JOIN USThe CA debate on joining the Commonwealth
In May 1949, the Constituent Assembly (CA) spent two full sittings debating a simple four paragraph document -- one which had no legal effect, but which Jawaharlal Nehru described as having “great and historical significance”. What was this document and why is it relevant today? It was the London Declaration of the Commonwealth of Nations, continuing India’s membership in the group after Independence. As the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meet concludes this week in Kigali, Rwanda, it is instructive to look back in time to see how India’s Constituent Assembly reacted to the country’s entry into the Commonwealth.
The significance of the 1949 declaration lies in the fact that for the first time, a republic that would not have the British monarch as the Head of State would be admitted into the British Commonwealth. This was not a straightforward or obvious choice for India. Plenty of colonies and British protectorates that became independent before and after India chose not to be part of the Commonwealth. Delicate and detailed negotiations led by Nehru had taken place before the Declaration was issued.
In his speech introducing the Declaration (which he had negotiated a few weeks earlier in London), Nehru took pains to assure members of the Assembly that this was not a legally binding document and in no way affected India’s hard-won independence. The British monarch would not be the Head of State for India and the declaration did not create any binding obligations on India, he clarified. He anticipated and addressed many possible objections, including those concerning the racist policies of countries like Australia and South Africa which discriminated against non-whites. Joining the Commonwealth, Nehru assured the House, would not jeopardise India and other countries’ struggle to end racial discrimination in these countries.
But not everyone was convinced.
The first response to Nehru’s speech came from farmers’ leader, the ‘Masiha of Maharajganj’, Shibban Lal Saxena. Saxena, a Congress man himself, in questioning the need for India to join the Commonwealth, used Nehru’s own words against him. He quoted Nehru’s earlier writings in the decade and the Congress’ election manifesto to question India’s association with the Commonwealth. He wondered where the Nehru of the past, so opposed to British imperialism, had gone, replaced by a Nehru who, he believed, wanted to tie India to the Anglo-American power bloc.
Saxena, however, reached too far with the last point, assuming (with no basis) that the Commonwealth is an “alliance” and betrayed somewhat his lack of knowledge on international relations. But he’s not the only dissenter on this point. Writer and fierce debater Lakshminarain Sahu felt that India’s hard won swaraj would be imperilled by joining the Commonwealth. K T Shah raised constitutional objections as to why the Declaration was even being ratified by the Constituent Assembly when it should be done by the future Parliament.
Nehru had his defenders. M Ananthasayanam Ayyangar delivered a stirring speech defending the Commonwealth. He spoke of the Commonwealth’s commitment to democracy -- the kind of democracy where even a Churchill who led Britain to victory in World War II could be discarded by the electorate when they saw fit. Damodar Nath Swarup and Thakur Das Bhargava stressed the need to leave behind bitterness over colonial rule and to look to cementing India’s position as a leading country in world affairs in its own right. They pointed out that merely engaging with a country diplomatically cannot amount to endorsing all of its policies.
What stands out in the debate over India joining the Commonwealth is the breadth of vision of members on both sides of the debate. The invocation of Apartheid and the need to tackle racism on a global level shows us that the independence movement was not just about political independence for the people of India but part of a global movement of coloured peoples against racial oppression. Members on both sides were anxious that entering the Commonwealth should not impede such efforts. Members debated vigorously, but without rancour, on the finer points of India’s foreign policy. Though India’s entry into the Commonwealth was eventually approved by the Constituent Assembly, the debate is worth reading in full.
Today, the Commonwealth of Nations comprises 54 nations, the majority of whom are republics. It now includes nations such as Rwanda that were not colonised by Britain or had constitutional ties with it. Nations have walked out of the Commonwealth and walked back in when it suited them. South Africa left the Commonwealth over the Apartheid issue but rejoined once the system was dismantled. To a great extent, the misgivings of the members opposed to India joining the Commonwealth have not come to pass.