The linchpin that’s Britain

Though Prince Charles thought the Commonw-ealth “could survive without Britain”, the two are inextricably linked in Indian thinking. Democracy, good governance, the English language are important elements of club membership, but Britain remains the linchpin.
I asked Prime Minister Harold Wilson at the 1969 summit why these gatherings weren’t held in other countries. He replied he was willing providing he felt safe (“I don’t like the sound of gunfire outside the window!” he said waving his pipe and a podgy hand towards Marlborough House’s long casements) but Asian, African and Caribbean leaders preferred London. Next day’s Daily Express had a cartoon of dusky men and women in draperies loaded with parcels emerging from Harrods to waiting flag cars. Whether or not the attraction was shopping, the British link made it apposite that the first official announcement of a change in the royal succession rules was made at last week’s Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Perth.
Sentiment can’t have decided the timing. Mr David Cameron probably hoped an announcement on Australian soil would help to check republicanism there, especially with Prime Minister Julia Gillard refusing to bend the knee to Queen Elizabeth, like an honest-to-goodness rebellious colonial. It would also allow specks on the map like St. Vincent and the Grenadines or Tuvalu, two of the 16 countries that still acknowledge Her Majesty as Head of State, to feel they shared in the decision-making.
She is only Head of the Commonwealth for India — the Commonwealth’s first republic — despite Clement Attlee’s plea that her father, King George VI, be given a title “from India’s heroic age”. It would compensate for losing the Kaiser-i-Hind title that Queen Victoria assumed in 1877. Jawaharlal Nehru also resisted Attlee’s wish to dedicate the Commonwealth to “peace, security and progress”. Ruling out security, he wanted “peace, liberty and progress”. Some sixth sense may have warned Nehru of future adventuring in Afghanistan and Iraq. He responded to Attlee’s vision of “something universal, transcending creeds and races” by suggesting a common citizenship. I wonder whether Nehru was consciously trying to pave the way for a flood of Afro-Asian migrants to ensure what the Times once warned was likely to be Britain’s “coffee-coloured” future!
A new succession law won’t make any difference until after the Duke of Cambridge’s reign, and then only if his firstborn is a girl. But it supports the Queen’s comments in Perth on female equality. Looking back, this would have changed history on at least two occasions. First, Queen Margaret of Scotland, three years older than her much-married brother, Henry VIII, would have united the English and Scottish crowns 94 years before her great-grandson, James VI of Scotland and I of England, did so.
Second, had Queen Victoria’s eldest daughter, another Victoria, who became Empress of Germany, also reigned in England, instead of her younger brother, Edward VII, her son, Kaiser Bill, would surely not have kindled the fires of World War I.
My feeling that India wants the Commonwealth, but doesn’t want too active (and certainly not an interventionist) Commonwealth was reinforced when the Perth meeting turned down the proposal for a Human Rights Commission. It’s all right promising food security, declaring war on terrorism and girding for battle over climate change, but Sri Lanka isn’t the only country where ugly human rights creepy crawlies lurk under stones. Although Rajiv Gandhi called the Commonwealth “a fighting organisation” and an active crusader “in the cause of peace, justice, equality, harmony and progress”, he would have drawn the line at crusading for Indian
causes.
Making fun of the Commonwealth gained momentum during the Commonwealth Games when old puns about “Uncommon Wealth” and “Common Stealth” were revived. One joke doing the rounds was:
“Ba Ba Kalmadi, have you any shame?/ No sir, No sir, we are having a Common Loot Game/ Crores for my partner, crores for the dame,/ Crores for me too, for spoiling India’s name!”
But make no mistake, India needs the Commonwealth. It’s the only international forum where India doesn’t have to strive to keep up with the pushy Joneses north of the Himalayas. China isn’t a member. The secretary-general, Mr Kamlesh Sharma, is from the Delhi elite. Being the Commonwealth’s largest member with nearly 60 per cent of its population and with technological skills to impart is a special advantage.
Though voting for Security Council membership is secret, India probably would not have attracted a record 187 out of a possible 192 votes if the Commonwealth hadn’t closed ranks. That means the votes of 53 fellow members, 32 of them small or island states, many with a sizeable ethnic Indian population. India’s increased contribution to the Commonwealth joint office for Small States Permanent Missions in New York and for a new Small States Joint Office in Geneva reflects its appreciation. It’s like that film, The Solid Gold Cadillac, in which Judy Holliday, playing a secretary, mobilises minority shareholders who send in sacks and sacks of votes to defend the good and the just.
Arnold Smith, the first secretary-general, was convinced that neither the hydroelectricity project set up with Canadian help when Chester Ronning was Canada’s high commissioner (1957-64) nor the Cirus reactor Canada gave in July 1960 and used to produce the plutonium that played a key part in our nuclear programme would have been possible without the Commonwealth link.
The renewal in Perth of Mr Sharma’s term recalled a British diplomat saying soon after Smith got the job in 1965. “You’ll see now, the Commonwealth will go on forever. We bureaucrats know how to look after our interests!”
Now there’ll be a charter. Even countries that weren’t British colonies (Mozambique and Rwanda) are joining.

The writer is a senior journalist, columnist and author