I have the honour to report that Mr. John D. Kearney who has been in Ottawa for some days left tonight for New York, to complete the arrangements for his journey to India. He will not be in Ottawa again before he goes to his post. He called me up yesterday afternoon at 5.30 from the Chateau and asked me if I would drop in to the Hotel on my way home from the office. I did so at about 6 o'clock and remained with him in his room until 7.30. Mr. Kearney had been in Ottawa on several occasions (from Montreal) since his return from Oslo but did not get in touch with me. I, nevertheless, went to see him yesterday on his invitation. It would, I thought, be interesting to hear what he had to say, primed with his instructions, on the eve of his departure for India.
I have never had any doubt that Mr. Kearney's appointment to New Delhi was connected with the fact that he had been High Commissioner to Ireland (particularly during the war). Our conversation on yesterday evening confirmed me in that view.
I was subjected to a close examination on the subject of our relations with the British Commonwealth of Nations, Article 29 of the Constitution, the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936, and so on. I was taken over all the fences, nationality, the title and status of High Commissioners, etc. It was as if Mr. Kearney was himself taking a final canter over a course mapped out for him in the instructions to the Canadian High Commissioner to India. I do not repeat, for the Department, the familiar lines of my answers to Mr. Kearney's quizzical interrogation during this conversation.
He said more than once that Ireland had solved the problem of India's relations with the British Commonwealth. 'The External Relations Act does it', was his way of putting it.
He asked me what the prospect was of our sending a representative to India. I said I had heard nothing of anything of that kind. I thought it unlikely at present. He asked me whether it might not be a good thing for me to suggest to you. I replied that you would not understand a suggestion of that kind from an officer abroad. If Ireland was represented in India now, he said, it might make a great difference.
I asked him what the hope was of India accepting some form of association with the Commonwealth. Mr. Kearney said that he had discussed that with Lord Pethwick-Lawrence1 and Sir Stafford Cripps2 in London and that they were both satisfied that there wasn't a chance of getting India to agree to anything short of absolute independence, a republic with no constitutional connection with the Commonwealth. If he could only make the Indians see it, the Irish precedent was the key to the solution of their problem.
He spoke a lot about allegiance to the Crown and the so called Balfour Declaration.3 'You people' he said 'have smashed the allegiance part of it: but my view is that we are running out of symbols. There must be something to show that we are British'. I said: 'John, what, on earth, are you thinking of? Isn't that the kernel of the whole issue? How can you say that the Irish are British or that the Indians are British? You want a Commonwealth of British Nations. That's the policy of your Citizenship Act. Even the British don't want that. Tell the Indians that you are a Canadian owing allegiance to Canada and Canadian institutions and you will be speaking a language they understand. If you tell them that you are all one Imperial family as Princess Elizabeth did in her birthday speech they will just not take you seriously. No one has any objection to Canadians calling themselves British subjects and so on if they want to do it (incidentally a whole lot of them don't, I think a majority, if the straight issue were put to the country) but don't tell the Indians what they should call themselves. I don't think the Indians want to get rid of the British in order to become British. What you want from India now is co-operation. Co-operation needs no symbols. It is based upon understanding, friendship, common interests and objectives, agreed international aims and so on. These things evolve their own technique. What about Pakistan?'
'It's inevitable: these people can't live together.'
'Isn't it there that you can help them? Don't the French and yourselves get on well enough to win a war together?'
'My, we're on the verge of civil war in this country'.
'I'm here seven years and the Irish Government know nothing from me about a likely or even a possible civil war in Canada.'
'Perhaps you are right. You think we get along well enough for all our quarrels? Well it's nice to hear that that's your conclusion'.
'Of course you do and together you have made Canada great. You would make her greater still if you could settle your constitutional problems more quickly than you do. There's a constitutional time-lag here that's going to handicap you in India. But don't emphasise your constitutional situation to the Indians at all. Tell them about Canadian national unity within the framework of Confederation on issues essential to the maintenance of the political liberty of the country and to its economic development, and social welfare. Isn't that the better line to take? Your presence could be a benediction to these poor distracted people.'
'Don't you think the position you've got to would be a precedent to place before them?'
'Certainly, if you don't call us British or say we owe allegiance to the King, and if you give us as an example curse and havoc of partition'.
Mr. Kearney came back to the question of our sending a representative to India. I said that I would put it to you from him.
'And about diplomatic representation in Commonwealth countries are you holding out for "Ambassador"?' he asked.
I said that Dr. Kiernan's title was 'Minister Plenipotentiary, Representative of Ireland' but that the proposal we made here in Mr. Turgeon's case was that he go to Ireland as an Ambassador.
'Mustn't there be something to show the Commonwealth connection' he persisted.
I said that I had never heard until recently of the necessity or desirability of emphasising the fact of association by a form of diplomatic representation. It struck at the basis of our association with Commonwealth countries to seek to make it less important than our relations with, say, the United States.
'That's just your way of putting it. I know that is your line' Mr. Kearney countered. 'Look at what you did on the nationality question. You threw your offer of reciprocity wide open'.
'Have you noticed the words "where the Government are satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances and in particular the laws" (of certain countries) in section 10 of the Aliens Act, 1935?'
Mr. Kearney hadn't noticed that.
'Why, we put India into our Aliens Exemption Order'.
'Yes, by Jove, you did' he said. 'Suppose she goes out, would you change your Order?'
'That's policy. I don't know what we'd do. But the point is we could keep them in. Ours is the practical way of substituting friendship for subordination, actual co-operation for formal unity, the practical way of keeping a liaison that is not an allegiance. If you want to keep India associated in some way you must not weary of seeking ways and means but if you try to impose the colonial system on them, or any part of it they don't want, you will fail before you begin, i.e. assuming that what you heard in your talks in London is true'.
'But would you have no general position for the King, a position the same for everyone, I mean, for all Commonwealth countries?'
'For such Commonwealth countries as so desire, yes. You say India wants no connection at all of a constitutional kind. That's apparently where you have to begin with them.'
'And your own position (in Ireland) is that you take your stand on the Constitution?'
'Yes and the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936.'
'Is that Act likely to be amended or repealed?'
'It is the policy of the present Government to retain it. So far as I know no party in the Dáil has proposed its repeal. We are thinking of other things especially national unity and close co-operation with our friends.'
