View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ResearchArchive at Victoria University of Wellington Westminster Regained: The Applicability of the Westminster System for Executive Power in India, Ceylon and New Zealand after Independence By Harshan Kumarasingham A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science Victoria University of Wellington 2008 1 Abstract This thesis investigates the applicability of the Westminster system for the sovereign executives of India, Ceylon and New Zealand. These three countries became independent in the late 1940s and though individually having different contexts share constitutional and institutional resemblances, thanks to their Westminster legacy, that allows a valuable and original triangular study. The thesis analyses the crucial first decade of independence to assess the events, decisions and political environment of these New Westminsters and how the local executives adapted and reacted to the Westminster system in this constitutionally nascent era. This thesis will examine and compare the three case studies from a common theoretical approach. Firstly, each country’s cultural background and conditions will be analysed to comprehend not only the context in which Westminster functions, but also more importantly to understand the exercise of power available within the localised social and political arena. The cultural conditions are crucial since they impact directly on the constitutional and political exercise of Westminster executive power and give an invaluable insight into how the ambiguous and flexible tenets of Westminster were interpreted in local contexts. Secondly, the concept of horizontal accountability and delegative democracy will be tested in the New Westminsters to see how well the purported checks and balances of the Westminster model operate on the executive level in the crucial nation building era. Prime Ministers are unquestionably important, but how well the Cabinet and the Governor-General (or constitutional President) operate as actors of accountability and how well all three actors conform to the Westminster cultural and institutional expectations of their office is also highly relevant. The actions and inactions of these executive actors of this early era are fundamental to the future functions and expectations of their offices. Finally, there will be an event or issue selected during this decade, which has path dependent resonance, since it would in future become critical to the operation or complexion of the country. Often this event or issue had not yet been fully appreciated, but had been allowed to develop through the employment of Westminster flexibility and power demonstrating the importance of this critical juncture period. The adaptable Westminster system was an essential element in the political development of these countries. 2 Acknowledgments Throughout the long and often exasperating path to complete my PhD there have been many people that have greatly assisted to make completion possible. Academics, officials, librarians, friends and family have all contributed to this all absorbing project. The academics at Victoria University of Wellington’s School of History, Philosophy, Political Science and International Relations, especially Professor Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, Professor Stephen Levine, Professor Margaret Clark, Dr Pat Moloney and Dr Rod Alley have all given me the benefit of their notable academic (and life) experience. The Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies, Commander Peter Cozens (ret’d), has also been most generous in his intellectual and social support. I would also like to acknowledge in gratitude the scholarships and grants that I have been fortunate to receive and without which much of my research, especially overseas, would not have been possible. Specifically I mention the New Zealand Vice- Chancellors Committee (Claude McCarthy Scholarship), Education New Zealand (New Zealand Postgraduate Study Abroad Award), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (two MFAT Historical Research Grants) and the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at VUW for their PhD research grants. The kind and patient librarians at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies in London; the staff at the manuscript section of the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library in New Delhi; the archivists and librarians at the National Archives and Alexander Turnbull Library (manuscript section) in Wellington; as well as the library staff at VUW’s library have all been invaluable in accessing the information required for this project. At a more direct level I would like to thank Miss Gemma Freeman for her editing labours, Pro-Chancellor Ian McKinnon for his many efforts on my behalf, Professor Elizabeth McLeay for her guidance and research assistance, Professor Nigel Roberts who had oversight of the thesis, Dr Margaret Hayward for her constant support, intelligence and humour and above all to Dr Paul Brooker for being such an excellent and diligent supervisor, who more often than not would go beyond what is expected of doctoral supervisors. 3 Without my family and friends I could not have achieved anything since they have generously given me so many opportunities and support. This thesis is dedicated to my dear parents Dr Bala and Mrs Renuka Kumarasingham. 4 Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii Contents v Chapter One: Introduction and Theory 1 India 1947 – 1957 The New Raj – A Tryst with Westminster? Chapter Two: Mixed Messages?: Indian Responses to its British Legacy 25 Chapter Three: The Indian Version of First Among Equals 43 Chapter Four: Federalism: A Paramount Mechanism 84 Ceylon 1948 – 1958 Ceylonese Surprises behind a Westminster Façade Chapter Five: “British is Best” – An Elite Faith 105 Chapter Six: Executive Affairs – The Ceylonese Partnership of Convenience 121 Chapter Seven: Communalism: A ‘Canker’ Ignored? 143 New Zealand 1947-1957 Westminster “Reforged” Chapter Eight: Westminster Beyond the Seas? 165 Chapter Nine: The Executive Purity of the “Wellington Model” 183 5 Chapter Ten: Unicameralism: The Strange Eventful Death of the Legislative Council 224 Conclusion Chapter Eleven: New Westminsters Compared 248 Appendix 278 Governors-General, Presidents and Prime Ministers of India, Ceylon and New Zealand of the Post-Independence Decade Bibliography 280 6 1 Introduction and Theory In June 1953 Elizabeth II was crowned Queen at Westminster Abbey as monarchs had done for over nine hundred years. However, this crowning was made unique by the fact that the young Queen would be the first monarch to have the demonstrative title “Head of the Commonwealth” solemnly proclaimed soon after becoming Sovereign, which had been given to her by consent and not by hereditary succession. 1 The Commonwealth was now actively part of the ancient ceremony, from having the Queen vow to serve it to having the emblems of the Commonwealth nations embroidered into her coronation gown. Crucially, the very evidence of the connection was made visible by the prominent appearance of Commonwealth Prime Ministers taking a leading role in the ceremony; among others were Sir Winston Churchill, Robert Menzies of Australia, Sidney Holland of New Zealand; and Jawaharlal Nehru of India and Dudley Senanayake of Ceylon. These men of varied lands and views represented the common constitutional heritage of their countries – they represented at Westminster their own Westminsters. The Palace of Westminster became globalised and refounded beyond the British Isles, adapting and accommodating to the conditions of foreign lands. The Queen’s coronation marked the inexorable fusion of Empire to Commonwealth. The Indian subcontinent had gained independence and the Dominions became increasingly self-determining in their political and constitutional actions. Events like the decision of India to become a Republic and remain in the Commonwealth in 1949 and the passing of The Royal Titles Act 1953 formalised the evolution and constitutional divisibility of Commonwealth countries – and thus their legal separation and separate direction from Britain. Despite such relentless change and rapid dissolution of Empire the British Westminster model of parliamentary democracy was transplanted and implanted across the globe: the speaker’s wig and mace remained at Parliament House even though at Government House the Union Jack was folded away. The Westminster system and model became one of Britain’s most famous and enduring 1 Vernon Bogdanor, The Monarchy and the Constitution , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997, p 263 and Nehru as the leader of the only republic member of the Commonwealth at the time welcomed the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth, “Message from the Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, 8 February 1952 in Documents and Speeches on British Commonwealth Affairs 1931-1952 , Nicholas Mansergh (ed.) Volume II, London: Oxford University Press, 1953, p 1292 7 exports. As Graham Wilson has commented: ‘No other nation’s system of government – certainly not the United States’s – has been copied so extensively in such a wide variety of societies and continents. The sun had set on the British Empire but not on Westminster-style government’.2 Westminster Analysed The analysis and appraisal of the Westminster model and the countries that are identified as complying with the model’s features has been a well-ploughed field of