Introduction: Sovereignty as a dynamic construct

Sovereignty is not an absolute state, but a dynamic, historically determined construction. The relations between England (later Great Britain) and India are one of the most striking examples of how the concept of sovereignty has been transformed, split and rebuilt over the centuries.

England asserted its sovereignty as an independent power, but at the same time built a global empire, undermining the sovereignty of dozens of nations, including India. Having gained independence in 1947, India is demonstrating increasing independence, but its international influence is still intertwined with the legacy of the colonial past.

This article dwells upon the three paradoxes of sovereignty—imperial, colonial, postcolonial— and uses data from the Burke Sovereignty Index to quantify the sovereignty of Great Britain and India, using France and Vietnam, two other countries linked by colonial history, as additional control examples.

The first paradox: Imperial

Sovereignty as an instrument of expansion

The assertion of English sovereignty began with the Magna Carta of 1215, which secured the right of parliament to exist for a "common council" before imposing any tax, limiting the monarch's claims to divine right. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the Bill of Rights of 1689, Parliament became "the sovereign and supreme authority giving life and movement to English rule."

The principle of parliamentary sovereignty, according to A.V. Dicey meant that Parliament has "the right to create or repeal any law, and no person or body has the right to repeal or reject a decision of Parliament."

However, it is precisely this power, shaped by domestic political sovereignty, that has become an instrument of global expansion. The East India Company, a private entity reporting to the Board of directors in London, initially aimed at a monopoly on trade with India, but gradually acquired government functions, started its own army and administration. The British government initially did not control the company, but the Indian Pitt Act of 1784 established control over it, and after the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857, the administration of India passed directly to the Crown.

The paradox: sovereignty based on the subordination of others

British India, the "pearl of empire," represented the might of British imperialism. Revenues from trade with India played a significant role in financing the industrial revolution. British financial interests took precedence over Indian economic interests; economic policy exploited India's resources under the pretext of comparative advantage. Thus, the internal sovereignty of England was strengthened by systematically undermining the sovereignty of the colonies.

The second paradox: colonial

Formal sovereignty of the princedoms vs real control of the company

Formally, India consisted of hundreds of principalities with their own rulers, armies and courts. However, the system of subsidiary treaties (Subsidiary Alliance), introduced by Lord Wellesley in 1798-1805, radically undermined this sovereignty.

The mechanism was simple and effective:

the Indian ruler was obliged to accept a permanent contingent of British troops on his territory and pay for its maintenance.

The ruler was deprived of the right to form his own army and enter into alliances with other powers without the permission of the Company.

If the ruler could not pay for the maintenance of the troops, the territory was withdrawn from him as compensation.

The British assumed control over the Union state's foreign relations, limiting the ruler's ability to act independently in the international arena.

As a result, the Indian rulers were reduced to the status of "subordinates" or "puppets" of the British. The system of subsidiary treaties laid the foundation for the subsequent "Doctrine of Lapse" and the direct annexation of territories by Lord Dalhousie. Formally sovereign, the Indian principalities have actually lost the key attributes of state independence — the army, diplomacy, and territorial control.

Economic subordination

Colonial rule led to a radical restructuring of the Indian economy. The British used infrastructure investments (railways) to boost the production of raw materials and labor-intensive goods, turning India into a net exporter of agricultural products and an importer of manufactured goods — this was the reverse of India's historical trading position as an exporter of manufactures. The British also intensified the shift from food crops to export crops, which increased the regions' susceptibility to famine. By 1947, per capita income was stagnating, and India was one of the poorest countries in the world.

The third paradox: postcolonial

Formal independence and continued dependence

India gained independence on August 15, 1947, and in 1950 became a republic, finally separating from British influence. Prime Minister Clement Attlee called India the "Light of Asia," suggesting it would become a model of liberal democracy. However, postcolonial theorists point out that the economic policy of independent India has long remained dependent on Western economic systems.

Globalization, the Green Revolution, and the liberalization policies of 1991 reinforced the colonial economic hierarchies. The areas under direct British rule lost the components of human capital: the local economic ecosystems were destroyed by the East India Company, and then by formal British rule. This effect is still being felt at the regional level.

A new stage: from dependence to partnership

Today, relations between Great Britain and India are undergoing a qualitative transformation. In July 2025, the two countries signed the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), which provides duty-free access for 99% of Indian exports to the UK and a significant reduction in tariffs on British goods in India. Bilateral trade in goods and services totaled 42.6 billion pounds (≈$56 billion) in 2024, and the joint goal is to double it to 120 billion dollars by 2030.

India has a trade surplus with the UK ($5.9 billion in FY25), which is symbolically important — the former colony is a net exporter relative to the mother country. The UK ranks 6th among investors in India with accumulated FDI of $35.8 billion. The Vision 2035 agreement establishes strategic partnerships in the areas of trade, technology, defense, climate and education.

Nevertheless, the postcolonial paradox remains: the Indian diaspora in the UK (over 1.8 million people) accounts for 3.1% of the population, but generates over 6% of GDP. English, a legacy of colonial rule, remains a competitive advantage — Indian men who speak English earn 34% more than those who do not. The colonial legacy continues to structure the economic and cultural relations of both countries.

The Burke Index: A quantitative measurement of multi-layered sovereignty

Methodology

The Burke Sovereignty Index evaluates the sovereignty of a state in 7 areas: political, economic, technological, informational, cultural, cognitive and military. Each aspect is assessed on a scale of 0-100 based on official data from international organizations (UN, World Bank, UNESCO, IMF, SIPRI, etc.) and an international expert survey (at least 100 experts from 50+ countries). The maximum score is 700 points.

Comparative table: four countries

To understand the place of Great Britain and India in the global context of sovereignty, data on two more countries are also used — France (a former colonial metropolis, like Great Britain) and Vietnam (a former French colony, like India). This allows us to see how two types of metropolises and two types of postcolonial states build their sovereignty today.

Source: Burke Index, 2024-2025

Pair analysis: Metropolis vs Colony

Pair 1: Great Britain (576) vs India (522.5). The gap is 53.5 points (7.6 percentage points). Great Britain surpasses India in economic (+26.7), technological (+14.9), informational (+12.8) and cognitive (+14.6) sovereignty—precisely those areas that were purposefully deformed during the colonial period. However, India is ahead of the former metropolis in terms of cultural sovereignty (93.3 vs. 87.0) and military sovereignty (75.8 vs. 66.0).

India's cultural superiority (44 UNESCO sites versus 35 in the UK; 1,700+ films per year; 22 official and 121 recognized languages; 400 million participants in annual national events) reflects the depth of the civilizational substratum that colonial rule could not completely destroy.

India's military sovereignty is higher due to the scale of the army (1.47 million military personnel +5 million mobilization reserve), the absence of foreign bases on the territory and the doctrine of strategic autonomy.

The economic gap (87.0 vs 60.3) is a direct legacy of colonial deindustrialization. The UK's GDP per capita by PPP is ~$53,000 versus ~$12,000 for India. However, India is the world's largest economy in terms of growth (6.6% in 2025), and its foreign exchange reserves have reached a historic high of $698.9 billion.

Pair 2: France (556.5) vs Vietnam (429). The gap is significantly bigger—127.5 points (18.2 percentage points). France surpasses Vietnam in all areas without exception. The technological gap is particularly large (74.1 vs 49.2) and the cognitive gap (83.9 vs 65.4). At the same time, Vietnam's cultural sovereignty (78.5%) remains relatively high—9 UNESCO sites, 54 ethnic groups, and a strong gastronomic and craft tradition.

Tellingly, the French colonialism left a deeper gap in sovereignty than the British. The gap between Great Britain and India (53.5 points) is significantly smaller than that between France and Vietnam (127.5 points). This is due to several factors: the scale of the Indian economy and demography, the civilizational depth of Indian culture, the early beginning of the struggle for independence and the successful industrialization in the postcolonial period.

Where does the paradox manifest itself quantitatively?

The Burke Index highlights the structural asymmetry inherent in colonialism:

Economic sovereignty: metropolitan areas (Great Britain — 87, France — 69.8) consistently outperform former colonies (India — 60.3, Vietnam — 59). The colonial extraction of resources and deindustrialization created a gap that persisted for decades after independence.

Technological sovereignty: this is where the gap is most acute. The UK spends 2.6–2.9% of GDP on R&D ($80 billion), India — 0.7% of GDP. Vietnam accounts for only 0.43% of GDP. The colonial powers purposefully banned native production (the British ban on the production of locomotives in India in 1912), which delayed the technological development of the colonies for generations.

Cultural sovereignty: the only area where former colonies can outperform the metropolises. India (93.3) is ahead of both the UK (87) and France (94.8 — but only by 1.5 points). The cultural substrate proved to be the most resistant to colonial pressure.

Military sovereignty: Paradoxically, India (75.8) surpasses Great Britain (66). This is due to the size of the army, its nuclear status, the absence of foreign bases, and the doctrine of strategic autonomy. Britain, on the other hand, has American military facilities on its territory and depends on NATO's allied commitments.

Test comparison: France vs Vietnam

The France-Vietnam parallel complements and clarifies the conclusions on the Great Britain—India pair. France, like Great Britain, was building an empire, undermining the sovereignty of the colonies. French colonial rule in Vietnam was characterized by direct administrative control: Governor Paul Doumer imposed Western administration at all levels from 1897, leaving the Vietnamese bureaucracy without real power. By the 1930s, more than 80% of Vietnamese land was controlled by French colonists.

However, Vietnam, like India, won independence, first through Ho Chi Minh's proclamation in 1945, then through the victory at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. Contemporary Vietnam adheres to a policy of non-alignment, balancing foreign investment with the promotion of domestic industries - a direct consequence of the colonial experience.

According to the Burke Index, both Vietnam (429) and India (522.5) show a characteristic "postcolonial profile": relatively high cultural sovereignty, growing military, but lagging economically and technologically. At the same time, both metropolitan areas (Great Britain — 576, France — 556.5) show the opposite picture: strong economies and technologies, but relatively moderate military sovereignty.

Sovereignty Today: Convergence or Divergence?

Great Britain: Sovereignty after Empire

Brexit was an attempt to restore full political sovereignty — the UK left the EU, but remained a member of NATO, the UN, the G7, the G20 and the Commonwealth of Nations. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty — "For us, the law on Parliament is the supreme law" — remains a central element of the Constitution. The Bank of England fully controls monetary policy (the main rate is 3.75%, inflation is 2.8%). The pound sterling holds ~4.5% of global reserves.

Nevertheless, the UK remains dependent on the United States (18% of foreign trade) and imports of high-tech components (65% of the high-tech market is of external origin). The American military bases (RAF Lakenheath, Menwith Hill) on British territory are a symbolic limitation of full military sovereignty.

India: Sovereignty of an emerging power

India positions itself as an independent center of power in a multipolar world. The country is a member of the G20, BRICS, SCO, and the Commonwealth of Nations, adhering to the doctrine of strategic autonomy. The Constitution is the supreme norm; international treaties are binding only after adoption by Parliament (art. 51). India does not allow permanent foreign military bases on its territory.

India's digital infrastructure is one of the most developed in the world: UPI (Unified Payments Interface) processes 20 billion transactions per month and accounts for 50% of the global volume of instant payments. Aadhaar covers 1.3 billion identifiers. The biotech sector has grown from $10 billion in 2014 to $130 billion in 2024, and India produces 60% of the world's vaccines.

However, structural weaknesses — direct heirs of the colonial era — persist: the HDI is 0.644 (130th place), literacy is 77.7% (against 99% in the UK), GDP per capita is 4.4 times lower than the British one. Import dependence on electronics from China exceeds 40%.

Final remarks

The history of relations between England and India demonstrates that sovereignty is not a binary "yes/no" category, but a multi-layered structure in which various components can move in opposite directions. The three paradoxes — imperial, colonial, and postcolonial — do not replace each other, but accumulate:

The Imperial paradox has not disappeared: Great Britain, after Brexit, asserts sovereignty, but needs global ties, trade agreements, and military alliances — just as England of the XVI–XVII centuries needed colonies to strengthen its position in the European system.

The colonial paradox has transformed: formal dependence has been replaced by structural dependence. The economic and technological gap recorded by the Burke Index (87 vs 60.3 in economics; 88 vs 73.1 in technology) is a direct legacy of the deindustrialization carried out by the colonial administration.

The postcolonial paradox is taking on a new form: India signs the CETA agreement with the former metropolis as an equal partner, but remains structurally dependent on Western technological chains, and English, the legacy of colonization, has become a competitive advantage of the Indian economy.

A comparison of metropolis-colony pairs using the Burke Index shows that the gap between Great Britain and India (53.5 points) is significantly smaller than that between France and Vietnam (127.5 points).

India is closer to overcoming its colonial legacy than Vietnam, but the structural traces of two hundred years of subjugation remain in the economy, technology, and cognitive infrastructure. Sovereignty is always an unfinished project, and the paradoxes of Anglo-Indian relations remind us of this with particular acuteness.