The press was generally favourable and regarded the Declaration as a mani- festation of goodwill. There was, however, a certain amount of questioning aš to what India's future position would involve, and whether she would accept any obligations, especially in the realm of defence.
In Parliament on 18th May, Mr. Chifley reiterated the view that the new relationship with India was in the best interests of the British Commonwealth, and that the new position taken up by India would not change in any respect the relationship of the other Commonwealth countries to the Crown or to each other. In particular, Australia's allegiance to the Crown would remain unaltered. He confirmed the Opposition assumption that beyond what had been made public, no new arrangement or obligation, expressed or implied, had been arrived at in the London discussions. Mr. Menzies maintained his criticism of the London Con- ference which, he said at an Empire Day rally at Melbourne, had produced a formula which reduced the status of the Crown from "pulsing reality to a heart- less lawyer's document." He deplored the way in which the Commonwealth Prime Ministers had thrown away all the elements which had made the British Commonwealth of Nations a united people.
3. NEW ZEALAND
**
The press in general continued to be favourable to the Declaration. The Opposition press, with very few exceptions, appeared to have taken its cue from Mr. Churchill. There were suggestions in press quarters that in the light of the Declaration it might be possible to bring Eire and Burma into the Commonwealth fold, and perhaps also other independent countries. Mr. Fraser, on his return from London, described the results of the Conference as more successful than he had dared to hope. He stressed that in London he had made it clear that New Zealand could not agree to any diminution of her bond of allegiance to the Crown, and he described New Zealand's concept of Commonwealth relationship as not merely independence, but independence with something of great value added." He felt that the willingness of other members of the Commonwealth to meet India's special requirements would strengthen the bonds of friendship and understanding between India and the rest of the Commonwealth. In the only Opposition comment of note, Mr. Doidge criticised the London Declaration as having destroyed the concept of common Sovereignty, and deplored the fact that the Throne was no longer the granite rock upon which the British Constitution is built.
4. SOUTH AFRICA
Some press comment suggested that in present world conditions it made little sense to argue whether South Africa's interests were best served by being a republic inside the Commonwealth or a republic outside it. In a statement in Parlia- ment on 11th May, Dr. Malan said that he believed that the greatest unity would be obtained in South Africa by that country becoming a republic, but that all sections in South Africa were agreed that they wanted to remain in the Common- wealth provided no restrictions were placed on their freedom. He described the Commonwealth as a "living organism and the work of the Conference as "constructive." It was not true to say that the Commonwealth was disinte- grating; the Conference had revealed the unity and power of the Commonwealth. Field-Marshal Smuts said that he was satisfied with the Prime Ministers' Declaration except for the arrangement made about India. He hoped that this would be regarded as exceptional and not as a precedent to be followed by South Africa, for if the Commonwealth were to be a force in world politics, it was important that the common allegiance of its members should, as a general rule, be maintained. In a further statement on 12th May, Dr. Malan stated that he did not contemplate the establishment of a South African Republic within the life of the present Parliament, and that "even if we are a republic, we shall remain a member of the Commonwealth." Mr. Strydom described the objective of the Nationalist Party as a republic outside the Commonwealth. He hinted that there might be an intermediate stage in the achievement of this policy, in doing what India has done before taking the final step.
5.-INDIA
Page 27 verf 36 exceptions the press supported algandit1 Nefh366 defence of the Declaration on his return to Delhi, and praised both his part in the London
7
discussions Page 72 fakess in dealing with criticismPage17 Cofsingent Assembly's ratification of the Declaration was warmly welcomed editorially. Criticisms were maintained by a very few papers of the extreme left wing. In a broadcast from Delhi on 10th May, Pandit Nehru said that his impression since his return was that the vast majority of the Indian people welcomed the London decision. The Declaration left India free to follow her declared foreign policy of avoiding alignment with any Power bloc and of fighting imperialism and racial discrimination, and indeed would enable India to pursue that policy in greater measure and with greater influence. He had entered into no secret commit- ments. He felt convinced that in agreeing to the Declaration he had adhered to all his past pledges, and that the action he took in London, so far from injuring India in any way, had kept her honour bright and enhanced her position in the world. Pandit Nehru also spoke in the Constituent Assembly on 16th and 17th May on the motion to ratify the Commonwealth Declaration. He emphasised that the Declaration did not imply any diminution of India's sovereignty. Asso- ciation with other countries did not mean agreement with their policies, and he had agreed to India's continued membership of the Commonwealth as being beneficial to India and to world causes which India wanted to advance. In a world where so many disruptive forces were at work, the break-up of any association was not a thing to be encouraged. His approach to the London Conference was as representative of an India which had washed out all the bitterness of the past, and which had faith and confidence in her own future. He attached value to the Declaration as a method which brings a touch of healing with it." He felt it was important that India would now enter upon her republican status with the goodwill of many others, and without leaving a trace of bitterness behind. He felt that Gandhi would have approved the manner in which this step had been taken. He commended the Declaration to the House as a harbinger of good relations and as an indication that India was willing to act in a generous spirit in the cause of peace. The Constituent Assembly ratified the London Delcaration on 17th May with only one dissentient vote.
6. PAKISTAN
After initial fairly favourable reactions, the press became increasingly critical of the Declaration, and much of its comment was coloured by obvious jealousy and suspicion of India's special position. The view was widely expressed that the United Kingdom, under pressure of the Communist threat to South-East Asia, had given way to India's demands in order that India should stand as a bulwark against the 'Red' flood. The general opinion that Pakistan had been out-manoeuvred by India gave rise to a number of demands in the press that Pakistan should declare herself an Islamic Republic as soon as possible. This critical and suspicious attitude merged into a press campaign against Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, who was accused of having gone beyond his brief in allowing himself to succumb to the persuasions of the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers. Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, in a broadcast on his return to Karachi, defended his action in London, and stressed that the Declaration left Pakistan completely independent in internal and external affairs. In the London discus- sions he had not involved Pakistan in any commitments, and he had endeavoured to correct the impression that Pakistan's membership of the Commonwealth was something which could be taken for granted. As regards the future there were three courses open to Pakistan; to retain the status quo, to follow India's example, or to sever all connection with the Commonwealth. It was for the Constituent Assembly to decide between these alternatives.
7. CEYLON
The press continued to react favourably to the Declaration, and notice was taken of Mr. Churchill's acceptance of its terms. Mr. Senanayake, in a state- ment issued to the press after his return from London, pointed out that it was unnecessary for Ceylon to seek a new definition of her relationship to the Crown and the Commonwealth, since that was already fully covered by Ceylon's Constitution. Ceylon's independence, and her right to secede, were beyond doubt. India's republican status would not affect the principles of Ceylon's relation- ship to India. He said he was very glad that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers had been willing to adopt a formula whose phraseology enabled India to continue within the Commonwealth, while leaving unchanged the close ties of relation- ship in respect of the rest of the Commonwealth. The great majority of the
159
*
8
presPerheen these simtiments and showed itself in fapageof maintaining Ceylon's present link with the Crown.
8. UNITED KINGDOM
Considered press comment continued to be favourable to the Declaration. News and statements from other Commonwealth countries, and especially reports from India about the discussions in the Constituent Assembly, were prominently featured. Broadcasting on Empire Day, Mr. Noel-Baker, Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, said that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers had parted at the end of the London Conference with common agreement that the problem which they met to discuss had been solved--solved with vision and faith. The Commonwealth had proved how flexible it was, and how a special problem could be solved by give and take. Mr. Anthony Eden, in an article, said it was heartening news that India was to continue her membership of the Common- wealth, and he thought that the Declaration could have a decisive influence on the course of history in Asia. He described the London decision as a rare example of what goodwill and good faith in discussions could achieve.
Information Department,
Commonwealth Relations Office,
31st May, 1949.
APPENDIX III
EXTRACTS FROM SPEECH BY DR. THE HON. D. F. MALAN, PRIME MINISTER OF SOUTH AFRICA, IN SOUTH AFRICAN HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY, 11TH MAY, 1949
Dr. Malan explained to the House the problem of India's future association with the Commonwealth to deal with which the Prime Ministers of the Common- wealth had met together in London in April 1949. He went on to say :-
"Now I should like to explain from what standpoint I approached this matter as the representative of this House and as the representative of South Africa. In the first place, the reply to this question as to how I approached this matter was given by me, partly at any rate, when I had to make a statement of policy in the Senate before my departure. In that speech I think I explained the position with the greatest possible clarity at my command. The attitude that I adopted there was that the members of the Commonwealth were free and independent nations and that there could be no meddling in any way with that freedom and independence of the various members of the Commonwealth. Our policy is to protect the freedom and the independence of the separate members of the Commonwealth. That was the first point. The second point was that that freedom and independence of the separate members of the Commonwealth included the fullest right to determine their own destiny; it implied something that was mentioned years ago, a factor that played a great rôle in international or inter-Commonwealth discussions, namely, that every one of the separate members of the Commonwealth possesses to the fullest degree the right to determine its own destiny. That was the second point. But the third point was this, that as long as the Commonwealth remained faithful to its own character and as long as the Commonwealth did not impose restrictions on the freedom and independence of its members or closed the door to further constitu- tional development on the part of the separate members of the Commonwealth, so long would we in South Africa remain a member of this closer circle of sister- nations known as the Commonwealth. I adhere to the attitude that I had explained here on a previous occasion, and at the conference I also approached the whole question that was under discussion from this point of view."
وو
Dr. Malan said that if the other members of the Commonwealth had said no to India's request to remain in the Commonwealth as a Republic the implications would have been that the other members of the Commonwealth would have lost India's goodwill which would have had harmful results in the sphere of trade, and not only the Commonwealth but all the anti-Communist Western Power would have lost an important foothold in Asia. In addition,
9
particular age 436 recent developments in Burman, haia's leaving the Commonwealth might have created the impression that the Common- wealth was disintegrating, that it was no longer a powerful force and that also would have been unfortunate in view of the Communist threat.
"Hon. members have seen the declaration that was issued towards the close of the Prime Ministers' Conference. That declaration is self-explanatory. It means in the first place that the reply that was given to India was in the affirmative. Although India is becoming a republic she will remain a member of the Commonwealth. What is the significance of this in relation to other members of the Commonwealth which are not republics? In that respect the position remains unchanged. No change has come about as far as their position is concerned. It further means that we will now have this position in the Common- wealth. The King will form part of the government of all the members of the Commonwealth except in the case of India. In our own South Africa Act, the Government of the country is described as consisting of The King, the Senate and the Assembly. That is also the position in the case of the other members of the Commonwealth, but in the case of India The King will not form part of the Government of India. He does not form part of India's Constitution. "Another matter that arises from the declaration is this: The relationship of the individual members of the Commonwealth towards the Commonwealth as a whole remains unchanged, that is to say, any country that is a member of the Commonwealth retains the freedom that it has enjoyed hitherto in practice; the individual member of the Commonwealth is not bound by any policy laid down at the Commonwealth Conference or Prime Ministers' Conference, or at the Imperial Conference as it was known before. They bind themselves to consult one another and, as far as possible, to co-operate with one another. We can take it that to that extent they bind themselves morally. But nevertheless every member has the fullest right to differ from the other members and even to go so far as to oppose one another at international conferences; it has the right to adopt a different attitude as we have seen in the past at San Francisco, for example, in the case of Australia, and as we have seen time and again at inter- national conferences. That freedom of every individual member of the Common- wealth remains intact, and that is of the utmost importance, because it means that the highest authority vests in the members of the Commonwealth themselves, and that every one of them remains a free and independent unit, a free and independent State. In no single case is the fate of any member determined from outside; it is not determined by another country as was the case years ago in the days of the Empire. It is not determined either by the various countries acting jointly or by any particular country from outside. Every member-State as the supreme authority in its own country, has its own destiny in its own hands. That freedom on the part of every individual member of the Commonwealth in relation to the Commonwealth itself also remains unchanged.
""
There is another thing that remains unchanged and that is that there need not be any uniformity amongst the members of the Commonwealth with regard to such matters as immigration, or the granting of citizenship. This is nothing new. This has been the position for many years. South Africa has its own immigration laws. Those laws differ completely from those of England. For example, England allows people from India, members of the Indian race, to enter England. There are no restrictions, but there are restrictions in South Africa. Restrictions of this nature are also imposed by other members of the Commonwealth. Australia adopts the policy of "White Australia," that is to say, that Australia, just like South Africa, does not allow inhabitants from abroad, who are not Europeans, to enter the country. There is no uniformity between the various members of the Commonwealth. That position also remains unchanged. Every member of the Commonwealth has the fullest right to decide for itself what the composition of its population will be and to what extent it is prepared to grant or to refuse citizenship to others. That position, in any event, remains unchanged. That is the meaning of the declaration that was issued at the Conference.'
፡፡
*
. I had certain objections to the words "head of the Commonwealth." the Commonwealth My objection was this that in describing The King as head
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.