We're taught that one of the key responsibilities of the British Monarch is to act as a safeguard in extreme situations and use his reserve powers to protect the realm.
Surely George VI could have instructed his Governor-Generals to refuse assent to military action? He could have forced his Prime Ministers to the negotiating table. If ever there was a time for a constitutional monarch to get involved, surely this would be it.
Was there a declaration of war? Is it even legally possible for a sovereign to be at war with himself?
Surely George VI could have instructed his Governor-Generals to refuse assent to military action? He could have forced his Prime Ministers to the negotiating table. If ever there was a time for a constitutional monarch to get involved, surely this would be it.
It's a matter of dates. The Indo-Pakistan war started in October of 1947, but India and Pakistan had already been independent since August 1947. George VI was no longer Emperor of India or Pakistan.
Under the Indian Independence Act of 1947, India and Pakistan were to assume dominion status, which they retained until each country created its own constitution (India in 1950, Pakistan in 1956). But dominion status didn't give any powers to the British Crown.
Prior to independence, the office of Governor General was combined with Viceroy of India, and the person holding the office was the Crown's direct representative and the head of British administration in India. Lord Mountbatten was the last to hold this title, but after August 15, 1947 (independence day), the office of Viceroy was abolished and he continued only as Governor General of India. Jinnah became Governor General of Pakistan.
The Governor General was the ceremonial representative of the British Crown, but all legislative and executive power rested with the existing legislatures of the two countries (the Indian and Pakistani parliaments).
Practically, what this meant was that on Independence Day:
George VI was no longer "Emperor of India".
No law of England was applicable in India or Pakistan.
No law made by Indian or Pakistani parliaments could be struck down by the British.
The office of Secretary of State for India was abolished, and the British Crown no longer had any role in making civil service or any other appointments in India or Pakistan.
All treaties entered into by the British on behalf of India or Pakistan became null and void.
The British Crown lost all responsibility for the governance of India or Pakistan.
So while Mountbatten continued as Governor General of India until June 1948, he was no longer head of British administration of India since there was no British administration in India. India and Pakistan continued their dominion status for another few years, but after the second Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster, dominion status did not imply that Britain had any power over the governance or foreign policies of the dominions.
It can be a little confusing in that while the Act of Independence went into force on August 15, 1947, George VI didn't formally drop his "Emperor of India" title until June 1948. So perhaps that's what you are thinking of, that during the Indo-Pakistan war, Mountbatten was still Governor General of India and George VI was still formally Emperor of India. But at the time, Governor General was just a ceremonial job with no powers, and George VI was no longer Emperor of India, he just hadn't issued his royal proclamation yet.