Vol. 17, Part II · pages 391–395

366 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES “26. Canadian citizen a British subject :— A Canadian citizen is a British subject.” 8. The scheme underlying these Acts is to create two categories of citizenship— (1) a Commonwealth citizen, and (2) a citizen of a particular Commonwealth. The acquisition of Commonwealth citizenship is automatic. Every person who is a citizen of a particular Commonwealth become, by reason of that fact, a Commomwealth citizen. It is said that if every Dominion did what the British and the Canadian Nationality Acts have done, it will be possible even for a Republic to be a member of the Commonwealth. 9. This proposal requires to be examined from three points of view before we can give our consent to it. Does this proposal make any change in the existing system of citizenship prevailing in the Commonwealth ? If the proposal does involve a change, does India gain or lose by this change ? Thirdly, even if India is desirous of having a link the Commonwealth can she accept this proposal consistently with the provisions contained in the Draft Constitution ? 10. The Commonwealth has suffered from three defects. One defect related to the conduct of its Foreign Affairs. Foreign Affairs have been the most fruitful source of war and yet they were mostly left to be conducted by the Government of the United Kingdom, with no active participation by the Dominions. It is true that the Dominions have the right to remain neutral. But that is no remedy, for it is a remedy which does not mend the Commonwealth. It puts an end to the Commonwealth. The second defect was that there was no remedy for the settlement of inter-dominion disputes. Dominions in relation to one another are not foreign countries. They therefore, cannot take their disputes to the Court of International Justice. And yet there has been no Tribunal to settle inter-dominion disputes. The third defect of the Commonwealth is that there was no common citizenship. A citizen of one dominion is not a citizen of every other Dominion. In fact the Commonwealth has been opposed to a Commonwealth citizenship. It insists that each Dominion shall be free to define who is to be its citizen and shall be free to say that the citizen of another shall not be its citizen. We are here concerned with the

367INDIA AND . . . . . . . . . COMMONWEALTH third defect. Does the proposal make any change in this system ? As I see it, it makes no change. The Dominions will still continue to have the same right of defining who is and who is not their citizen which have today and will in future as in the past continue to exclude Indians resident in them from the rights of citizenship. 11. Thus India does not stand to gain or lose from this change vis-a-vis the Dominions. But India need not consider the case of the other Dominions for it may be taken for granted that they will never confer their citizenship on Indians and India, therefore, will never be called upon to admit them to her citizenship. But the case of India and United Kingdom is different. For under her Nationality Act she is prepared to recognize Indians as her citizens. She expects India to recognize her nationals to be the citizens of India. Can India afford to do so ? I am sure India cannot. The reason is obvious. Once a common citizenship is established between India and Great Britain, we shall not be able to discriminate between British and Indian for both will be citizens. We shall be going back to the provisions contained in sections 111 to 121 of the old Government of India Act, 1935, which prevented any such discrimination between British and Indian citizens, from which we have been trying to escape. It is, therefore, quite clear that Commonwealth citizenship is a dangerous method of making India a member of the Commonwealth. 12. Apart from the dangers involved in the proposal, can India accept it as a link between herself and the Commonwealth consistently with the provisions contained in the Draft Constitution to which I have already made a reference ? This solution of having a Commonwealth citizenship is recommended on the ground that it avoids reference to the King and this enables even Republics to remain members of the Commonwealth. But does it ? To dertermine this issue one must know what is meant by a Commonwealth citizen. Now citizenship is a matter of rights and duties. If a question is asked what are the rights of a citizen of a Commonwealth, one can easily answer it. The rights of a citizen of a Commonwealth are those that are conferred upon him by the

368 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES law of that particular Commonwealth of which he is a citizen. But what are the rights and duties of a Commonwealth citizen ? If this is a new and original concept having substance in it, then we should be able to find and answer to this question in the two Acts— defining nationality—British and Canadian. Both Acts are silent on the subject. A Commonwealth citizen is thus a bogus person with neither should to lose nor a body be kicked. 13. The term Commonwealth citizen is nothing but an empty phrase. It has no juristic content. As compared to it the citizenship of the United States, which is distinct from the citizenship of a State, is a real thing. It has certain privileges and immunites. But there are none which are attached to a Commonwealth citizen. Why then is the term Commonwealth citizen used ? What does it really stand for ? A reference to Section 1 of the British Nationality Act already quoted shows that it is only a substitute for the age old term “British Subject”. Knowing this, can India accept this solution ?If a Commonwealth citizen is merely another name for a British citizen, he must owe allegiance to the King. And as I have pointed out, allegiance to a King is incompatible with a Republic. It is, therefore, clear that this solution— Commonwealth citizenship—cannot be accepted by India if India is to be a Republic. IV. A New Approach 14. Having regard to her draft Constitution India cannot accept allegiance to the King, or Commonwealth citizenship as a method of remaining in the Commonwealth. We must find out some other way. It seems to me that the proper way to adopt is to follow the lines set out by De Valera in 1921 for the settlement of the Irish question. Those who have followed the controversy know that Mr. De Valera did not want Ireland to be a Constituent State of the Commonwealth having the symbols of a Dominion referred to in paragraph 4 of this note. He wanted Ireland to be an Associate State of the Commonwealth as a distinguished from a Constituent State of the Commonwealth. His conception of an Associate State of the Commonwealth was set out by him in a paper which in the history of Irish settlement is known as Document No. 2.

369INDIA AND . . . . . . . . . COMMONWEALTH 15. I reproduce the following parts of the Document for easy reference as well to give an idea of what Mr. De Valera meant by an Associate State: “States of Ireland 1. That, the legislative, executive, and judicial authority of Ireland shall be derived solely from the people of Ireland. Terms of Association 2. That, for purposes of common concern, Ireland shall be associated with States of the British Commonwealth, viz : The Kingdom of Great Britain, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa. 3. That, when acting as an associate the rights, status and privileges of Ireland shall be in no respect less than those enjoyed by any of the component States of the British Commonwealth. 4. That, the matters of “common concern” shall include Defence, Peace and War, Political Treaties, and all matters now treated as of common concern amongst the States of the British Commonwealth, and that in these matters there shall be “between Ireland and the States of the British Commonwealth” such concerted action founded on consultation as the several Governments may determine. 5. That, in virtue of this association of Ireland with the States of the British Commonwealth, citizen of Ireland in any of these States shall not be subject to any disabilities which a citizen of one of the component States of the British Commonwealth would not be subject to, and reciprocally for citizens of these States in Ireland. 6. That, for purposes of the Association, Ireland shall recognise His Britannic Majesty as head of the Association.” Here is a new way of establishing a link with the Commonwealth. Paragaphs 6, 5 and 4 call for a scrutiny :

370 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Paragraph 6 :—This paragraph 6 can be easily dropped as being quite unnecessary for a link between the Dominions and the Associate State. De Valera himself when he gave effect to the principles underlying this Document by enacting the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936, dropped it. Paragraph 5 :— We cannot accept paragraph 5 in the terms in which it stands. If it is found necessary to retain it, we must revise its language carefully. We must make a distinction between disabilities and privileges and immunities. While agreeing not to subject the citizens of the different Commonwealth residents in India to any disabilities, we must not allow them to claim the benefit of privileges and immunities which must be reserved to the citizens of India. Paragraph 4 :— This paragraph of the Document is the most important part of the Document. It is the best part of the Document. It contains the definition of an Associate State and States clearly how and to what extent it is linked to the Commonwealth. This is enough for our purpose. Our Constitution will not permit us to have a closer link with the Commonwealth. Our needs will not permit us to have a looser link with the Commonwealth. 16. The question is whether association on these terms will be accepted as sufficient for India to be regarded as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. As I have stated the provisions of Document No. 2 were incorporated in the Irish Constitution when it was re-enacted in 1937. Question was raised whether with these changes, Ireland still remained a member of the British Commonwealth. In reply to this the British Government on the 30th December, 1937 issued the following statement— “His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom have considered the position created by the new Constitution which was approved by the Parliament of the Irish Free State in June 1937, and came into force on December, 29th. “They are prepared to treat the new Constitution as not effecting a fundamental alteration in the position of the Irish Free State-in future to be described under the new Constitution as ‘Eire’ or ‘Ireland’-as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.