India is still part of the british empire/commonwealth. They gained independence and left the british empire. A few years later, they rejoined it. They actually claim the british queen as their head of state - even if it is ceremonial only.
> This is false. There is a distinction between the Commonwealth in the broader cultural sense (Commonwealth Games, etc.) and the Commonwealth realm.
Look a map of the british empire and see which it resembles - commonwealth realm or the commonwealth? The commonwealth was originally called the british commonwealth and was the successor of the british empire. It was actually an nehru I believe who asked the named be changed from british commonwealth to commonwealth as a face-saving gesture.
Commonwealth realm are the british descendent nations - canada, australia, etc. Commonwealth is the british empire - descendents nations + colonized nations like india.
India is a _republic_ with a president as its head of state. Maybe look into the history of India post-WW2. The Commonwealth of Nations is a _loose_ grouping of independent nations. Not all of which actually had/have any historical association with the United Kingdom.
> No truly independent nation would be part of the commonwealth of nations
In that case no truly independent nation should be a part of the United Nations. The UN has more "power" over its members than the Commonwealth.
> The Commonwealth of Nations is a _loose_ grouping of independent nations. Not all of which actually had/have any historical association with the United Kingdom.
It's the successor of the british commonwealth which is the successor of the british empire. It's pretty much the british commonwealth renamed to the commonwealth because nehru apparently thought it would be too humiliating. The head of the commonwealth is the queen. The leaders of it are the leaders of britain. It is headquartered in london. It's official language is english.
> In that case no truly independent nation should be a part of the United Nations.
Did the UN invade and colonize india for 200 years?
The question is why india would even join the commonwealth? Why are they still in it? No independent nation would ever be part of it. Especially a nation of india's size, history, culture, etc shouldn't be in a "club" led by its former colonial master. Can you imagine china or russia being part of the commonwealth with the british queen as the head?
I'm sorry but this is blatantly false also. The Commonwealth of Nations is a political association as stated in that article you posted but the member nations are not vassals and the queen does not serve as head of state for any of them except the UK
The idea that India is a British vassal state is probably one of the funnier things I've read here recently. I'd love to know the real justification behind why you believe this, but I suspect it's just a combination of ignorance and conspiracy theory
Literally had to log back in after years to state that this is an outrageously wrong claim. India is as independent in its foreign policy and heads of state as it can be. Please stop spreading false information
