7.
VII
Page 182
16. If the basis of the Commonwealth connection were changed on the lines indicated in paragraph 5 above, would it be expedient to suggest that the relation between those members of the Commonwealth which still owed allegiance to the Crown was more intimate than, or in any way different in quality from, the relation between those members and the republican members of the Commonwealth? In countries which still preserve the link with the Crown there would be many who would wish to emphasise the significance of the Crown connection. And there would, doubtless, be political difficulties in discouraging manifestations of loyalty to the Crown which were designed to establish that the status of those countries differed from that of the republican members of the Commonwealth. It would, however, be important to avoid the inference that there was some practical or constitutional difference between the republican and the other members. Any such differentiation would lead inevitably to the conception of a "two-tier". Commonwealth, and there are grave difficulties, both constitutional and practical, in such a conception. First, it may be difficult to defend, against a challenge based on the most-favoured-nation clause of a commercial treaty, preferential treatment between members of a Commonwealth not all of whom are united by a common allegiance to the Crown. But it would almost certainly be impossible to defend that position if, within the Commonwealth, there was some distinction of constitutional status between those members who owed the allegiance and those who did not. In a two-tier "Commonwealth it would probably be found impossible to maintain a system of preferential treatment as between the full members and the associate" members. Secondly, if any such distinction were to be made, it might become necessary to define the constitutional position of the "associate " members. But it would probably be found impossible to devise a form of relation between the
the full members and the "associate " which could be clearly differentiated from the relation between foreign States in close treaty relationship. Thirdly, any definition of the obligations of "associate" members would by implication suggest that still greater obligations rested upon the member States a suggestion which is unlikely to prove acceptable to the member Governments. Fourthly, there would be very great practical diffi- culties in handling Commonwealth relations on a "two-tier basis. The adoption of such a basis would imply closer consultation between the full members themselves than between the full members and the "associate " members; but, in practice, closeness of consultation and co-operation depends on community of interest, not on differences of constitutional status.
<<
members
17. If the adoption of the "two-tier" conception would solve India's problem, these difficulties might have to be faced. But it has already been made clear that India will not accept any solution on the lines of a special association with the Commonwealth short of full membership. And her reason for rejecting that solution is, plainly, that she will not accept any constitutional position in which her status in relation to other Commonwealth countries is inferior to, or even different from, that of Pakistan and Ceylon. It follows that India would not be willing to remain within a Commonwealth in which those members which retained the allegiance to the Crown were regarded as having some special Commonwealth status inter se which was not enjoyed by the republican members. Thus, the proposal to modify the basis of the Commonwealth relationship would altogether fail in its immediate purpose (of enabling India to remain within the Commonwealth) if the Commonwealth were re-defined in a form which gave some special status to those members which still retained their allegiance to the Crown.
VIII
18. Would this new conception of the Commonwealth relationship in the long run damage the position of the Crown in those Commonwealth countries which still retain the allegiance?
It is true that, if this new conception were adopted, it would be possible-- and, indeed, necessary to maintain that there was no change in the constitutional relation with the Crown of those members of the Commonwealth which still owed the allegiance. And a majority of the Commonwealth countries would continue to be linked together by their allegiance to the Crown. But the allegiance wouldenpglongen be a feature of the Commonwealth relationshipg gr the essential test for Commonwealth membership. It would cease to be the
88
8
"}