In the wake of multiple attacks on Hindus and those of Indian origin in England and the recent attack on the Indian Mission in London, voices are growing louder in India urging the country to consider leaving the Commonwealth. The British government’s failure to take strong action against the violence and anti-India forces operating on its soil has led to calls for India to reassess its relationship with the Commonwealth.
The attacks on Hindus in England have been a cause for concern for some time now, with reports of increased violence and harassment targeting members of the community. However, the recent attack on the Indian Mission in London has raised the stakes considerably, with many in India viewing it as a direct attack on the country’s sovereignty itself.
Indians argue that it has been a mute spectator to the violence directed against India and Hindus, failing to take decisive action to contain anti-India forces operating on its soil. The Indian government has expressed its concern to the British authorities on numerous occasions, but the response has been deemed inadequate by many.
No better time to leave the Commonwealth. Agree? pic.twitter.com/iOWE0kKryB
— Shiv Aroor (@ShivAroor) March 22, 2023
The growing discontent with the British government’s handling of the situation has led to a call for a reassessment of the country’s relationship with the Commonwealth. While India has historically maintained ties with the UK and other Commonwealth nations, there is a sense that this relationship may no longer be tenable given the current situation.
England, a safe haven for anti-India forces
In recent years, England has increasingly become a safe haven for anti-India forces and Khalistani separatists, raising concerns about the country’s role in supporting such groups. The UK has turned a blind eye to such activities, and it allows its soil to be used by Khalistani separatists and even Islamists as a base for their operations.
Last year, Islamist mobs in Leicester targeted Hindus and Hindu businesses. Vandalisation, arson and street riots happened and England Police hardly took any action. In fact, the Mayor of Leicester was seen meeting the mastermind of the anti-Hindu violence.
We had a productive meeting last night with Peter Soulsby (@CityMayorLeic) where he made some commitments re the rise in #Islamophobia, acknowledged the #Hindutva ideology is causing chaos & lack of funding for youth clubs. Thanks Active Muslims Leicester (AML) for facilitating. pic.twitter.com/rH4nEyFDLG
— Majid Freeman (@Majstar7) October 11, 2022
Hindus were attacked again and Hindu religious symbols were desecrated by Islamists when the Hindus came out to protest peacefully against the violence by the Islamists.
Hindu Om flag being desecrated by violent Islamist in front of Police. @leicspolice when will you take action against the rioters attacking Hindus in Leicester ? @ukhomeoffice pic.twitter.com/rR45OR84Tv
— INSIGHT UK – Leicester (@INSIGHTLeicestr) September 17, 2022
How did India become a member of the Commonwealth?
The date was 16 May 1949, Jawaharlal Nehru moved a motion in the Constituent Assembly, he asked the members of the Constituent Assembly to ratify the Indian government’s decision to continue its association with the Commonwealth of Nations. Many members of the assembly were beyond astonished and saw this as a question mark on India’s newly found sovereignty. Nehru introduced the Objectives Resolution declaring with great zeal that India would be a sovereign republic. This was effectively a rejection of dominion status in favour of complete independence and also implied the severing of India’s ties with the Commonwealth. So, most expected that India would discontinue its Commonwealth membership. And now Nehru was introducing a motion to cage India in the Commonwealth of Nations which many saw as nothing but colonial baggage.
Yet behind the scenes, Nehru’s perspective towards the Commonwealth was slowly changing. He began to believe that Commonwealth membership would bring political and economic benefits to India. Specifically, it would ensure close ties with England – still India’s largest trading partner.
In 1949, Nehru attended the Commonwealth Prime Minister’s Conference, where he told other Prime Ministers that India would like to remain a member of the Commonwealth even though it had declared itself as a republic. The Conference after much deliberation accepted this arrangement.
Nehru now wanted the Assembly to ratify India’s decision to remain in the Commonwealth. In his speech, while moving the motion for ratification, Nehru expected criticism. many members voiced their opinions against the decision of a sovereign republic which had fought so hard to become independent to accept British overlordship upon India. Nehru tried convincing these members by saying that India’s membership of the Commonwealth will have no bearing on the country’s independence and tried persuading the members as to why this was beneficial for India. Many Assembly members, however, were not convinced. The motion was still passed and India became a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
Arguments in favour of leaving the Commonwealth
The argument for India leaving the Commonwealth in the current context is based on clear evidence that the British government has failed to take decisive action against the violence and harassment directed against India and Hindus in England, and has allowed anti-India forces to flourish on its soil. This has led some in India to question the value of the country’s continued membership in the Commonwealth.
It can be argued that India’s membership of the Commonwealth represents a colonial baggage that must be shunned, as it is a remnant of the country’s subjugation to British colonial rule. India should therefore distance itself from the Commonwealth and forge its own path without any colonial baggage.
Proponents of leaving the Commonwealth argue that by remaining part of the organization, India is implicitly endorsing the actions of the British government and sending a message that it is willing to tolerate violence against its diaspora and Mission.
There are also concerns that the British government’s failure to act against anti-India forces operating on its soil could have wider implications for India’s security and stability. By allowing these forces to operate with impunity, the UK is seen as indirectly supporting efforts to destabilize India and undermine its sovereignty.
Furthermore, some argue that India’s continued membership in the Commonwealth has little practical value and that leaving the organization would have minimal economic or political repercussions. The Commonwealth is primarily a symbolic organization, and India’s departure would not necessarily impact its relationships with other Commonwealth nations or its standing in the international community
Overall, the argument for India leaving the Commonwealth is based on a combination of symbolic, practical, and security concerns. While there are potential drawbacks to such a move, some in India believe that the benefits of taking a firm stand against violence and anti-India forces outweigh the potential costs.
Despite certain concerns about the diplomatic and political ramifications, the calls for India to consider leaving the Commonwealth are growing louder by the day. It remains to be seen whether the Indian government will take decisive action in response to the perceived failure of the British authorities to address the violence directed against India and Hindus.
