Naming Charlie Revised July 3
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Naming Charlie: Inscribing British Indian Identities in White Australia, 1901-1940 Kama Maclean, UNSW1 This is a pre-publication version. If citing, please consult the printed version in: Sekhar Bandyopadhyay and Jane Buckingham (eds), Indians and the Antipodes: Networks, Boundaries and Circulation, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2018, pp. 94- 128. The various forms of nomenclature applied to South Asian residents of the newly federated Commonwealth in the early decades of the twentieth century provide a useful lens for examining their place in White Australia. These reveal a predictable process of distancing Indians from the process of nation formation, but also a politics of naming which sought to disable Indian and British claims to membership of a shared imperium. Each of the collective names used, especially those in government and newspaper debates, carried a range of largely negative connotations and functioned to position those described firmly outside the nascent white nation. Such naming practices created barriers for individual Indians resident in the Commonwealth after 1901, as they struggled to transcend stereotypes and gain acceptance in their communities.2 Imperial Identities: Colour and the Question of Subjects and Citizens 1 This was first presented at the workshop, ‘Indian migration to the Pacific and Indian Ocean States’, organised by the New Zealand Research Institute and the New Zealand South Asia Center, held at the University of Canterbury, April 15, 2015. Thanks are due to Sekhar Bandyopadhyay and Jane Buckingham, and to colleagues at the workshop who commented on the presentation, as well as Zora Simic, who provided valuable comments on an early draft. I am grateful to Joanne Daniels, John Solomon and Lisa Plotkin for research conducted in the National Archives of Australia (henceforth NAA), National Archives of India (NAI), and the UK National Archives, respectively. This project was funded by an Australian Research Council Discovery Project, Imagining India in White Australia: Intercolonial Relations and the Empire, DP 120102053. 2 For the purposes of this paper, ‘Indian’ is intended to be read as shorthand for ‘British Indian’, in keeping with the usage of the sources and the period under consideration, and not to differentiate Indian from other postcolonial identities, such as Pakistani or Bangladeshi. Unassisted migrants from India began to arrive in the colonies in substantial numbers from the 1880s (Allen 2005). According to figures compiled by the India Office in London, by 1891, there were 5237 Indians resident in the Australian colonies (Table 1), mostly working as cameleers, hawkers, farmers and labourers. Strident attempts to create a politics to arrest Indian arrivals began in the 1890s, as anti-Chinese immigration restriction began to be implemented across the colonies. In 1890 the Premier of Victoria wrote directly to the Government of India, requesting it to arrest the further migration of Indians, after the arrival of 500 men seeking work as hawkers, who invariably ‘spread over the country, visit lonely dwellings in the absence of men, annoy women and children by their pertinacity in pressing their wares, or frighten them by their vehemence’.3 This accusation, highly loaded with gendered inferences, would become a refrain in the agitation to extend attempts to prevent Chinese immigration to all ‘Asiatics’. By 1897, such legislation was being advanced in most colonies (Lake and Reynolds 2010, 125). Table 1: Numbers of British Indians in Australia, 1891-1921 Year 1891 1901 1911 1921 New South Wales 1881 1592 1183 700 Victoria 1720 780 729 400 Queensland 425 939 373 300 South Australia 539* 439* 439 200 Western Australia 301 748 555 300 Tasmania 371 361 15 100 NT/ACT No data No data 4/2 No data Total 5237 4859 3300 2000 * Figures for South Australia include ‘Singhalese’. Data for ‘British Indians’ in 1891 and 1901 from the India Office. British Library (henceforth BL), India Office Records (IOR), L/PJ/5/462, p. 15. The 1911 figures were extracted from the Australian Census, which counted ‘Hindus’, and made a distinction between ‘full’ and ‘half blood’ Hindus.4 Census of the Commonwealth of Australia, Part VIII, Non-European Races, Commonwealth Statistician, 1912, pp. 904-5. Data 1921 is taken from India Office statistics, BL, IOR, L/E/7/1220, pp. 212-3. The figures have clearly been rounded off, and so are indicative. Figures held in the National Archives of India indicate that the population in 1921 was 2881, suggesting that the India Office 3 ‘Status of British Indians in Colonies and Dominions’, British Library (henceforth BL), IOR: L/PJ/5/462, p. 5. 4 To keep the 1921 figures comparable, I have not included the category ‘Half Caste Hindus’ here, as they do not seem to have been included in the 1891 and 1901 counts. rounded down, rather than up, perhaps in an attempt to downplay the problem of discrimination against British Indians in Australia. 5 As a result of pressure from Britain, Indians already domiciled in Australia at the time of federation were conceded some rights of residency, although these were quite limited (Allen 2008). Following the passing of the Immigration Restriction Act, Indians were defined as ‘prohibited migrants’. After several Indians landed at Australian ports, failed the Dictation Test and were promptly turned around and put back on the ship, the British Government of India was reluctantly forced to warn its subjects not to make an expensive, arduous and fruitless ocean voyage south.6 ‘Disabilities’ against Indians in the Commonwealth were regularly detailed in the Indian press, although these were often subsumed by greater injustices exerted on a larger diaspora in South Africa and Canada. In India, over the twentieth century ‘White Australia’ came to denote a racially-constituted geographical territory, rather than an immigration policy (Jeffrey 2010). The Indian population in Australia at federation was overwhelmingly male; the 1911 Census counted 98 ‘full blood’ ‘Hindu’ women, against 3201 ‘full blood’ Hindu men.7 The administration of the Immigration Restriction Act enabled Indian residents to visit India and re-enter Australia within a three-year period, if they fulfilled the stringent requirements of the Department. Bringing family members was well-nigh impossible until 1919, and even then, extremely difficult (Allen 2008, 49). In addition to the strictures of the Immigration Restriction Act, other legislation passed in the new parliament impacted substantially on Indian lives.8 The labour movement lobbied for and achieved legislation restricting ‘Asiatics’ from working across a range of industries, including furniture manufacturing, sugar, hospitality and mining in most states, with Western Australia and Queensland implementing the most restrictive Acts.9 Such harsh measures and the hostility that shaped them led to a substantial 5 Indians Overseas: Disabilities within the British Empire: Statement showing the action taken by the Government. NAI Education, Health and Lands, Overseas, F. 15-47/36-L and O, 1937, p. 11. 6 Memo, Government of India, September 25, 1905. NAI, Commerce and Industry, Emigration, File 72 of 1905. 7 Census of the Commonwealth of Australia, Part VIII, Non-European Races, Commonwealth Statistician, 1912, pp. 904-5. 8 For a list, see ‘Disabilities and Restrictions on Asiatic Aliens in Australia’, NAA: A1, 1915/9330, 32908. 9 Disqualifications placed on natives of India and Afghanistan in Western Australia, BL, IOR, L/PJ/6/637, 1903. depletion of the Indian community in Australia, with many permanently returning to the subcontinent within the first two decades of federation. In the debates around such legislation, Indians were frequently subsumed under the generic category of ‘Asiatic’, which by the closing decades of the nineteenth century had been rendered a disqualifying moniker – an obviously racial term, synonymous with a willingness to work for low rates of pay, thus undermining one of the pillars of White Australia as a protected worker’s environment. Other forms of nomenclature applied to Indians in the collective sense in the press and parliamentary debates – in no particular order, such names included Aliens (sometimes ‘coloured Aliens’, or ‘Asiatic Aliens’), Afghans, Hindoos, East Indians, Coolies, or Natives of India – demonstrated a very deliberate politics of naming. Indians and those who sought to champion their rights to residency (including the India Office) frequently emphasised their status as British Indians, who shared an imperial identity, and with it a legitimate claim to residence. This claim was based around a particular interpretation of Queen Victoria’s 1858 Proclamation in India following the rebellion, which pledged (among other things) that Indians would be treated equally in the empire (Maclean 2015, 117- 8). This interpretation been hinted at by Joseph Chamberlain, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in a speech made at a conference of Australian Premiers of the Colonies in London in 1897. Chamberlain began by expressions of sympathy for the colonies’ fears of ‘an influx of people alien in civilization, alien in religion, alien in customs’. But how was this to be reconciled this with ‘the traditions of the Empire, which makes no distinction in favour of, or against, race and colour’? This appeared to be irreconcilable with the sentiments of that enormous Empire of India, with 300,000,000 of subjects, who are as loyal to the Crown as you are yourselves, and among them there are hundreds and thousands of men every whit as civilized as we are ourselves, who are, if that is anything, better born in the same sense that they have cultivation, men of distinguished valour, men who have brought whole armies and placed them before the service of the Queen, and have in times of great difficulty and trouble, such as for instance on the occasion of the Indian Mutiny, saved the Empire by their loyalty.10 The pressure from the Colonial Office in London in shaping the framing, and especially the wording, of the Immigration Restriction Act in 1901 was substantial.