Evening star., 1949-05-01
India Stoys In

The agreement arrived at by the London
Conference of Prime Ministers under
which India remains In the Commonwealth
Is resounding triumph Of statesmanlike
realism over technicalities. It is likewise
a good example of the British genius for
political flexibility and compromise. Prob
ably nowhere else could workable formula
have been devised which nies in the face
OF abstract logic and defies semantics.
For what could be more illogical than the
acceptance by sovereign, Independent
republic" Of 4 king as the symbol" Of
membership and the head Of common
wealth which is itself voluntary associa-
tion of independent nations"2
However, this achievement, extraordinary
though 1t appears, lis the capstone to an
evolutionary process which has trans
formed an old-fashioned empire into
federation unique in human annals, bound
together solely by the combined ties Of
mutual self-interest and devotion to COM
mon ideals. Those ties, legally light as
gossamer, have proved strong as iron under
the challenge of external perils. And the
outcome of the London Conference proves
that this beneficent association OF diverse
lands and peoples scattered throughout the
globe will continue to be a powerful factor
in the maintenance of world peace and
stability.
One contributing factor to this success is
worthy of note. It II the absence Of q
written constitution shared alike by
Britain itself and by the Commonwealth
as well. An English authority on the
subject once wittily remarked that Parlia-
ment can do anything except declare q
man a woman or vice versa. In less
politically mature hands. such latitude
could easily lead to all sorts Of abuses.
The British alone have known how to
keep 1t within due bounds.
Certain constitutional changes will, of
course, ensue. Hitherto, the Crown has
been regarded as the symbol Of Common
wealth unity. India chooses to name the
King rather than the Crown as what 1t
deems the head of the Commonwealth, and
that choice is accepted by the other men,
bers, though they themselves apparently
intend to stick to the present formula.
However, 1t should be understood that the
King will not have the same status in India
as he has in the other member nations.
He will have no constitutional functions in
relation to the Indian government, nor will
he have any. representative accredited
thereto. Indeed, the title Emperor of
India" has already been expunged from
the list Of royal dignities. It is as yet
uncertain whether the two other new
members of non-British origin, Ceylon and
Pakistan, will follow the Indian precedent
or will elect to continue the formula MAIN
tained by the charter Notwithstanding
Canada, New Zealand and South Africa
What does appear probable Is that the
term British" will be omitted, the associa-
ton to be henceforth known simply as the
Commonwealth OF Nations"
Thus broadened and generalized there
Is no inherent reason why any country or
people could not be received into the Com
monwealth, and the possibility suggests
itself that two recent seceders, Burma and
ireland, may reconsider their severance,
entailing as 1t does the loss Of certain
benefits. Burma, assuredly, has had most
unhappy experience with its new-won
independence. However, the question was
not raised at the London Conference,
which was devoted exclusively to the
Indian problem. That, indeed, was a
sufficient task. And the work has been
well done.