One of the many lasting consequences of the British colonial rule in the Indian subcontinent was the emergence of a large Indian diaspora across the British Empire. From the South Pacific to the North Atlantic, Indians spread everywhere. To countries such as Fiji, Mauritius and Trinidad, they went mostly as indentured labour. And to countries such as Canada and Australia, they went mainly in search of better opportunities.
A large number of these Indians did not come back, choosing instead to become citizens of their adopted homes. In some countries, they were treated with a degree of fairness, while in others, they faced openly discriminatory policies.
Just two months after India attained independence, Bishwanath Das, a member of the Constituent Assembly representing Orissa, prepared a series of questions about Indians’ citizenship rights in Commonwealth countries. In particular, he wanted Jawaharlal Nehru to answer the following in a meeting of the Constituent Assembly on November 21:
“Will the Honourable Prime Minister be pleased to state:
the number of Indians living in other States and Colonies, including the British Commonwealth of Nations (number in such cases to be given separately);
the States that have conferred Citizenship Rights on Indians;
the disabilities that are still attached to Indians in each of the States constituting the British Commonwealth of Nations as also the British colonies; and
the action taken, in each case, by the Government of India with the concerned States and Colonies to confer Citizenship rights on Indians since September 1946?”
The Constituent Assembly was given all this information by Nehru with the help of the Ministry of External Affairs and Commonwealth Relations. Revisited today, it makes for interesting reading, showing the spread of the Indian diaspora.
‘Few disabilities’
Australia, New Zealand and Canada may be sought-after destinations for Indians in the 21st century, but back in 1947, a time when these countries enjoyed Dominion status, they only had a small number of Indians.
In Australia, the Indian diaspora consisted of just 4,544 people, all of whom had citizenship and voting rights, although that did not protect them from official discrimination.
“There are a few disabilities in some of the States,” Nehru’s statement to the Constituent Assembly said. “E.g.. Certain sections of Widow’s Pension Acts, Family Endowment Act and Rural Workers’ Accommodation Act of New South Wales discriminate against British Indians as such. In Western Australia there are legal discriminations against British Indians along with other Asiatics and Africans with respect to Crown land, mining, certain occupations and employment.”
The statement added that the Indian High Commissioner had been instructed to challenge these injustices and that Western Australia had given a favourable response.
A similar situation to Australia prevailed in Canada. It had an Indian-origin population of 1,500 and every one of them had citizenship rights. But at the provincial level, discrimination was not rare. In British Columbia, for instance, the diaspora had to fight for its right to municipal franchise.
A lot better than Canada and Australia was New Zealand. As the government statement in the Constituent Assembly pointed out, India’s 1,200-strong diaspora in New Zealand enjoyed “complete equality” of citizenship along with other subjects of the Crown.
Another country where Indians did not face discrimination from the government was the United Kingdom. But there was a question mark over their citizenship after India obtained independence. It was not clear at the time how many Indians living in the UK wanted Indian citizenship and how many wanted British citizenship. Complicating the matter further was the choice of Pakistani citizenship.
“Figures of the total Indian population are not available; but the total number of Indians who fall under well defined categories, like students, pedlars, seamen, professional and businessmen, retired persons, persons on the High Commissioner’s staff, persons in domestic, catering and industrial services, is estimated to be between 5,000 and 6,000,” the government statement read.
Exploitative system
Unlike in the UK or Canada, most Indians in the Caribbean were descendants of indentured labourers. A grossly exploitative system that replaced slavery, indentured servitude was abolished by the British government in 1917. But while it lasted, it was seen by the colonisers as a source of model immigrants.
In 1903, The Times of London published an article headlined “The Triumph of Trinidad”, praising Indian workers while criticising workers of African origin. “The coolies come here under indenture to serve at a fair wage for five years,” a correspondent wrote in the newspaper. “At the end of ten years they may, if they please, demand a free return passage home. I am told there is not more than one in five who avails himself of this privilege... Unlike the negro, who careless of mankind, eats and drinks as long as he has cash and when it is expended turns to for a brief spell of work, the coolie is of a frugal mind.”
In 1947, three countries in the Caribbean had sizeable Indian diasporas. Of these, Trinidad (1,70,396 members) and British Guiana (1,68,921) offered full citizenship rights and had no discriminatory laws against Indians. But Jamaica (26,507) granted citizenship only to Indians who were born there or had lived there for more than 10 years.
Across the Caribbean, Hindus were not allowed to cremate their dead. Nehru’s statement in the Constituent Assembly pointed out that literacy levels were low among the Indian community in the Caribbean and that few members of the diaspora held public posts.
Dishonourable mentions
The government statement also spoke of British colonies in Africa and Asia-Oceania, of which South Africa stood out in particular for its discriminatory policies against its 1,82,500-strong Indian diaspora.
“Indians are subject to various disabilities in the matter of franchise, immigration and inter-provincial migration, acquisition and occupation of land, facilities for trade, education, marriage, travel, industries and professions, employment in public services, pensions, local Government, arms and ammunition, and various other matters,” the statement said. “The Government of India have referred to the treatment of Indians in South Africa to the United Nations General Assembly.”
There were other dishonourable mentions too in the government statement. Ceylon, it said, had discriminatory policies against Tamil estate workers. Kenya granted Indians full citizenship but did not let them buy or lease land in the highlands for agriculture, nor did it let them live in many residential areas of Nairobi and Mombasa.
Fiji, which was home to 1,30,000 Indians, gave them citizenship but did not let them buy land from native Fijians and made them pay a so-called residential tax. “Indian children lack adequate educational facilities compared to European and Fijian children,” the government statement said. Indians also faced prejudice at the hands of Europeans in Fiji: “it is understood that Indian residents are not allowed admission in European-managed hotels and clubs or public playgrounds.” The government said it had flagged the grievances of Indian sugarcane farmers, who were tenants of the Sugar Refining Company.
In Africa, at least three countries did not officially discriminate against Indians: Tanganyika (38,500-member diaspora), Uganda (25,972), and Zanzibar (16,000). These colonies did not have a system of elections, so Indians were nominated to their legislative councils.
Nehru’s statement in the Constituent Assembly listed 11 territories where the government had no information about the diaspora’s citizenship status, including Hong Kong (1,900 Indians), St. Lucia (2,189), Grenada (5,000), British Honduras (8,000), British Somaliland (520) and Aden (9,456).
Just three months into independence, there was not much more India could do besides using its high commissions to engage with the local authorities. Over the last seven decades, though, it has built a strategy that sees the diaspora as an asset and a bridge to the rest of the world.
Ajay Kamalakaran is a writer, primarily based in Mumbai. His Twitter handle is @ajaykamalakaran.
