Politics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
53 countries, all of them former British colonies except for two, are in the Commonwealth.
Why are countries such as India, which had a major protest movement to gain independence from Imperialist Britain, still in the Commonwealth? What is the benefit of staying in this organization?
This is much broader than the question it was flagged as a duplicate of.
One of the perks of membership in the Commonwealth is that new heads of government get to meet the monarch of the United Kingdom (Queen Elizabeth II, as of 2019).
Membership in the Commonwealth provides a very weak guarantee against coups d'etat. If your military unlawfully forces your government out of power, you can appeal to the last remnants of British overlordship. If your appeal is successful, the new government will be forced to either resign or have its membership in the Commonwealth suspended.
Membership in the Commonwealth advertises to potential investors that:
Short version: because countries, like people, see value in belonging to clubs whose members share similar values and goals.
Long version:
The Commonwealth of Nations is a club of countries which are:
united by English language, history, culture and their shared values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
Also:
No one government in the Commonwealth exercises power over the others, as is the case in a political union. Rather, the Commonwealth is an international organisation in which countries with diverse social, political, and economic backgrounds are regarded as equal in status, and cooperate within a framework of common values and goals
As membership is purely voluntary, member governments can choose at any time to leave the Commonwealth.
In other words, it is a club where countries which have certain things in common can get together and discuss matters of concern.
When a country breaches the principles of the club, it is free to leave or face suspension. Though this can result in political pressure for change, the Commonwealth has no direct means of enforcing its rules.
To address points raised in the question:
53 countries, all [of which are] former British colonies except for two, are in the Commonwealth.
(Rwanda and Mozambique are the only ones which were never British colonies or similar.)
Why are countries such as India, which had a major protest movement to gain independence from Imperialist Britain, still in the Commonwealth?
India has been an independent republic since 1950. As for why India in particular is still a member of the Commonwealth, I was unable to find a definitive answer. Most articles or discussions simply cover the advantages for any member; for example, this Slate article goes over the purpose of the Commonwealth, but sums it up with, "It’s got great perks". See also this Quora question.
The closest to an answer that I was able to find was this question from elsewhere on this site.
In addition to those mentioned above, the aforementioned perks include:
Simple answer..
Co-operation and communication between countries is always the better alternative.
Alternative to what? To anything else!
If you haven't got a shared table over which to discuss, whether it's the Commonwealth, EU, NATO, UN, WTO or even smaller organisations (e.g. CTBTO, FIFA, etc..), then you can't benefit from tangibles – from trade deals and shared resources to common rules of conduct and all the way to student exchange programmes or sports meetings – or even intangibles – promotion of co-operation, value sharing, etc.. – with that particular country...unless you resort to divisive, potentially non-peaceful methods (such as occupation or embargo).
And, naturally, it follows that the more tables you share with a country, the more options you have for benefiting from that partnership peacefully through multilateral deals.
