4 ms·

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

by qiskit 4y ago

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.

jahnu 4y ago
The Republic of India definitely does not have the queen as head of state, ceremonial or otherwise.
- qiskit 4y ago
  India is the most independent amongst the vassals. But it's not a fully independent nation like the US, russia, china or even north korea. No truly independent nation would be part of the commonwealth of nations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations Leaders • Head Queen Elizabeth II • Secretary-General The Baroness Scotland of Asthal • Chair-in-Office Boris Johnson
  - woahitsraj 4y ago
    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
  - macintux 4y ago
    From your link: > Member states have no legal obligations to one another I would say that being a member of the UN is more problematic to sovereignty.
  - numeric83 4y ago
    What are you smoking? Pass it around please! 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. You are making yourself look very foolish.
    - qiskit 4y ago
      > 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?
vinay427 4y ago
This is false. There is a distinction between the Commonwealth in the broader cultural sense (Commonwealth Games, etc.) and the Commonwealth realm. The former regions in the British Empire which are now republics, such as India and those in Africa, are not in the Commonwealth realm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm
- qiskit 4y ago
  > 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.
frozencell 4y ago
Yes and British is the vassal of Normandy
bhaskara2 4y ago
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
smcl 4y ago
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

by qiskit 4y ago

jahnu 4y ago

The Republic of India definitely does not have the queen as head of state, ceremonial or otherwise.

qiskit 4y ago
India is the most independent amongst the vassals. But it's not a fully independent nation like the US, russia, china or even north korea. No truly independent nation would be part of the commonwealth of nations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations Leaders • Head Queen Elizabeth II • Secretary-General The Baroness Scotland of Asthal • Chair-in-Office Boris Johnson
- woahitsraj 4y ago
  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
- macintux 4y ago
  From your link: > Member states have no legal obligations to one another I would say that being a member of the UN is more problematic to sovereignty.
- numeric83 4y ago
  What are you smoking? Pass it around please! 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. You are making yourself look very foolish.
  - qiskit 4y ago
    > 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?

vinay427 4y ago

This is false. There is a distinction between the Commonwealth in the broader cultural sense (Commonwealth Games, etc.) and the Commonwealth realm. The former regions in the British Empire which are now republics, such as India and those in Africa, are not in the Commonwealth realm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm

qiskit 4y ago
> 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.

frozencell 4y ago

Yes and British is the vassal of Normandy

bhaskara2 4y ago

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

smcl 4y ago

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