India and The Commonwealth

INDIA AND THE COMMONWEALTH ¹

By V. Lingamurthy, M. A.

INDIA’S foreign policy now centres round the problem, to be or not to be a member of the Commonwealth. The left wing parties in India, viz., the Socialists and the Communists want to secede from the Commonwealth, while the Congress party headed by Pandit Nehru is inclined to continue in it, provided our independence is not affected. Apart from the Communists, who consider Moscow as their Capital and the red flag with the hammer and sickle as their banner, the other parties in India agree on the basic idea of an independent foreign policy. While the Socialists consider that “neutrality would become a farce if India were to retain her tie with the British Commonwealth,” the Congress is of the view that membership in the Commonwealth may not be detrimental to our independence in foreign affairs.

The ‘anti-Commonwealthists’ argue that “the acceptance of membership would spell disaster politically, economically and culturally.” It is held that India’s neutrality and independence in foreign affairs would be next to impossible, for, any association with the Anglo-American bloc will embitter our relations with Russia. Moreover membership in the Commonwealth will be inconsistent with our republican aspirations. Economically India may gain little, for, Great Britain battered and impoverished, is herself looking to other countries for economic assistance. Above all India may find herself as a distant relative in that family of nations, for we have no common kinship or heritage with the other Dominions in the Commonwealth.

But under present conditions many of these arguments lose much of their force, for they are based on the old conceptions of Dominion Status. To think that any relationship with Great Britain will be a restriction on our Purna Swaraj is like the child’s fear of the shadow. As early as 1926 describing the nature of the British Commonwealth, the Imperial Conference declared, “free institutions are its life blood, free co-operation is its instrument.” The Statute of Westminster (1931) made it still further clear that Dominion Status is equivalent to complete independence. If the test of sovereignty is unrestricted freedom in internal and external affairs, the Dominions are sovereign bodies. The Dominion Parliaments have complete legislative freedom. They may past any laws, even though they may be repugnant to the laws of the British Parliament. They have right to regulate or cancel the judicial powers of the King. In Australia the right of appeal to the Privy Council is restricted and in Canada the right of appeal in criminal cases has been repealed by the Dominion Parliament.

The same measure of independence is enjoyed by the members of the Commonwealth in external affairs also. The Dominions have their own ambassadors and diplomatic agents in foreign countries. For example Canada, in February 1942, signed an agreement with the U.S.S.R. providing for an exchange of representatives. Today all the Dominions are independently represented in the UNO. A Dominion may declare war or conclude peace, though according to convention such matters have to be communicated to the Governments of other members of the Commonwealth. Some are raising a cry in pious horror that by joining the Commonwealth India will not be able to remain neutral and will be involved in international complications, nay, will incur the enmity of the Russian bloc of Powers. But recent events have proved that neutrality is consistent with membership of the Commonwealth. Did not Eire remain neutral during World War II? Nothing can prevent India from remaining neutral, if she choose so, in the event of any international conflict.

But is it possible and desirable to remain neutral in this atomic age of global warfare? By posing to remain neutral we may incur the displeasure of all, of the Russian as well as the Anglo-American blocs. As Pandit Nehru remarked, “no country could be completely isolated. Subject to our being completely independent we should develop as many contacts as possible.” Membership in the Commonwealth, it is said, will strain our relations with Russia and the U.S.A. As long as India does not hold any aggressive designs and imperialistic ambitions, there should be no cause for Russia to misjudge our foreign policy. The view that India will lose the friendship of the U.S.A. does not hold water. Canada has been a member of the Commonwealth and also an ally of the U.S.A. Nor have the other Dominions incurred the enmity of America. In fact ever since the American War of Independence, Great Britain herself has been on the most amicable terms with the U.S.A. and any idea that Britain in the near future will let down old friends likc America is a madman’s dream. The Anglo-American bloc has come to stay. Membership in the Commonwealth, far from embittering the remtions between India and the U.S.A., will make the latter realise that India is not after Russian Communism. There can be hardly any two views on the fact that under present conditions the country which can best help India is America. Thus by being a member of the Commonwealth India can establish close bonds of relationship with the Anglo-American countries without losing even a semblance of her independence.

The question of the Crown acting as a link between India, which has determined to become a Republic, and the other nations of the Commonwealth has raised much headache among constitutional pandits. Many artificial devices have been suggested to solve this problem. It is suggested to make the Commonwealth a two-tier affair, compromising those who owe allegiance to the King and others who do not. Another plan would provide links only between the Heads of States and the British King. But is the retention of the Crown as a link between the nations of the Commonwealth inevitable? In fact, the Commonwealth in the recent past has been gaining stability and strength not by the presence of the King but by a common danger facing them all. Their common interests and common aspirations are really acting as the strongest link. The Imperial Conferences during the last world war and the recent Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference in London have proved that a common ideology acts as a more lasting link between nations of the Commonwealth than the common Crown.

The policy of racial discrimination shown by South Africa and Australia also looms large in determining India’s attitude towards the Commonwealth. In the face of the South African Government’s outrageous treatment of the Indians there and of the white policy of Australia, should India remain in the Commonwealth? While every democrat must agree that racial discrimination is a relic of barbarism and Hitlerism, we need not be carried away by the vain sentiments of self-respect and dignity. India may be able to fight successfully with racialism and other evils from within rather than from without the Commonwealth. Moreover as India gains more and more strength and stability and takes the leadership of Asia, all ideas of racial superiority will vanish as mist before the rising sun. So let not any false apprehensions about our self-respect and honour stand in the way of India joining the Commonwealth.

India’s continuance in the Commonwealth will signify “the blending of the West and the East in the lofty task of building a lasting peace on the foundations of freedom, justice and economic prosperity.” But to have such a happy consummation the Commonwealth must be based on the high principles of equality and justice. This requires in the first place a common citizenship. People in the different countries of the Commonwealth must have dual citizenship–of their mother country and of the Commonwealth. To make the Commonwealth a close-knit organisation, a Commonwealth Council of Ministers consisting of persons belonging to the member nations of the Commonwealth, must be created. The Council should be meeting frequently, preferably at the different capitals of the member nations, to deal with international and Commonwealth affairs. Issues can be better understood by personal contacts than by interchange of telegrams. A joint Commonwealth Secretariat may be created in London to look after the different issues concerned with the Commonwealth. Prof. H. J. Laski goes to the extent of proposing “a common Dominion entrance into the Civil Service.” If steps such as these are taken, the Commonwealth may become a force to be reckoned with in international politics and will become in its true sense a “brotherhood of Nations.”

¹ Written on April 23.