No truly independent nation would be part of the 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
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.
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?
> Member states have no legal obligations to one another
I would say that being a member of the UN is more problematic to sovereignty.