Nomination of High Commissioner Designate to U. K.

Summary

This parliamentary record from 27 November 1967 concerns the nomination of Justice S. S. Dhawan as India’s High Commissioner-designate to the United Kingdom. M. R. Masani and N. Dandekar challenge the appointment by citing Dhawan’s reported criticism of British policy, including the claim that Britain had committed treachery against India and that there was no future for Indo-British friendship. The Minister of State for External Affairs, B. R. Bhagat, replies that the quotations were taken from different parts of an article and were tied to the Indo-Pakistani conflict and the contemporary dispute over Kashmir policy. The government therefore sees no reason to reconsider an appointment made with British agreement.

The ensuing debate broadens into questions about the standards for diplomatic appointments. Indira Gandhi argues that Dhawan’s statements must be understood in context and that his knowledge of Britain, Indian foreign policy, and the concerns of Indian students and emigrants make him suitable for the post. Members question whether ambassadors should be politically acceptable to Parliament, whether appointments reward defeated politicians or retired judges, and whether Parliament should be consulted before ambassadors are appointed. The government defends executive responsibility under the parliamentary system, while critics call for greater scrutiny and more transparent criteria. The final pages also record Hindi interventions in rough English translation; the document ends with questions about the prolonged vacancy of the post and the appointment of High Court judges as envoys.

Key points

• The motion questions Justice S. S. Dhawan’s nomination as High Commissioner-designate to the United Kingdom.
• M. R. Masani and N. Dandekar cite Dhawan’s reported criticism of Britain and Indo-British relations.
• The government distinguishes quotations taken from separate parts of Dhawan’s article and emphasizes their wartime context.
• Indira Gandhi says an isolated statement should not determine the judgment of Dhawan’s suitability for diplomatic service.
• Supporters stress the High Commissioner’s role in improving relations with Britain and assisting Indian students and emigrants.
• Opponents question whether ambassadors should be appointed for partisan, patronage, or merely personal reasons.
• The debate raises a constitutional question about parliamentary or committee scrutiny of ambassadorial appointments.
• The record closes with questions about the vacancy of the post and the appointment of judges as High Commissioners.