65 Commonwealth Countries Offer Conciliation in Burma (Washington, D. C.: Government of India Information Services, March 7, 1949, 3868/GA).

66 Text of treaty, British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. IV (1816–1817), pp. 255–257.

67 Text, ibid., Vol. CXIX (1924), Pt. 1, pp. 448–450.

68 Text, Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XVI, No. 410 (May 11, 1947), pp. 949–950.

69 New York Times, Sept. 19, 1948, p. 34.

70 U.N. Doc. S/1385, Sept. 7, 1949.

71 New York Times, Oct. 23, 1948, p. 4.