CAB129-35 — Page 286

Page 286

EXTRACT FROM A BROADCAST TALK BY THE HON. MR. LIAQUAT ALI KHAN, PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN, ON 25TH MAY, 1949

The object of the Commonwealth Premiers' Conference recently held in London was to consider the constitutional changes which India wanted to bring about in her constitution vis-à-vis her relations with the Commonwealth. The Indian Constituent Assembly some time back had decided that the future constitution of India would be on a republican basis. The Government of India also informed the British Government that in spite of India becoming a Republic she did not desire to break her relations with the Commonwealth. The Conference of Commonwealth Premiers was thus called to consider this issue and its decisions are fully known to you. But these decisions are viewed by some people with grave doubts and misgivings and it is necessary for me to explain their significance in greater details.

It is not possible in this brief talk to throw light on the successive events which brought into existence the Commonwealth. It is equally impossible to state how the British Empire, which, on behalf of England, dominated over other countries forcibly, gradually came to assume the form of the Commonwealth as it exists to-day. At this stage it is necessary to stress that all the members of the Commonwealth are completely independent in their internal as well as external affairs. In fact, the unity of purpose which has been agreed upon by all the Commonwealth countries is based on those very ideals which the United Nations have set before them. These ideals are to further peace, prosperity and progress in the world and to remove differences likely to arise between various countries by peaceful means so that more friendly relations may be established among them. No member-country of the Commonwealth is either subordinate of or dependent upon any other competent member, nor does it acknowledge any responsibility which it has not voluntarily accepted.

In this Conference it was agreed to let India shape its relations with the Commonwealth on a different footing, viz., to break its constitutional relation with The King of England. But India at the same time would continue to remain as before a member of the Commonwealth on the basis that the British King is the symbol of the unity of the Commonwealth. In other words, India remaining as a Republic has accepted The King as a symbol of unity as well as the Head of the Commonwealth. It was clearly stated in this conference that Pakistan could, if it wanted, change its relations towards the Commonwealth in the same way as India has done.

Now there are three courses open to Pakistan. Firstly, to continue its existing relations with the Commonwealth; secondly, to reshape its constitutional relations with the Commonwealth in the same way as India has done; and, thirdly, that it may sever all connections with the Commonwealth. The Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, which is drafting the future constitution of our country, is fully competent to adopt any of the three courses stated above. The Constituent Assembly is the representative body of the people of Pakistan and as such has full liberty to take a decision on this issue. It was on this very ground that I expressed my satisfaction over the decision of the Commonwealth Conference.

In view of our being in a position to adopt whichever course we like, I fail to see the basis for any misunderstanding. The Government of Pakistan, or myself while in England, have not made any commitment binding the Constituent Assembly in any way. On the contrary, it has been clearly stated that the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan can take whatever decision it chooses.

This time when I was in England I had occasion to meet many political leaders, proprietors and representatives of newspapers and other leading personalities. As a result of these meetings, I gathered that most of the people in England believed that, whatever shape events might take, Pakistan's relation with Great Britain would remain unchanged. Therefore, I considered it necessary to point out to those who held this view that they were entirely mistaken and that Pakistan could not rest content with mere words, unless those who professed friendship with her gave practical proof of their sincerity. Pakistan's sincerity towards her friends was genuine and therefore she expected to be paid back in the pame going by those who sought her friendship. Page 286 of 366